FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243646. June 22, 2022.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JOCELYN

ASUSANO KIKUCHI, as represented by her Attorney-In-Fact,
Edwin E. Asusano, respondent.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J : p

This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assails the November 15, 2018
Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 110750, which
affirmed the June 17, 2016 Order 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San
Pedro City, Laguna, Branch 93, in Sp. Proc. Case No. SPL-0990-15 judicially
recognizing the divorce between respondent Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi
(Jocelyn), Filipino, and Fumio U. Kikuchi (Fumio), Japanese. 4 HTcADC

Antecedents
In 2015, Jocelyn, through her attorney-in-fact, Edwin Asusano (Edwin),
filed before the trial court a Petition 5 for judicial recognition of foreign
divorce. 6 She alleged that she was married to Fumio in 1993, and in 2007,
they jointly filed for divorce before the City Hall of Sakado City, Saitama
Prefecture. 7 As the divorce was accepted, Jocelyn sought the recognition
thereof here in the Philippines. 8
Finding Jocelyn's petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the
RTC set the case for hearing. 9 The Republic, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), entered its appearance and authorized the Office of
the City Prosecutor (OCP) of San Pedro City, Laguna, to appear on its behalf.
10 The Notice of Appearance 11 contained a reservation that "only notices or

orders, resolutions and decisions served on it will bind the party

represented." 12
During the presentation of evidence, the following documents, among
others, were presented: (1) the Acceptance Certificate 13 issued by the
Mayor of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan; (2) an Authentication 14
from the Vice Consul of Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan; and (3) a
photocopy 15 of the Civil Code of Japan in English text.16 The Republic,
through the OCP, did not object to the presentation and offer of such
evidence and manifested that it will not be adducing controverting evidence.
17

Thereafter, the Commissioner rendered a Report 18 recommending that

the petition be granted considering that Jocelyn was able to successfully
establish the fact of divorce and the law of Japan. 19
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Adopting the Commissioner's recommendation, the trial court granted
the petition, viz.:
Consequently, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the
divorce between petitioner and respondent as per the Divorce
Certificate is judicially recognized. Petitioner is now capacitated to
remarry pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code.
The Philippine Statistics Authority, the Local Civil Registrar of
San Pedro, Laguna and the Department of Foreign Affairs are hereby
directed to annotate the said Divorce Certificate in the Report of
Marriage of petitioner and respondent on file in their respective
offices.
SO ORDERED. 20

The trial court held that Jocelyn indeed was able to establish the fact of
divorce and the national law of Japan. 21
Aggrieved, the Republic, through the OSG, moved for reconsideration,
22 but this was denied by the trial court. 23 Hence, its appeal before the CA.
24

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court denied the appeal, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Order dated June 17,
2016 of the RTC, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna, in Sp. Proc. Case No.
SPL-0990-15, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25

The CA held that Jocelyn was able to present documents proving the
fact of divorce and the law of Japan. 26 It also noted that the Republic did not
deny the existence of the divorce decree nor challenged the jurisdiction of
the divorce court. 27
Undeterred, the Republic, still through the OSG, filed the instant
Petition, 28 arguing that Jocelyn failed to comply with the requirements of
authentication and proof of documents concerning the Acceptance
Certificate, and the Authentication by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo,
Japan; that Edwin's testimony as to the fact of divorce should have been
excluded for being hearsay; and that the foreign law had not been proven. 29
Issue
Did the appellate court err in affirming the trial court?
Our Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
Preliminarily, the Court notes that the questions raised by the Republic
are factual in nature. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, such questions are
generally barred as the Court is not a trier of facts. 30 However, the rule
admits of exceptions, viz.:
(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the
factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts
are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8)
the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the
CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed
facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the
case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both
parties. 31 (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the Republic posits that the CA manifestly overlooked certain
facts which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion, and that the
factual findings are contradicted by the evidence on record. 32 As these are
both recognized exceptions to the rule, the Court will proceed to review the
factual findings of the lower courts.
For a petition for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce to
prosper, the party pleading it must
prove the fact of divorce and the
national law of the foreign spouse
Under Article 26 of Executive Order No. 209, series of 1987, 33 as
amended, 34 or The Family Code of the Philippines, a divorce between a
foreigner and a Filipino may be recognized in the Philippines as long as it
was validly obtained according to the foreign spouse's national law, viz.:
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this
country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and
(6), 36, 37 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied)
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by the court, the
party pleading it must first prove the fact of divorce and its conformity to
the foreign law allowing it. 35 As both of these purport to be official acts of
a sovereign authority, the required proof are their official publications or
copies attested by the officers having legal custody thereof, pursuant to
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. 36
Jocelyn was able to establish the
fact of divorce
To prove the fact of divorce, Jocelyn submitted the Acceptance
Certificate stating that her and Fumio's written notification of divorce had
been accepted, as certified by Kiyoshi Ishikawa, Mayor of Sakado City,
Saitama Prefecture. The Acceptance Certificate was accompanied by an
Authentication from the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 The Republic assails the Acceptance Certificate for being insufficient to
establish the fact of divorce, arguing that the foreign judgment itself should
have been presented. 37
Moraña v. Republic 38 is instructive.
In that case, the petitioner submitted a Divorce Report (not a judgment
of divorce) to prove the fact of divorce. While both the trial and appellate
courts rejected the document for not being a "divorce judgment," the Court
accepted it considering that the divorce was coursed not through Japanese
courts, but through the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City which issues
such document with respect to divorce filings, viz.:
The Court is not persuaded. Records show that the Divorce
Report is what the Government of Japan issued to petitioner
and her husband when they applied for divorce. There was no
"divorce judgment" to speak of because the divorce
proceeding was not coursed through Japanese courts but
through the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City in
Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan. In any event, since the Divorce
Report was issued by the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City, the
same is deemed an act of an official body in Japan. By whatever
name it is called, the Divorce Report is clearly the equivalent
of the "Divorce Decree" in Japan, hence, the best evidence of
the fact of divorce obtained by petitioner and her former
husband. 39 (Emphasis supplied)
Similarly here, the divorce was coursed not through Japanese courts
but through the Mayor of Sakado City, Saitama Prefecture. The Acceptance
Certificate was what was issued to Jocelyn and Fumio when they filed their
divorce before the mayor. Hence, it already suffices as proof of the fact of
divorce.
The Republic nevertheless argues that the Acceptance Certificate is
insufficient because the accompanying Authentication issued by the
Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan does not comply with the rules on
authentication. 40
We disagree.
I n Racho v. Seiichi Tanaka , 41 which involves a similarly-worded
Authentication from the Embassy of the Philippines in Japan, the Court held
that the document was sufficient, viz.:
The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was
accompanied by an Authentication issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B.
Lao of the Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, certifying that
Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Japan was an official in and for Japan. The Authentication further
certified that he was authorized to sign the Certificate of Acceptance
of the Report of Divorce and that his signature in it was genuine.
Applying Rule 132, Section 24, the Certificate of Acceptance
of the Report of Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact
of divorce between petitioner and respondent. 42 (Citation
omitted, emphasis supplied)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 As in Racho, We rule that the Authentication submitted by Jocelyn is
also sufficient.
As to the issue on the admission of Edwin's testimony (which the
Republic assails for being hearsay), 43 jurisprudence teaches that evidence
not objected to is deemed admitted. 44 Since the Republic failed to object to
the offer of evidence and even manifested that the State will not submit
controverting evidence, Edwin's testimony was properly admitted.
Further, while the Republic insists that it could not have objected to the
offer because it was not served a copy of Jocelyn's formal offer of evidence
— implying that the OCP's failure to object did not bind the Republic because
the authority conferred to it by the OSG is subject to the reservation that the
latter be furnished with notices of "hearings, orders and other court
processes" 45 — We still uphold the admission of evidence because the
reservation does not cover pleadings of the parties. It is limited only to
issuances of the trial court.
Besides, the records show that the offer was done orally. 46 Since
objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the
offer, 47 the OSG, even if served a copy of all court processes and pleadings
of the parties, still could not have personally made the objection because it
was not present during the hearing and was instead duly represented by the
OCP.
Nevertheless, Jocelyn was unable
to establish the law of Japan on
divorce
To prove that the divorce was valid under Japanese laws, Jocelyn
submitted a photocopy of the English translation of the Civil Code of Japan,
published by Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc. and stamped with "LIBRARY, Japan
Information and Culture Center, Embassy of Japan, 2627 Roxas Boulevard,
Pasay City." 48 The Republic assails the document for being insufficient to
prove the law of Japan on divorce. 49
We agree with the Republic. Following jurisprudence, the document is
devoid of any probative value. 50 CAIHTE

I n Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila, 51 the Court held that the

submission of the same document does not constitute sufficient compliance
with the rules on proof of Japan's law on divorce, viz.:
Marlyn failed to satisfy the foregoing requirements. The
records only include a photocopy of excerpts of The Civil
Code of Japan, merely stamped LIBRARY, Japan Information
and Culture Center, Embassy of Japan, 2627 Roxas Boulevard,
Pasay City 1300. This clearly does not constitute sufficient
compliance with the rules on proof of Japan's law on divorce.
In any case, similar to the remedy that was allowed by the Court in
Manalo to resolve such failure, a remand of the case to the RTC for
further proceedings and reception of evidence on the laws of Japan on
divorce is allowed, as it is hereby ordered by the Court. (Citation
omitted, emphasis supplied)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Further, in Arreza v. Toyo , 52 the Court noted that the translations by
Eibun-Horei-Sha, Inc. (the publisher of the document submitted by Jocelyn)
are not advertised as a source of official translations of Japanese laws. 53
Not being an official translation, the document submitted by Jocelyn
does not prove the existing law on divorce in Japan. Unfortunately, without
such evidence, there is nothing on record to establish that the divorce
between Jocelyn and Fumio was validly obtained and is consistent with the
Japanese law on divorce.
Given that Jocelyn was able to prove the fact of divorce but not the
Japanese law on divorce, a remand of the case rather than its outright
dismissal is proper. This is consistent with the policy of liberality that the
Court has adopted in cases involving the recognition of foreign decrees to
Filipinos in mixed marriages. 54
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The November 15, 2018
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 110750 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further
proceedings and reception of evidence on the Japanese law on divorce.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Zalameda, Rosario and Marquez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 11-36.
2. Id. at 38-46. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and
concurred in by Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Franchito N.
Diamante.
3. CA rollo, pp. 58-60. Penned by Judge Francisco Dizon Paño.
4. Id. at 59.
5. Records, pp. 1-2.

6. Rollo , p. 39.
7. Id. at 53.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 39.
10. Id.

11. Records, p. 16.

12. Id.
13. Id. at 63-64.
14. Id. at 65-68.
15. Id. at 69-76.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 16. Rollo , p. 39.

17. Id. at 39-40.

18. Id. at 87-89. Penned by Commissioner Atty. Catherin B. Beran-Baraoidan.
19. Id. at 89.
20. CA rollo, pp. 59-60.
21. Id. at 59.

22. Rollo , p. 40.

23. Id.
24. Id. at 104-105.
25. Id. at 45.

26. Id. at 44-45.

27. Id. at 45.
28. Id. at 11-36.
29. Id. at 16-31.
30. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 1.

31. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Comendador, G.R. No. 236804,
February 1, 2021, citing Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 537
(2015).
32. Rollo , p. 13.
33. Entitled "THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES." Approved: July 6, 1987.

34. Executive Order No. 227, entitled "AMENDING E.O. NO. 209 (FAMILY CODE) RE:
SOLEMNIZATION OF MARRIAGE." Approved: July 17, 1987.

35. Republic v. Manalo , 831 Phil. 33, 75 (2018), citing Garcia v. Recio , 418 Phil.
723, 731 (2001).

36. Juego-Sakai v. Republic, 836 Phil. 810, 817-818 (2018), citing RULES OF
COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 24. See also the 2019 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 132, Sec. 24.
37. Rollo , pp. 21-23.
38. G.R. No. 227605, December 5, 2019.

39. Id.
40. Rollo , pp. 23-27.
41. 834 Phil. 21 (2018).
42. Id. at 34-35.
43. Rollo , pp. 28-29.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 44. Spouses Enriquez v. Isarog Line Transport, Inc., 800 Phil. 145, 149 (2016),
citing People v. Lopez , 658 Phil. 647, 651 (2011).
45. Rollo , pp. 20-21.
46. TSN, December 15, 2015, pp. 5-6.

47. RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 36. See also the 2019 PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED RULES ON EVIDENCE, Rule 132, Sec. 36.
48. Records, pp. 69-76.

49. Id. at 30-31.

50. Rivera v. Republic, G.R. No. 238259, February 17, 2021; Arreza v. Toyo, G.R.
No. 213198, July 1, 2019; and Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila, G.R. No.
224548, January 23, 2019.

51. Supra.
52. Supra.
53. Id.
54. Kondo v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 223628, March 4, 2020.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com