7/26/2019 15. ANDO

1/2

G.R. No. 195432 August 27, 2014

EDELINA T. ANDO,Petitioner,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,Respondent.

FACTS:

On 2001, petitioner married Yuichiro o!a"ashi, a #apanese $ationa% at Pampan&a. On

200', o!a"ashi sou&ht in #apan, and (as va%id%" &ranted under #apanese %a(s, a

divorce in respect o) his marria&e (ith petitioner. *e%ievin& in &ood )aith that said

divorce capacitated her to remarr", petitioner married +asatomi Y. Ando on 200

Pampan&a.

Recent%", petitioner app%ied )or the rene(a% o) her Phi%ippine passport to indicate her

surname (ith her hus!and Ando !ut she (as to%d at the -FA that the same cannot !e

issued to her unti% she can prove !" competent court decision that her marria&e (ith

Ando is va%id unti% other(ise dec%ared.

On 2010, petitioner )i%ed (ith the RTC a Petition )or -ec%arator" Re%ie) a&ainst t and

pra"ed )or the dec%aration o) her marria&e (ith Ando va%id unti% other(ise dec%ared !" a

competent court and )or the entit%ement o) the issuance o) a Phi%ippine Passport under

the name /de%ina Ando " Tun&o%.

RTC dismissed the petition since there is no sho(in& that petitioner comp%ied (ith the

reuirements set )orth in Art. 1 o) the Fami%" Code 3 that is o!tainin& a 4udicia%

reco&nition o) the )orei&n decree o) a!so%ute divorce in our countr". The marria&e she

see5s to !e dec%ared as va%id is a !i&amous marria&e under Artic%e 6'7 o) the Fami%"

Code considerin& that the )irst one, thou&h a%%e&ed%" terminated !" virtue o) the divorce

o!tained !" o!a"ashi, (as never reco&ni8ed !" a Phi%ippine court.

Petitioner a%%e&es that under the %a(, a marria&e 3 even one that is void or voida!%e 3

sha%% !e deemed va%id unti% dec%ared other(ise in a 4udicia% proceedin&.

-FA stated that petitioner )ai%ed to sho( she had )irst e9hausted a%% avai%a!%e

administrative remedies, such as appea%in& to the Secretar" o) the -FA under Repu!%ic

Act $o. 6R.A.7 2;, or the Phi%ippine Passport Act o) 1;;

7/26/2019 15. ANDO

2/2

/B-:

1. $O. ?ith respect to her pra"er to compe% the -FA to issue her passport, petitioner

incorrect%" )i%ed a petition )or dec%arator" re%ie) !e)ore the RTC. She shou%d have )irst

appea%ed !e)ore the Secretar" o) Forei&n A))airs.

>nder Section 2 o) the =RR o) R.A. 2;, it is c%ear that )or petitioner to o!tain a cop" o)

her passport under her married name, a%% she needed to present (ere the ori&ina% or

certi)ied true cop" o) her marria&e contract and a certi)ied true cop" o) the -ivorce

-ecree du%" authenticated !" the Phi%ippine /m!ass" or consu%ar post that has

4urisdiction over the p%ace (here the divorce is o!tained or !" the concerned )orei&n

dip%omatic or consu%ar mission in the Phi%ippines.

Shou%d her app%ication )or a passport !e denied, the remedies avai%a!%e to her are

provided in Section ; o) R.A. 2;, (hich states she sha%% have the ri&ht to appea% to the

Secretar" o) Forei&n A))airs )rom (hose decision 4udicia% revie( ma" !e had to the

Courts in due course. C%ear%", she shou%d have )i%ed an appea% (ith the Secretar" o) the

-FA in the event o) the denia% o) her app%ication )or a passport, a)ter havin& comp%ied

(ith the provisions o) R.A. 2;.

2. Yes. (ith respect to her pra"er )or the reco&nition o) her second marria&e as va%id,

petitioner shou%d have )i%ed, instead, a petition )or the 4udicia% reco&nition o) her )orei&n

divorce )rom her )irst hus!and. A divorce o!tained a!road !" an a%ien ma" !e

reco&ni8ed in our 4urisdiction, provided the decree is va%id accordin& to the nationa% %a(

o) the )orei&ner. *oth the divorce decree and the &overnin& persona% %a( o) the a%ienspouse (ho o!tained the divorce must !e a%%e&ed and proven !ecause our courts do

not ta5e 4udicia% notice o) )orei&n %a(s and 4ud&ment.

ence, an" dec%aration as to the va%idit" o) the divorce can on%" !e made upon her

comp%ete su!mission o) evidence provin& the divorce decree and the nationa% %a( o) her

a%ien spouse, in an action instituted in the proper )orum.

2