Noveras vs. Noveras CASE DIGEST JUDICIAL NOTICE - EVIDENCE G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014

 

Noveras vs. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014

P: Perez

FACTS: David Noveras (David) and Leticia Noveras (Leticia) were married in the Philippines. They resided in the USA where they acquired American citizenship. During the marriage, they acquired properties in the Philippines and US. David returned to the Philippines. Upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce in the USA. The California court granted the divorce as well as all the couple’s properties in the USA.  Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC.

RTC held that the property in the Philippines be awarded to David only, with the US properties to Leticia. That under the doctrine of processual presumption, Philippine law should apply because the court cannot take judicial notice of the US law since the parties did not submit any proof of their national law. CA directed the equal division of the Philippine properties between the spouses.

ISSUE: Whether or not court should take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws

HELD: No. RTC erred in recognizing the divorce decree which severed the bond of marriage between the parties. In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. The foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.  The requirements of presenting the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the foreigner must comply with our Rules of Evidence. For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage, a copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact.

Based on the records, only the divorce decree was presented in evidence. The required certificates to prove its authenticity, as well as the pertinent California law on divorce were not presented. In Bayot, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing said decree is sufficient. In this case however, it appears that there is no seal from the office where the divorce decree was obtained.

The court agreed with the CA that the Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David and Leticia. Thus, liquidation shall only be limited to the Philippine properties. CA is affirmed.