Proper authentication, must in recognition
No matter how meritorious your case may be, you will not attain victory simply because of technical infirmities
As I have always emphasized in my articles, it is of utmost importance to strictly follow our rules of procedure in court. No matter how meritorious your case may be, you will not attain victory simply because of technical infirmities. Or you may achieve victory but once challenged, may lose it. It will be short-lived, which just sorely dampens your elation.
Consider this case I will discuss with you. Petitioner Maricel L. Rivera was the wife of a Korean national, respondent Woo Namsun. The husband obtained a divorce in South Korea. To capacitate her to remarry, the petitioner-wife filed a petition for recognition of a foreign decree — the divorce judgment, with our courts in Quezon City.
Petitioner attached to her petition the required documents for the grant of recognition. After due proceedings, the trial court gave her the nod.
The Office of the Solicitor-General, representing the State, however, did not agree. It asserted that the petitioner did not follow the technical requirements as mandated. Accordingly, the court must reconsider its decision and deny recognition. Over the objection of the OSG, the court stood pat on its decision. It decreed that it would be unfair for the petitioner to stay married simply because of technicalities. Dissatisfied, the OSG posed the question before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the trial court. It opined that if technical rules are not followed, the recognition of the foreign judgment must be denied. It was thus the petitioner-wife’s turn to seek relief from the Highest Court. The Supreme Court, after looking into the issues, had this to say.
“As the foreign divorce decree allegedly issued by the Seoul Family Court, as well as the Civil Act of South Korea, purports to be official acts of sovereign authority, they may be established by complying with the requirements of Section 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Otherwise stated, to prove the foreign judgment and the law on which it was based, the Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications; or (2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. Should the copies of official records be proven to be stored outside of the Philippines, they must be accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept; and (2) authenticated by the seal of his office.
“If copies are offered into evidence, the attestation: (1) must state that is a correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof; and (2) must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, or if he be the clerk of a court, under such seal of said court. In the instant case, petitioner failed to satisfy the foregoing requirements. To prove the fact of divorce, petitioner presented notarized copies of the said judgment with both English and Korean translations. Attached thereto is a letter of confirmation by the Embassy of the Republic of South Korea in the Philippines, which was signed by Chin Hyuun Yong, as counselor and consul, as well as an Authentication Certificate by the DFA. This Court cannot deny the insufficiency of the evidence presented.
“While Chin Hyun Yong may be a counselor or consul of South Korea, his capacity as such cannot be construed by this Court to mean that he is an officer having legal custody of the judgment of divorce. In fact, the Authentication Certificate issued by the DFA only certifies that the latter was, at the time of signing, a counselor and consul of the Embassy of the Republic of South Korea.
By virtue of failure to comply with proper authentication, she lost her victory and had to go through this long process.
“Glaringly, nothing in the submitted documents would even lead this Court to assume that he was indeed the legal custodian of the judgment of divorce as contemplated by the Rules. Woefully, Chin Yun Hong is, therefore, in no position to attest that the judgment of divorce as found in the records is a genuine and correct copy of the original or a specific part thereof. Contrary to petitioner’s insistence that the records are found in the Philippines, it cannot be denied that the judgment of divorce is found abroad, being an official record of the Seoul Family Court. Being stored outside of the Philippines, the said judgment should have been accompanied by a certificate issued by a Philippine diplomatic or consular officer stationed in South Korea, which must be authenticated by his seal — this, petitioner failed to attach.
“On the other hand, to prove the law of South Korea as a fact, petitioner offered in evidence a copy of the Civil Act of South Korea, a letter of confirmation from the Embassy of the Republic of South Korea in the Philippines, and an Authentication Certificate for the DFA. The law suffers the same fate as the judgment. Aside from being authenticated by Chin Hyun Yong, who to reiterate, is in no position to ensure its existence, there is no implication that the signature appearing thereon is genuine.”
As can be gleaned above, petitioner Maricel already had the favorable judgment in her hands. And yet, by virtue of failure to comply with proper authentication, she lost her victory and had to go through this long process. In the end, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals. It, however, gave her a second chance by remanding the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. This time, she is given a chance to do it right. And do it right she must.
The facts and quoted decision are from Maricel Rivera v Woo Namsun (G.R. 248355 promulgated on 23 November 2021).