G.R. No. 195432 - EDELINA T. ANDO, VS. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, petitioner most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that after proper proceedings, judgment be rendered, as follows: (a) declaring as valid and subsisting the marriage between petitioner Edelina T. Ando and her husband Masatomi Y. Ando until otherwise declared by a competent court; (b) declaring petitioner entitled to the issuance of a Philippine Passport under the name Edelina Ando y Tungol; and (c) directing the Department of Foreign Affairs to honor petitioners marriage to her husband Masatomi Y. Ando and to issue a Philippine Passport to petitioner under the name Edelina Ando y Tungol. Petitioner prays for such other just and equitable reliefs. [3] On 15 November 2010, in an Order dismissing the Petition for want of cause and action, as well as jurisdiction, the RTC held thus: Records of the case would reveal that prior to petitioners marriage to Masatomi Y. Ando, herein petitioner was married to Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese National, in Candaba, Pampanga, on September 16, 2001, and that though a divorce was obtained and granted in Japan, with respect to the their (sic) marriage, there is no showing that petitioner herein complied with the requirements set forth in Art. 13 of the Family Code that is obtaining a judicial recognition of the foreign decree of absolute divorce in our country. It is therefore evident, under the foregoing circumstances, that herein petitioner does not have any cause of action and/or is entitled to the reliefs prayed for under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. In the same vein, though there is other adequate remedy available to the petitioner, such remedy is however beyond the authority and jurisdiction of this court to act upon and grant, as it is only the family court which is vested with such authority and jurisdiction. [4] On 3 December 2010, petitioner filed an Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated 15 November 2010. In an Order dated 14 December 2010, the RTC granted the motion in this wise: WHEREFORE, considering that the allegations and reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in her petition and the instant Motion for Reconsideration falls within the jurisdiction of the Special Family Court of this jurisdiction and for the interest of substantial justice, the Order of the Court dated November 15, 2010 is hereby reconsidered. Let the record of this case be therefore referred back to the Office of the Clerk of Court for proper endorsement to the Family Court of this jurisdiction for appropriate action and/or disposition. [5] Thereafter, the case was raffled to Branch 45 of the RTC. On 14 January 2011, the trial court dismissed the Petition anew on the ground that petitioner had no cause of action. The Order reads thus: The petition specifically admits that the marriage she seeks to be declared as valid is already her second marriage, a bigamous marriage under Article 35(4) of the Family Code considering that the first one, though allegedly terminated by virtue of the divor