NOVERAS VS.

NOVERAS

FACTS: David Noveras and Leticia Noveras were married on December 3, 1988 in Quezon
City. They resided in California, U.S.A. where they eventually acquired American citizenship.
The marriage between them bore two children, Jerome and Jena Noveras. They acquired
properties both in the U.S. and the Philippines. David eventually returned to the Philippines to
settle some business regarding their properties situated therein. He had an affair while in the
Philippines.

Upon the discovery of David’s extra-marital affair, Leticia filed with the Superior Court of
California a petition for divorce. The petition was later granted by said court. It awarded to
Leticia all the properties they acquired in the U.S. In 2005, Leticia filed a petition for judicial
separation of conjugal property with the RTC of Baler, Aurora. In his answer, David demanded
that all the properties, including those situated in the U.S., be liquidated. The RTC awarded the
properties situated in the Philippines to David, while awarding the properties situated in the U.S.
to Leticia. On appeal, the CA modified the decision of the RTC. It ordered that only the
properties situated in the Philippines be equally divided between the parties. David argued that
the court failed to recognize the decision of the California court awarding him all their properties
situated in the Philippines.

ISSUE: WON the court erred in equally dividing the properties situated in the Philippines?

RULING: NO. First, the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the fact of the parties’
divorce. The requirements of presenting the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the
foreigner must comply with our Rules on 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 under the Rules of Court. The record of public documents of a
sovereign authority may be proven by: (a) an official publication thereof; or (b) a copy attested to

 by the officer having legal cutody thereof. Such official publication or copy must be
accompanied by a certificate that the attesting officer has custody thereof. Said certificate may be
issued by any of the authorized Philippine Embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign
country.

Based on the records of the case, only the divorce decree was offered in evidence. There was no
presentation of the required certificate to prove its authenticity, as well as the pertinent California
law on divorce. Even the doctrine of processual presumption does not apply since the Philippines
does not recognize divorce. Absent the required pieces of evidence, the parties are considered to
still be married. Thus, the trial court erred in ordering the liquidation of the properties.

It must be pointed out that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the properties situated
in the U.S. Thus, the decision of the CA was affirmed.