CORPUZ VS STO TOMASFactsPetitioner (Gerbert Corpuz) was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship throughnaturalization. After the his wedding to the respondent (Daisln !to. "omas)# he returned to Canada due to wor$ and other professional commitments. %hen he returned to the Philippines# he was shoc$ed of the infidelit on the part of his wife. &e went bac$ to Canada and filed a petition for di'orce and it was granted.Desirous to marr another woman he now lo'ed# he registered the di'orce decree in the Ci'il (egistr )ffice in the Philippines but was informed that the foreign decree must first be *udiciall recognized b a competent Philippine court. Petitioner filed for *udicial recognition of foreign di'orce and declaration of marriage as dissol'ed with the ("C where respondent failed to submit an response. "he ("C denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner lac$ed locus standi. +ssue%hether or not Art. ,-(,) of the Famil Code e.tends to aliens the right to petition a court of this *urisdiction for the recognition of a foreign di'orce decree%hether or not a petition for recognition of a foreign *udgement is the proper proceeding&eld/)# it is not e.tended to aliens. +t ma be in'o$ed onl b the Filipino spouse./)# it is not the proper proceeding. (ule 012 of the (ules of Court sets in detail the *urisdictional and procedural requirements that must be complied with before a *udgment# authorizing the cancellation or correction# ma be annotated in the ci'il registr.(atioNO, it is not extended to aliens. It may be invoked only by the Filipino spouse.%here a marriage between a Filipino citizen and aforeigner is 'alidl celebrated and a di'orce is thereafter 'alidl obtained abroad b the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarr# the Filipino spouse shall li$ewise ha'e capacit to remarr under Philippine law."he pro'ision was included in the law to a'oid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who# after obtaining a di'orce# is no longer married to the Filipino spouse."he legislati'e intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse# b clarifing his or her marital status# settling the doubts created b the di'orce decree. 3ssentiall# the second paragraph of Article ,- of the Famil Code pro'ided the Filipino spouse a substanti'e right toha'e his or her marriage to the alien spouse considered as dissol'ed# capacitating him or her to remarr. %ithout the second paragraph of Article ,- of the Famil Code# the *udicial recognition of the foreign decree of di'orce# whether in a proceeding instituted precisel for that purpose or as a related issue in another proceeding# would be of no significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do not recognize di'orce as a mode of se'ering the marital bond.An action based on the second paragraph of Article ,- of the Famil Code is not limited to the recognition of the foreign di'orce decree. +f the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarr# the courts can declare that theFilipino spouse is li$ewise capacitated to contract another marriage. /o court in this *urisdiction# howe'er# can ma$e a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that alread established b the decree)# whose status and legal capacit are generall go'erned b his national law."he alien spouse cannot claim under the second paragraph of Art ,- of the Famil Code because the substanti'e right it establishes is in fa'our of the Filipino spouse.)nl the Filipino spouse can in'o$e the second par of Art ,- of the Famil Code."he una'ailabilit of the second paragraph of Art ,- of the Famil Code to aliens does not necessaril strip the petitioner of legal interest to petition the ("C for the recognition of his foreign di'orce decree. "he petitioner# being a naturalizedCanadian citizen now# is clothed b the presumpti'e e'idence of the authenticit of foreign di'orce decree with conformit to aliens national law. "he foreign di'orce decree itself# after its authenticit and conformit with the aliens national law ha'e been dul pro'en according to our rules of e'idence# ser'es as a presumpti'e e'idence of right in fa'or of Gerbert# pursuant to !ection 42# (ule 56 of the (ules of Court which pro'ides for the effect of foreign *udgments.NO, it is not the proper proceeding. Rule 10 o! the Rules o! "ourt sets in detail the #urisdictional and procedural re$uirements that must be complied %ith be!ore a #udgment, authori&ing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry. ((ele'ant to !pecPro)"he recognition that the ("C ma e.tend to the Canadian di'orce decree does not# b itself# authorize the cancellation of the entr in the ci'il registr. A petition for recognition of a foreign*udgment is not the proper proceeding# contemplated under the (ules of Court# for the cancellation of entries in the ci'il registr.A petition for recognition of a foreign *udgment is not the proper proceeding# contemplated under the (ules of Court# for the cancellation of entries in the ci'il registr. Article 40, of the Ci'il Code declares that no entr in a ci'il register shall be changed or corrected# without *udicial order."he (ules of Court supplements Article 40, of theCi'il Code b specificall pro'iding for a special remedial proceeding b which entries in the ci'il registr ma be *udiciall cancelled or corrected. (ule 012 of the (ules of Court sets in detail the *urisdictional and procedural requirements that must be complied with before a *udgment# authorizing the cancellation or correction# ma be annotated in the ci'il registr. +t also requires# among others# that the 'erified petition must be filed with the ("C of the pro'ince where the corresponding ci'il registr is located7 that the ci'il registrar and all persons who ha'e or claim an interest must be made parties to the proceedings7 and that the time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. As these basic *urisdictional requirements ha'e not been met in the present case# the !C did not consider the petition Gerbert filed with the ("C as one filed under (ule 012 of the (ules of Court."he recognition of the foreign di'orce decree mabe made in a (ule 012 proceeding itself# as the ob*ect of special proceedings (such as that in (ule012 of the (ules of Court) is precisel to establishthe status or right of a part or a particular fact. 8oreo'er# (ule 012 of the (ules of Court can ser'e as the appropriate ad'ersarial proceeding b which the applicabilit of the foreign *udgment can be measured and tested in terms of *urisdictional infirmities# want of notice to the part# collusion# fraud# or clear mista$e of law or fact.