DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent. G.R. No. 188289 August 20, 2014

DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 188289

August 20, 2014
Facts:
David and Leticia Noveras are US citizens who acquired properties in the USA and in
the Philippines during the marriage. They have 2 children. According to Leticia,
sometime in September 2003, David abandoned his family and lived with his mistress.
Further, she claimed that they executed a joint affidavit where he renounced all his
rights and interest in the conjugal and real properties situated in the Philippines.
After learning of David’s extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce before the
Superior Court of California. Divorce was granted and judgment was duly entered on 29
June 2005. The California court granted to Leticia the custody of her two children, as
well as all the couple’s properties in the USA.
Leticia then filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC
of Baler, Aurora. She relied on the 3 December 2003 Joint Affidavit and David’s failure to
comply with his obligation under the same. David demanded that the conjugal
partnership properties, which also include the USA properties, be liquidated since a
divorce decree was already entered.
The RTC regarded that since the parties are US citizens, their marriage is hereby
declared DISSOLVED pursuant to the divorce decree. Thus, the trial court considered
the petition filed by Leticia as one for liquidation of the absolute community of property
instead of an action for judicial separation of conjugal property. Their property was
classified as absolute community because they did not execute any marriage settlement
before the solemnization of their marriage pursuant to Article 75 of the Family Code.
Then, the trial court ruled that in accordance with 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. The court
adjudicated the Philippine properties to David subject to the payment of the children’s
legitimes.
On appeal, the CA modified the decision and directed the equal division of the
Philippine properties between the spouses and both should pay their children the
amount of P520,000.00.
In the present petition, David insists that CA should have recognized the California
Judgment which awarded the Philippine properties to him and allowing Leticia to share
in the Philippine properties is tantamount to unjust enrichment considering that she was
already granted all US properties by the California court.
Issues
1. Whether the marriage between David and Leticia has been dissolved pursuant to the
divorce decree issued by the Superior Court of California;
2. Whether the filing of the judicial separation of property is proper in accordance with
the Family Code
RULING
1. The trial court erred in recognizing the divorce decree which severed the bond of
marriage between the parties. 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. A copy of the foreign
judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections
24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority
or tribunal may be proved by: (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by
the officer having the legal custody thereof. Such official publication or copy must be
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the
attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of
the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country
in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation
must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, asthe case may be, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever a copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the
copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he
be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court.
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. Even if we apply the doctrine of processual presumption,divorce is
not recognized between Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid recognition of
the divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still legally married in the Philippines.
The trial court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation.
2. Yes. Art 135 of the Family Code provides that: Any of the following shall be
considered sufficient cause for judicial separation of property:
(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least
one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.
The records of this case are replete with evidence that both parties had indeed
separated for more than a year and that reconciliation is highly improbable. First, it is
undisputed that the spouses had been living separately since 2003 when David decided
to go back to the Philippines to set up his own business. Second, Leticia heard from her
friends that David has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who represented herself
as Estrellita Noveras. Editha Apolonio, who worked in the hospital where David was
once confined, testified that she saw the name of Estrellita listed as the wife of David in
the Consent for Operation form. Third and more significantly, they had filed for divorce
and it was granted by the California court in June 2005.
Having established that Leticia and David had actually separated for at least one year,
the petition for judicial separation of absolute community of property should be granted.

DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent. G.R. No. 188289 August 20, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent. G.R. No. 188289 August 20, 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent. G.R. No. 188289 August 20, 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAVID A. NOVERAS, Petitioner, vs. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 188289

You might also like