April 24, 2018 G.R. No. 221029 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,Petitioner vs MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, Respondent R E S O L U T I O Nperalta, J.:This petition for review on certiorariunder Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) seeks to reverse and set aside the September 18, 2014 Decision1and October 12, 2015 Resolution2of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100076. The dispositive portion of the Decision states: WHEREFORE,the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 15 October 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, First Judicial Region, Branch 43, in SPEC. PROC. NO. 2012-0005 is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.Let a copy of this Decision be served on the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila. SO ORDERED.3The facts are undisputed. On January 10, 2012, respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for cancellation of Entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan , Metro Manila, by virtueof a judgment of divorce Japanese court. Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and in substance, Branch 43 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City set the case for initial hearing on April 25, 2012. The petition and the notice of initial hearing were published once a week for three consecutive weeks in newspaper of general circulation. During the initial hearing, counsel for Manalo marked the documentary evidence (consisting of the trial courts Order dated January 25, 2012, affidavit of publication, and issues of the Northern Journal dated February 21-27, 2012, February 28 - March 5, 2012, and March 6-12, 2012) for purposes of compliance with the jurisdictional requirements. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance for petitioner Republic of the Philippines authorizing the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dagupan to appear on its behalf. Likewise, a Manifestation and Motion was filed questioning the title and/or caption of the petition considering that based on the allegations therein, the proper action should be a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.
As a result, Manalo moved to admit an Amended Petition, which the court granted. The Amended Petition, which captioned that if it is also a petition for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment alleged: 2. That petitioner is previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese national named YOSHINO MINORO as shown by their Marriage Contract xxx; 3. That recently, a case for divorce was filed by herein [petitioner] in Japan and after die proceedings, a divorce decree dated December 6, 2011 was rendered by the Japanese Court x x x; 4. That at present, by virtue of the said divorce decree, petitioner and her divorce Japanese husband are no longer living together and in fact, petitioner and her daughter are living separately from said Japanese former husband; 5. That there is an imperative need to have the entry of marriage in Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila cancelled, where the petitioner and the former Japanese husband's marriage was previously registered, in order that it would not appear anymore that