Foreign divorce decrees do not require proceedings abroad to be recognized in the Philippines, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The Supreme Court En Banc, in a decision dated 27 February written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, said Philippine courts may recognize divorces obtained abroad, whether through legal or administrative processes or by mutual agreement.

The case involved Filipino citizen Ruby Cuevas Ng who married Japanese national Akihiro Sono in Quezon City in 2004 and moved to Japan.

After their relationship fell apart, they secured a “divorce decree by mutual agreement” in Japan, as evidenced by a Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines.

Ng filed before a Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and/or a declaration of her capacity to remarry, which the RTC granted.

The RTC decision was challenged by the Office of the Solicitor General before the Supreme Court, arguing that only foreign divorce decrees issued by a court can be recognized in the Philippines, and that the foreign divorce was merely based on an agreement.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ng stating that Filipinos married to foreigners can seek judicial recognition of their foreign divorce under Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code.

The Court held that the type of divorce, whether administrative or judicial, did not matter.

As long as the divorce is valid under the foreign spouse’s national law, it will be recognized in the Philippines for the Filipino spouse.

The Court emphasized that Article 26(2) aims to prevent a situation where a foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse remains tied to the marriage.

Ng claimed the national law of Japan recognizes divorce either by agreement or judicial action.

However, she failed to submit to the RTC an authenticated copy of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

The RTC said that under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents of foreign countries must be proved either by official publication or copies attested to by the legal custodian of the documents.

It clarified that under Office of the Court Administrator Circular 157-2022-A, the OCA’s compilation of foreign divorce laws serves only as a preliminary reference for courts but does not dispense with the requirements under the Revised Rules on Evidence.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC to allow Ng to present evidence proving the existence of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.