Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding.

Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter’s national law. This interpretation finds support in the State’s constitutional fiat to “ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men.”

Republic Act No. 9710, or the Magna Carta of Women, likewise “ensures the substantive equality of women and men” through “the abolition of the unequal structures and practices that perpetuate discrimination and inequality.” Section 19 of the Magna Carta of Women then directs the State to eliminate discrimination on matters related to marriage and family relations and ensure that men and women have “the same rights to enter into and leave marriages.”

Laws do not exist in a vacuum and must be harmonized with other laws and jurisprudence. Thus, Article 26(2) of the Family Code, when read together with Section 19 of Republic Act No. 9710, can only be interpreted to mean that it is immaterial who initiated the divorce proceedings abroad. In a concurring opinion to Manalo, it was emphasized that “[o]nce a divorce decree is issued, the foreign spouse is deemed to have ‘obtained’ a divorce which capacitates him or her to remarry. The same status should therefore be afforded to the Filipino spouse.” Moreover, our laws:

. . . never intended for the Filipino to be at a disadvantage. For so long as the Constitution itself guarantees fundamental equality, the absurd result from a literal and almost frigid and unfeeling interpretation of our laws should not hold. To say that one spouse may divorce and the other may not contributes to the patriarchy. It fosters an unequal relationship prone to abuse in such intimate relationships.

Here, petitioner and private respondent jointly filed for the summary dissolution of their marriage and their petition was granted by the Superior Court of California.

Public respondent avers that the divorce decree cannot be recognized in our jurisdiction because it was not obtained solely by petitioner, who was then the foreign spouse, as required by Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

Public respondent is mistaken.

Article 26 of the Family Code reads:

Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws, in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

The reality of joint petitions for divorce was acknowledged in Galapon v. Republic.

A clear and plain reading of the provision shows that what is only required is that the divorce must have been validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse. It does not impose an additional requirement for the alien spouse to solely obtain the divorce.

Adopting the public respondent’s strained interpretation will likewise cause this Court to close its eyes to the fact that the laws in some foreign countries “allow joint filing for a divorce decree to ensure that there be less incrimination among the spouses, a more civil and welcoming atmosphere for their children, and less financial burden for the families affected.”

The reality of joint petitions for divorce was acknowledged in Galapon v. Republic.

In Galapon, Cynthia Galapon, a Filipino, and Noh Shik Park, a South Korean national, got married in Manila. A few months later, they filed for a divorce by mutual agreement in South Korea and their divorce was confirmed by the Cheongju Local Court.

Back in the Philippines, Galapon filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign judgment. Her petition was granted by the Regional Trial Court. This ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals, holding that “the divorce decree in question cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction insofar as Cynthia is concerned since it was obtained by mutual agreement.”

In reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the Regional Trial Court decision, this Court in Galapon referred to the ruling in Manalo that it is immaterial if the foreign or Filipino spouse initiated the divorce proceeding. Galapon emphasized that “[p]ursuant to the majority ruling in Manalo, Article 26(2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is: (i) obtained by the foreign spouse; (ii) obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and (iii) obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.”

Applying Manalo and the later case of Galapon to the present case, that the divorce decree was obtained jointly by petitioner, then a citizen of the United States of America, and private respondent, then a Filipino citizen, is of no moment. They are deemed to have obtained the divorce as required in Article 26(2) of the Family Code, capacitating them to remarry under Philippine law.”

The facts and quoted portion of the decision are from Raemark Abel v. Mindy Rule (G.R. No. 234457, 12 May 2021).