Foreign divorce empowers Filipino to remarry

The petitioner in this case was married to a Japanese national. Their marriage did not work out and both of them mutually obtained a divorce in Japan. The documents proving the divorce were presented by the petitioner to the trial court in Manila seeking recognition of her divorce.

The trial court, however, refused to recognize the divorce on the grounds that the petitioner, a Filipina spouse, initiated the divorce. Therefore, Article 26 of the Family Code should not apply to her. This being purely a question of law, the petitioner went straight up to the Supreme Court to question the decision.

The Supreme Court applying Republic v. Manalo granted her petition and dealt squarely with the issue of whether such divorce now capacitates a Filipino spouse to remarry.

The Supreme Court declared that, “The facts in Manalo are similar to the circumstances in this case. A divorce decree between a Filipino and a Japanese national was obtained by the spouses upon a case that was filed in Japan by Manalo, the Filipino spouse. Initially, the recognition of the divorce decree in the Philippines was rejected by the RTC where the petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment was filed, as the trial court cited Article 15 of the New Civil Code and reasoned that as a rule, the Philippine law ‘does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce, whether they are in the country or living abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or in another country.’

“On appeal to the Court of Appeals, however, the RTC decision was overturned. The appellate court held that Article 26 of the Family Code should apply even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce. The decree made the Japanese spouse no longer married to Manalo; he then had the capacity to remarry. It would be unjust to still deem Manalo married to the Japanese who, in turn, was no longer married to her. The fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce was inconsequential.

“This ruling of the CA was then affirmed by the Court in Manalo upon a petition for review on certiorari that was filed by the Republic of the Philippines. Applying the same legal considerations and considering the similar factual milieu that attended in Manalo, the present case warrants a reversal of the RTC’s decision that refused to recognize the divorce decree that was mutually obtained by Marlyn and her foreigner spouse in Japan solely on the ground that the divorce was jointly initiated by the spouses.

“The Court finds no reason to deviate from its recent disposition on the issue, as made in Manalo, thus: Now, the Court is tasked to resolve whether, under the same provision [Art. 26], a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry. We rule in the affirmative.

“In the Manalo decision, the Court went on to cite jurisprudence wherein the legal effects of a foreign divorce decree, albeit obtained by a Filipino spouse, were acknowledged in our jurisdiction but limited on the issues of child custody and property relations. In several other jurisprudence, recognition of the effects of a foreign divorce was also implied from the Court’s disposition of the cases.

“The specific issue on the binding effect of a divorce decree obtained by a Filipino spouse on one’s marital status was then expressly and directly tackled by the Court. In determining whether a divorce decree obtained by a foreigner spouse should be recognized in the Philippines, it is immaterial that the divorce is sought by the Filipino national. The Court reasoned: There is no compelling reason to deviate from the above-mentioned rulings. When this Court recognized a foreign divorce decree that was initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal effects on the issues of child custody and property relation, it should not stop short in likewise acknowledging that one of the usual and necessary consequences of absolute divorce is the right to remarry.

“Indeed, there is no longer a mutual obligation to live together and observe fidelity. When the marriage tie is severed and ceases to exist, the civil status and the domestic relation of the former spouses change as both of them are freed from the marital bond. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of “a divorce… validly obtained abroad by the alien capacitating him or her to remarry.”

“Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is bound by the words of the statute; neither can we put words in the mouths of the lawmakers.”

The facts and redacted and quoted portion of the decision are from S.C. G. R. 224548 (23 January 2019).