In one case, the petitioner filed with the trial court for the enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by the court of Kentucky, USA, granting a divorce from her husband. In adducing evidence, she presented the divorce decree of the Kentucky court and the laws of Peru allowing her husband to remarry, since her husband is Peruvian.

The trial court granted the petition for recognition. The State, however, appealed the decision on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the law that allowed the divorce in the country that rendered the decision, thereby allowing her husband to contract a subsequent marriage. The Court of Appeals granted the appeal on that ground.

The petitioner went to the Supreme Court for a final determination of the matter. The High Court ruled that the law of the jurisdiction that granted the divorce and capacitated the spouse to remarry must be proved, and not the national law of the spouse.

“When it comes to marriages between a Filipino and an alien spouse, Article 26(2) of the Family Code creates an exception to the nationality principle by providing that if a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. 

“The law provides that a divorce between a foreigner and a Filipino may be recognized in the Philippines if it was validly obtained in accordance with the personal law of the foreign spouse. The purpose of the provision is to avoid the absurd situation where, on one hand, the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse but, on the other, the alien spouse is no longer married to the Filipino spouse after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered.

“In this regard, the Court has repeatedly held that the starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Thus, in actions for the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, the petitioner must prove not only the foreign judgment granting the divorce but also the foreign law allowing it.

“The records bear that Enrique is a Peruvian citizen, and he and Anido were residing in Kentucky, USA, at the time the divorce decree was issued by the Kentucky court. Notably, the OSG did not dispute the authenticity of the divorce decree in issue. It also did not question Enrique’s Peruvian citizenship and the legal residence of the spouses in Kentucky at the time of the divorce decree’s issuance.

“Pertinently, the fact that Enrique was a citizen of Peru residing in Kentucky, USA, was considered by the CA when it resolved to dismiss Anido’s Petition for Enforcement. It held that Anido failed to prove: (1) that the divorce decree was granted in accordance with the laws of Kentucky; and (2) that as a result of the divorce judgment, Enrique was capacitated to remarry in accordance with the laws of Peru. The Court does not agree with the CA.

“Insofar as the present Petition for Enforcement is concerned, Anido only has to prove the pertinent marriage laws of Kentucky, the foreign state that issued the divorce decree at issue. Certainly, in petitions for the recognition of a foreign judgment, as in the present case, the courts must adopt a policy of limited review and refrain from delving into the merits of the foreign judgment in question.

“The Philippine courts cannot decide on the family rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity of the alien who is a party to the foreign judgment; nor may they substitute their own interpretation of any provision of the law or rules of procedure of another country.

“Instead, the Philippine courts will only determine: (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e., want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

“If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations. In view of the foregoing, insofar as the recognition of the subject divorce decree is concerned, the Peruvian citizenship of Enrique and the governing marriage laws of Peru are immaterial.

“Considering that Kentucky was Enrique’s legal residence or domicile, and the subject divorce decree was issued by the Kentucky court, it is ultimately the Kentucky laws that are determinative of the question of whether the divorce is effective in the country where it was rendered, and whether it must be recognized in the Philippines pursuant to the principle of comity.

“Otherwise stated, to support her Petition for Enforcement and to prove that the divorce decree was validly obtained and capacitated Enrique to remarry, Anido need not prove the marriage laws of Peru; instead, she only needs to prove the pertinent laws of Kentucky as the state that issued the divorce decree.”

The facts and redacted quoted portion of the decision are from G.R. 253527 (21 October 2024).