Divorced obtained by a Filipino abroad valid in PH, SC rules
By AJ Siytangco
Published Apr 24, 2018 05:20 pm
By Rey Panaligan
The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday ruled that a divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino against a foreign spouse is considered valid in the Philippines even if it is the Filipino spouse who sued for divorce.
(PIXABAY / MANILA BULLETIN)
In a full court decision released in Baguio City, the SC affirmed in part the Court of Appeals’ (CA) Sept. 18, 2014 ruling in favor of Marelyn Tanedo Manalo.
But the SC remanded the case to the Dagupan City regional trial court (RTC) “for further reception of evidence as to the relevant laws of Japan on divorce.”
In its ruling, the SC interpreted Article 26 (2) of the Family Code which provides: “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they are 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.”
The SC ruled that “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 SC’s public information did not provide details of Manalo’s case.
A check with the CA’s website on published decisions showed that in 2012 Manalo filed a petition before the Dagupan City RTC for cancellation of her marriage in the civil registry of San Juan City on the basis of a judgment of divorce issued by a Japanese court.
She said she was previously married in the Philippines to a certain Minoru Yoshino, a Japanese national, and filed a divorce in Japan which was granted on Dec. 6, 2011.
She presented to the trial court their certificate of marriage, translated decision of the Japanese court that decreed the divorce, and authentications issued by the Philippine consulate for Japan on the notification of divorce.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the government, did not file any controverting evidence before the trial court.
On Oct. 15, 2012, the trial court denied Manalo’s petition as it refused to recognize the divorce “considering that it was petitioner (Manalo) who filed the divorce case against the Japanese national.”
The trial court ruled that “the kind of divorce recognized here in the Philippines are those validly obtained by the alien spouse abroad, not by the Filipino spouse, pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code.”
Manalo elevated the case to the CA. She pointed out that the divorce she and her Japanese husband obtained in Japan should be recognized in the Philippines “as it is unjust to consider her as still married to the said Japanese who is no longer married to her and is already capacitated to remarry another.”
In resolving the issue, the CA said that “Article 26 of the Family Code was amended to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.”
“The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree,” it said.
The CA said: “In this case, Petitioner filed a divorce case in Japan against her Japanese husband. Consequently, a divorce decree was obtained by them making the said Japanese national no longer married to Petitioner, capacitating the said Japanese to remarry. The court a quo, however, did not recognize their divorce, considering that it was Petitioner who filed the divorce case against the Japanese national. We disagree.”
It pointed out that “the fact that it was Petitioner herein who filed the divorce case against her Japanese husband is of no moment. Article 26 of the Family Code states that a divorce validly obtained by the alien spouse abroad, capacitating him to remarry shall likewise capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry under the Philippine law.”
“Here, from the divorce case filed by Petitioner, a divorce decree was validly obtained by the Japanese national, capacitating him to remarry. Considering that the said Japanese is already free to remarry, Petitioner must likewise be allowed to remarry under the Philippine law,” the CA stressed.
“It would be the height of injustice to consider Petitioner as still married to the Japanese national, who is no longer married to Petitioner. A Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his/her own country if the ends of justice are to be served. To still expect Petitioner to continue rendering support and observe fidelity to the Japanese national who is already free to remarry is a clear discrimination against Petitioner. Thus, in the interest of justice, Petitioner's marriage to the Japanese national must likewise be considered as dissolved,” it added.
At the same time, the CA said that “for Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove said foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.”
“To be more specific, a copy of the foreign judgment, such as the divorce decree, may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b)29 of the Rules of Court,” it said.
It explained that a petitioner “may prove the Divorce Decree through (1) an official publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the office which has custody is in a foreign country such as Japan, the certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consular officer of the Philippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated by the seal of office.”
In Manalo’s case, the CA said she was able to submit before the trial court “the 1) Decision of the Japanese Court allowing the divorce; 2) the Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan of the Decree of Divorce; and 3) Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce by Petitioner and the Japanese national.”
Thus, it said, “under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules of Court, these documents sufficiently prove the subject Divorce Decree as a fact. We are constrained to recognize the Japanese Court's judgment decreeing the divorce.”
“The recognition of a foreign judgment serves as the basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the civil registry. The said recognition is a subsequent event that establishes a new status, right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment and the public records in the Philippines,” it added.
“Consequently, we order that a copy of this judgment be served on the Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila for the cancellation of Petitioner's entry of marriage in the Civil Registry,” it ruled.
The OSG elevated the case to the SC which ruled in favor of Manalo and affirmed in part the decision of the CA.
(PIXABAY / MANILA BULLETIN)
In a full court decision released in Baguio City, the SC affirmed in part the Court of Appeals’ (CA) Sept. 18, 2014 ruling in favor of Marelyn Tanedo Manalo.
But the SC remanded the case to the Dagupan City regional trial court (RTC) “for further reception of evidence as to the relevant laws of Japan on divorce.”
In its ruling, the SC interpreted Article 26 (2) of the Family Code which provides: “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they are 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.”
The SC ruled that “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 SC’s public information did not provide details of Manalo’s case.
A check with the CA’s website on published decisions showed that in 2012 Manalo filed a petition before the Dagupan City RTC for cancellation of her marriage in the civil registry of San Juan City on the basis of a judgment of divorce issued by a Japanese court.
She said she was previously married in the Philippines to a certain Minoru Yoshino, a Japanese national, and filed a divorce in Japan which was granted on Dec. 6, 2011.
She presented to the trial court their certificate of marriage, translated decision of the Japanese court that decreed the divorce, and authentications issued by the Philippine consulate for Japan on the notification of divorce.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the government, did not file any controverting evidence before the trial court.
On Oct. 15, 2012, the trial court denied Manalo’s petition as it refused to recognize the divorce “considering that it was petitioner (Manalo) who filed the divorce case against the Japanese national.”
The trial court ruled that “the kind of divorce recognized here in the Philippines are those validly obtained by the alien spouse abroad, not by the Filipino spouse, pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code.”
Manalo elevated the case to the CA. She pointed out that the divorce she and her Japanese husband obtained in Japan should be recognized in the Philippines “as it is unjust to consider her as still married to the said Japanese who is no longer married to her and is already capacitated to remarry another.”
In resolving the issue, the CA said that “Article 26 of the Family Code was amended to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.”
“The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree,” it said.
The CA said: “In this case, Petitioner filed a divorce case in Japan against her Japanese husband. Consequently, a divorce decree was obtained by them making the said Japanese national no longer married to Petitioner, capacitating the said Japanese to remarry. The court a quo, however, did not recognize their divorce, considering that it was Petitioner who filed the divorce case against the Japanese national. We disagree.”
It pointed out that “the fact that it was Petitioner herein who filed the divorce case against her Japanese husband is of no moment. Article 26 of the Family Code states that a divorce validly obtained by the alien spouse abroad, capacitating him to remarry shall likewise capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry under the Philippine law.”
“Here, from the divorce case filed by Petitioner, a divorce decree was validly obtained by the Japanese national, capacitating him to remarry. Considering that the said Japanese is already free to remarry, Petitioner must likewise be allowed to remarry under the Philippine law,” the CA stressed.
“It would be the height of injustice to consider Petitioner as still married to the Japanese national, who is no longer married to Petitioner. A Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his/her own country if the ends of justice are to be served. To still expect Petitioner to continue rendering support and observe fidelity to the Japanese national who is already free to remarry is a clear discrimination against Petitioner. Thus, in the interest of justice, Petitioner's marriage to the Japanese national must likewise be considered as dissolved,” it added.
At the same time, the CA said that “for Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove said foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.”
“To be more specific, a copy of the foreign judgment, such as the divorce decree, may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b)29 of the Rules of Court,” it said.
It explained that a petitioner “may prove the Divorce Decree through (1) an official publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the office which has custody is in a foreign country such as Japan, the certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consular officer of the Philippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated by the seal of office.”
In Manalo’s case, the CA said she was able to submit before the trial court “the 1) Decision of the Japanese Court allowing the divorce; 2) the Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan of the Decree of Divorce; and 3) Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce by Petitioner and the Japanese national.”
Thus, it said, “under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules of Court, these documents sufficiently prove the subject Divorce Decree as a fact. We are constrained to recognize the Japanese Court's judgment decreeing the divorce.”
“The recognition of a foreign judgment serves as the basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the civil registry. The said recognition is a subsequent event that establishes a new status, right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment and the public records in the Philippines,” it added.
“Consequently, we order that a copy of this judgment be served on the Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila for the cancellation of Petitioner's entry of marriage in the Civil Registry,” it ruled.
The OSG elevated the case to the SC which ruled in favor of Manalo and affirmed in part the decision of the CA.