REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, -
versus- MARELYN TANEDO
MANALO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 221029 | EN BANC | April 24, 2018 |
PERALTA, J.
Civil Law | Persons and Family Relations | Marriage | Marriages
Solemnized Abroad and Foreign Divorce
Statutory Construction | Interpretation and Construction of Paragraph
2, Article 26 of the Family Code
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to
extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without
undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the
marriage. It authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a foreign
divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce.
Philippine courts cannot try the case on the merits because it is
tantamount to trying a divorce case. Under the principles of comity, our
jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign
nationality, but the legal effects thereof e.g., on custody, care and
support of the children or property relations of the spouses, must still be
determined by our courts.
FACTS:
Respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for
cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan,
Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a
Japanese court.
Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and in substance,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City set the case for initial
hearing. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its
appearance for petitioner Republic of the Philippines authorizing
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dagupan to appear on its
behalf. Likewise, a Manifestation and Motion was filed questioning
the title and/or caption of the petition considering that, based on
the allegations therein, the proper action should be a petition for
recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. As a result,
Manalo moved to admit an Amended Petition, which the court
granted.
Advertisement
The trial court denied the petition for lack of merit. In ruling that the
divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be recognized, it
opined that, based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code, 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” and that unless
Filipinos “are naturalized as citizens of another country, Philippine
laws shall have control over issues related to Filipinos’ family rights
and duties, together with the determination of their condition and
legal capacity to enter into contracts and civil relations, including
marriages.”
On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article
26 of the Family Code of the Philippines (Family Code) is applicable
even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese
husband because the decree they obtained makes the latter no
longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry.
Conformably with Navarro, et al. v. Exec. Secretary Ermita, et al.
ruling that the meaning of the law should be based on the intent of
the lawmakers and in view of the legislative intent behind Article 26,
it would be the height of injustice to consider Manalo as still
married to the Japanese national, who, in turn, is no longer married
to her. For the appellate court, the fact that it was Manalo who filed
the divorce case is inconsequential.
The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied;
hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether 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.
RULING:
Yes. Van Dorn v. Romillo settled the matter by holding that an alien
spouse of a Filipino is bound by a divorce decree obtained abroad.
There, we dismissed the alien divorcee’s Philippine suit for
accounting of alleged post-divorce conjugal property and rejected
his submission that the foreign
divorce.
Van Dorn was decided before the Family Code took into effect.
There, a complaint was filed by the ex-husband, who is a US citizen,
against his Filipino wife to render an accounting of a business that
was alleged to be a conjugal property and to be declared with right
to manage the same. Van Dorn moved to dismiss the case on the
ground that the cause of action was barred by previous judgment in
the divorce proceedings that she initiated, but the trial court denied
the motion. On his part, her ex-husband averred that the divorce
decree issued by the Nevada court could not prevail over the
prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy;
that the acts and declaration of a foreign court cannot, especially if
the same is contrary to public policy, divest Philippine courts of
jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction.
In dismissing the case filed by the alien spouse, the Court discussed
the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their conjugal
property in the Philippines. Thus:
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of
the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen.
For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of
the Union. What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding
in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy.
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article
15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the
policy against absolute divorces the same being considered
contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However,
aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of “a divorce x x x validly obtained
abroad by the alien spouse 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.
Nonetheless, the Japanese law on divorce must still be proved.
Since the divorce was raised by Manalo, the burden of proving the
pertinent Japanese law validating it, as well as her former husband’s
capacity to remarry, fall squarely upon her. Japanese laws on
persons and family relations are not among those matters that
Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial
function.
By reasons of the foregoing, CA decision was affirmed. The case was
remanded to the RTC for reception of evidence as to relevant
Japanese laws on divorce.
