April 24, 2018
Ponente: Peralta, J.
FACTS
Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married to a Japanese national. She later filed for divorce against her husband, and a divorce decree was issued by a Japanese court.
In 2012, she sought the cancellation of the entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila by virtue of the said divorce decree. She later amended her petition for the judicial recognition of the divorce decree.
RTC denied Marelyn's petition, arguing that the divorce obtained by Marelyn in Japan should not be recognized. The RTC held 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, inclusing marriages."
Upon appeal, the CA overturned RTC's ruling. CA 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 may obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry. As such, it would be height of injustice to consider Manelyn as still married to the Japanese national, who, in turn, is no longer married to her and can legally have another wife.
OSG's motion for recommendation was denied by CA. Hence, the instant petition.
RULING
Does a Filipino citizen have 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? -- YES.
The purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstances 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 a Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operations of their alien spouses are severed by operation on the latter's national law.
In fact, there is no real and substantial difference between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceedings and a Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of his or her alien spouse. In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both are considered as Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations in a alien land. The circumstances surrounding them are alike.
Finally, a prohibitive view of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would do more harm than good. If We disallow a Filipino citizen who initiated and obtained a foreign divorce from the coverage of Paragraph 2 Article 26 and still require him or her to first avail of the existing "mechanisms" under the Family Code, any subsequent relationship that he or she would enter in the meantime shall be considered as illicit in the eyes of the Philippine law.
Worse, any child born out such "extra-marital" affair has to suffer the stigma of being branded as illegitimate. Surely, these are just but a few of the adverse consequences, not only to the parent but also to the child, if We are to hold a restrictive interpretation of the subject provision. The irony is that the principle of inviolability of marriage under Section 2, Article XV of the Constitution is meant to be tilted in favor of marriage and against unions not formalized by marriage, but without denying State protection and assistance to live-in arrangements or to families formed according to indigenous customs.
Although the SC held that a Filipino may initiate divorce against a foreign spouse, Marelyn's case was still remanded to the RTC to allow Marelyn to present evidence as proof of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.