About Blog Disclaimer Privacy Policy

Home Legal Briefs Business Sheets Property Ledgers -

Home ∠ Legal Briefs ∠ A Divorce Decree Obtained Abroad by Filipino against Foreigner Spouse is Valid in the Philippines

A Divorce Saluday vs. UPSI-MI versus

Decree People; G.R. CIR (G.R. No.
Obtained No. 215305 – 205955 ) –
Abroad by Guidelines in Applicability
Filipino against Foreigner the Conduct… of…
Spouse… Cham Cham
Cham

LEGAL BRIEFS

News & Views

A Divorce Decree Obtained
Abroad By Filipino Against
Foreigner Spouse Is Valid In The BUSINESS SHEETS

Philippines Business
Republic v. Manalo; G.R. No. 221029; 24 April 2018 Enterprise
Transfer Rule –
By Cham On May 30, 2018
Assumption
 Share " #   & '  Of Liability By
Transferee…
Cham ○ Nov 20,
2015 , 0

The purpose of
the business-
enterprise
transfer is to
protect the
creditors of the
business by
allowing them a…

LEGAL BRIEFS TAX JOURNALS

Reacquisition
Republic
of Act No.
Philippine 10653
Although divorce is not allowed under Philippine laws, CitizenshipRaises
by The
Article 26 of the Family Code recognizes the validity of a
Former Maximum
divorce decree obtained in a foreign country in respect of Natural- Amount
mixed marriages. Article 26, particularly second paragraph Born… Of Tax-
Exempt
thereof, states:
13th…

Art. 26. X x x
LEGAL BRIEFS LEGAL BRIEFS
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
Maceda Saluday
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
Law vs.
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien Governs People;
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the the G.R.
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Cancellation
No.
of 215305
Philippine law. Contract –
to Sell Guidelines
For the provision to apply, the Supreme Court laid down the Involving… in the
following requisites: Conduct…

6. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated

between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
@. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

It was held that under the second requisite it should be the

foreigner spouse who initiated the divorce proceeding. If it
was the Filipino spouse who filed the case for divorce, the
decree would not be recognized as valid in the Philippines.
Consequently, under Philippine laws, the Filipino spouse
remained married to his or her foreigner spouse and
incapacitated to contract marriage. Recently, however, the
Supreme abandoned that view in Republic v. Manalo.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner, – versus – MARELYN
TANEDO MANALO, Respondent.
G.R. NO. 221029
24 April 2018
Facts:

On January 20, 2012, 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. The petition was later amended and captioned as a
petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign
judgment.

The petition alleged, among others, that:

Petitioner is previously married in the Philippines to a

Japanese national named YOSHIDO MINORO;
Recently, a case for divorce was filed by petitioner in
Japan and after due proceeding, a divorce decree was
rendered by the Japanese Court;

The trial court (RTC) 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 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 Filipino family
rights and duties, together with determination of their
condition and legal capacity to enter into contracts and
civil relations, including marriages”.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (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, et al.
[663 Phil. 546 (2011)] 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.

Issue:

Whether a Filipino citizen, who initiated a divorce

proceeding abroad and obtained a favorable judgment
against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to
remarry, has the capacity to remarry pursuant to Article
26 (2) of the Family Code.

Ruling:

Yes.

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.

The purpose of
Paragraph 2 of
Article 26 is to
!
avoid the absurd The purpose of Paragraph
situation where the 2 of Article 26 is to avoid
Filipino spouse the absurd situation where
remains married to
the Filipino spouse
the alien spouse
remains married to the
who, after a
alien spouse who, after a
foreign divorce
decree that is foreign divorce decree that
effective in the is effective in the country
country where it is where it is rendered, is no
rendered, is no longer married to the
longer married to Filipino spouse...
the Filipino
spouse. The
provision is a
corrective measure to address the anomaly where the
Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign
spouse is free to remarry under the laws of his or her
country. Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign
divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving
the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse
to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will
effectively be without a husband or a wife. A Filipino who
initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place
and in like circumstance 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 Filipinos whose marital ties to
their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latterʼs
national law.

There is no real and substantial difference between a

Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding 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 Filipinos who have the
same rights and obligations in an alien land. The
circumstances surrounding them are alike. Were it not for
Paragraph 2 of Article 26, both are still married to their
foreigner spouses who are no longer their wives/husbands.
Hence, to make a distinction between them are based
merely on superficial difference of whether they initiated
the divorce proceedings or not is utterly unfair. Indeed, the
treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly
discriminate against the other.

Thus, a Filipino citizen, who initiated a divorce

proceeding abroad and obtained a favorable judgment
against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to
remarry, has the capacity to remarry pursuant to
Article 26 (2) of the Family Code.

) Case Digests Civil Code Civil Law Divorce Family Code

Family Law Marriage

 Share " #   & +

+ PREV POST

Payment Under Protest

Required To Contest Real
Property Tax Assessment
Even If Exemption Is Claimed

You Might Also Like More From Author

PROPERTY LEDGERS LEGAL BRIEFS TAX JOURNALS

Payment Under Saluday vs. People; Medicard v. CIR;

Protest Required G.R. No. 215305 – G.R. NO. 222743 –
To Contest Real Guidelines in the Gross Receipts of a
Property Tax Conduct of Bus Health
Assessment Even Searches Maintenance…
If…

∠ PREV NEXT ∠

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your Comment

Your Name * Your Email *

Your Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the

next time I comment.

POST COMMENT

Recent Articles Random Posts

A Divorce Business
Decree Enterprise
OFFICE ADDRESS: Obtained Transfer Rule –
2nd Level, Paseo de Legaspi Abroad by Assumption of
Filipino against Foreigner Liability By…
Pelayo Street, Davao City
Spouse…
Philippines
Medicard v. CIR;
TELEPHONE/FAX:
Payment Under G.R. NO.
082 225 2031 Protest 222743 – Gross
Required To Receipts of a
EMAIL: Contest Real Health…
Property Tax Assessment…
talk2us(at)c3firm(dot)com
Maceda Law
Saluday vs. Governs the
People; G.R. No. Cancellation of
215305 – Contract to Sell
Guidelines in Involving…
the Conduct…

Home About Blog Privacy Policy Disclaimer

Davao City, Philippines

C3 Firm News & Views - Personal Blog of Atty.
Charizma Cortez-Catague C.P.A., R.E.B., R.E.A.