Abel vs. Rule

Under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, a foreign divorce decree can be judicially recognized in the Philippines regardless of who initiated the proceedings—whether it was the alien spouse, the Filipino spouse, or both spouses jointly. Once a divorce decree is issued by a competent foreign court capacitating the alien spouse to remarry, the alien spouse is deemed to have "obtained" the divorce within the meaning of the law, thereby allowing the Filipino spouse to also have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

The case arose from a petition to recognize a foreign judgment of divorce. The petitioner, Raemark S. Abel, was a US citizen when he married Mindy P. Rule, a Filipino citizen, in California. They later jointly filed for and were granted a summary dissolution of their marriage by a California court. Subsequently, Abel reacquired his Filipino citizenship (becoming a dual citizen), while Rule became a naturalized US citizen. Abel sought to have their foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines to be able to register his subsequent marriage, but the government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed it on the ground that the divorce was obtained jointly, which it argued was contrary to Philippine public policy and the text of Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

• On December 18, 2005, Raemark S. Abel, a US citizen, and Mindy P. Rule, a Filipino citizen, were married in Los Angeles, California.
• On December 3, 2008, Abel reacquired his Filipino citizenship, becoming a dual citizen of the Philippines and the United States.
• On November 18, 2008, Abel and Rule jointly filed a petition for the summary dissolution of their marriage before the Los Angeles Superior Court.
• On July 31, 2009, the Superior Court of California issued a judgment dissolving the marriage of Abel and Rule.
• On September 21, 2012, Rule became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
• On January 10, 2017, the authenticated California judgment was recorded with the City Registry Office of Manila.
• Abel then filed a Petition for the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce before the RTC of Manila, which was opposed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
• The RTC dismissed the petition, holding that a jointly filed divorce contravenes Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which it interpreted as requiring the divorce to be obtained solely by the alien spouse.

• A literal interpretation of Article 26(2) of the Family Code does not prohibit the recognition of a divorce obtained jointly by a Filipino and a foreign spouse.
• The legislative intent of Article 26(2) is to remedy the unfair situation where a Filipino spouse remains married to a foreign spouse who is already free to remarry under their own national law.
• The joint divorce was not a product of collusion, as it was based on the ground of "irreconcilable differences" which caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage.
• Denying recognition creates an anomalous situation where he, a dual citizen, is considered married under Philippine law, while his ex-wife, now a US citizen, is free to remarry.
• The controlling doctrine in Republic v. Manalo establishes that it is irrelevant who initiates the foreign divorce proceeding.

• The Philippines maintains a state policy against absolute divorce, and Article 26(2) of the Family Code is a limited exception.
• The exception in Article 26(2) applies only when the divorce is obtained solely by the alien spouse, not when it is jointly filed with the Filipino spouse.
• At the time of the divorce, Mindy Rule was a Filipino citizen and thus lacked the legal capacity under her national law (Philippine law) to give consent to or jointly file for divorce.
• A jointly obtained divorce is tantamount to a severance of marriage by stipulation of facts or collusion, which is against public policy.
• Recognizing a jointly obtained divorce would discriminate against other Filipinos who are not married to foreigners.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a divorce decree obtained jointly by a Filipino citizen and an alien spouse from a foreign court can be judicially recognized in the Philippines pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is granted. The Supreme Court ruled that a divorce decree jointly obtained by a Filipino and their alien spouse is recognizable in the Philippines. The Court held that a restrictive interpretation of Article 26(2) of the Family Code would be contrary to its legislative intent, which is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married while the alien spouse is free to remarry. Citing the doctrine in Republic v. Manalo and Galapon v. Republic, the Court reiterated that the identity of the initiating party in the foreign divorce proceeding is immaterial. What is essential is that a divorce was validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, which capacitates him or her to remarry. The Court reasoned that even in a joint petition, the alien spouse is deemed to have "obtained" the divorce as required by law. This interpretation is consistent with the constitutional principle of fundamental equality between men and women and the State's policy under the Magna Carta of Women to eliminate discrimination in marriage and family relations. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings and reception of evidence to prove the foreign judgment and the relevant foreign law.

• Statutory Construction (Spirit over Letter of the Law) — The Court held that when a literal interpretation of a statute leads to an absurd or unjust result that defeats the legislative intent, the spirit of the law must prevail. In this case, interpreting "obtained by the alien spouse" in Article 26(2) to exclusively mean "solely initiated by the alien spouse" would defeat the law's purpose of remedying the lopsided marital status of the Filipino spouse.
• Fundamental Equality of Women and Men — The Court invoked this constitutional principle (Art. II, Sec. 14) and the Magna Carta of Women (R.A. 9710) to support a gender-equal interpretation of Article 26(2). It argued that a restrictive reading would perpetuate an unequal situation where one spouse can remarry while the other cannot, which is contrary to the State's commitment to eliminate discrimination in marriage and family relations.

• "To reiterate, 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. The provision is a corrective measure to address an anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country."

• Republic v. Manalo — Cited as the controlling precedent establishing that under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, it is irrelevant whether the Filipino or the alien spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding. This case extended that reasoning to cover jointly filed petitions.
• Galapon v. Republic — Referenced as a recent application of the Manalo doctrine, where the Court explicitly stated that Article 26(2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is obtained by the foreign spouse, obtained jointly by both spouses, or obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.

• Family Code, Article 26(2) — This is the central provision of the case. The Court interpreted the phrase "a divorce... validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry" to include divorces that were jointly petitioned for by both the alien and Filipino spouses.
• Constitution, Article II, Section 14 — The State's recognition of the role of women and the fundamental equality before the law of women and men was cited as a constitutional basis for interpreting Article 26(2) in a non-discriminatory manner.
• Republic Act No. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women), Section 19 — This section, which mandates the State to ensure equal rights for men and women in all matters relating to marriage, including the right to "leave marriages," was used to support the Court's liberal interpretation of the Family Code provision.