Galapon vs. Republic

Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code allows for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree in the Philippines regardless of whether the divorce was obtained solely by the foreign spouse, solely by the Filipino spouse, or jointly by both spouses. The purpose of the provision is to avoid the unjust situation where the Filipino spouse is still considered married under Philippine law while the foreign spouse is free to remarry under their own national law.

Cynthia A. Galapon, a Filipina, and Noh Shik Park, a South Korean national, were married in the Philippines in 2012. Their relationship deteriorated, and they subsequently obtained a divorce by mutual agreement in South Korea, which was confirmed by the Cheongju Local Court. Following the divorce, Galapon sought to have the foreign divorce decree recognized in the Philippines to regain her capacity to remarry.

• Cynthia A. Galapon, a Filipino citizen, married Noh Shik Park, a South Korean national, in Manila on February 27, 2012.
• The couple's relationship soured, and they obtained a divorce by mutual agreement in South Korea, which was confirmed by the Cheongju Local Court on July 16, 2012.
• Galapon filed a Petition for the Judicial Recognition of a Foreign Divorce in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
• During the RTC proceedings, Galapon's sister and attorney-in-fact, Abigail Galapon, testified that Park had threatened Cynthia's life, forcing her to agree to the divorce.
• Galapon presented evidence to prove the divorce, including the authenticated and translated divorce decree and a copy of the Korean Civil Code.
• The RTC granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, finding that the divorce was obtained by mutual agreement and thus not covered by Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

• The petitioner argued that the CA erred in delving into the merits of the foreign divorce decree, exceeding the Philippine courts' power of limited review over foreign judgments.
• The petitioner contended that denying recognition of the divorce would result in the unjust situation that Article 26(2) of the Family Code was designed to prevent.
• The petitioner asserted that based on the ruling in Republic v. Manalo, Article 26(2) should apply to divorces obtained by mutual consent between a Filipino citizen and a foreign spouse.

• The respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that the petition for recognition was filed in the improper venue, which should have been the RTC of Manila where the marriage was registered.
• The respondent claimed that Article 26(2) of the Family Code is inapplicable because the divorce was obtained by mutual agreement, not solely by the alien spouse as required by a literal interpretation of the provision.
• The respondent maintained that the testimony of the petitioner's sister regarding coercion was hearsay and lacked probative value.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija was the proper venue for the petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained by mutual agreement between a Filipino spouse and a foreign spouse is valid and recognizable in the Philippines under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.

• Procedural:
  • The Court upheld the CA's finding that the RTC did not err in taking cognizance of the case. While the OSG raised the issue of improper venue, it failed to file a timely motion to dismiss on that ground, and courts cannot dismiss an action motu proprio due to improper venue.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the divorce decree is recognizable. The Supreme Court ruled that the interpretation of Article 26(2) of the Family Code should not be confined to its literal text. Following the precedent set in Republic v. Manalo, the provision's purpose is to remedy the inequitable situation where a Filipino is tied to a marriage while the foreign spouse is not. This purpose is served whether the divorce was initiated by the foreign spouse, the Filipino spouse, or both jointly. Therefore, the divorce obtained by mutual agreement between Galapon and Park falls within the scope of Article 26(2) and merits recognition in the Philippines.

• Article 26(2) of the Family Code — This provision states that where a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is later obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. In this case, the Court interpreted the phrase "obtained abroad by the alien spouse" broadly to include divorces secured by mutual agreement, focusing on the outcome that the alien spouse is capacitated to remarry.
• Spirit of the Law (Ratio Legis Est Anima Legis) — The Court applied the principle that the intent and spirit of the law must prevail over its literal wording to avoid absurdity and injustice. It reasoned that a strict application of Article 26(2) would defeat its legislative purpose, which is to provide a remedy for the Filipino spouse in a mixed marriage dissolved by a foreign divorce.
• Nationality Principle — Embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, this principle holds that Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, and legal capacity are binding on Filipino citizens, even when abroad. While the CA used this to deny the divorce, the Supreme Court's ruling affirmed that Article 26(2) of the Family Code is a specific exception to the general policy against absolute divorce for Filipinos under this principle.

• "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... Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction."

• Republic v. Manalo — Cited as the controlling precedent that definitively expanded the scope of Article 26(2) of the Family Code. The Court in Galapon explicitly stated its decision was pursuant to the majority ruling in Manalo, which held that the provision applies even if the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce, and by extension, to divorces obtained jointly.
• Republic v. Orbecido III — Referenced for establishing the twin elements required for the application of Article 26(2): (1) a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner, and (2) a valid divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
• Fujiki v. Marinay — Mentioned in the context of the procedural arguments, as it discussed that the recognition of a foreign divorce decree may be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

• Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code — This is the central legal provision at issue, governing the capacity of a Filipino spouse to remarry after a foreign divorce.
• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — This rule provided the procedural basis for Galapon's petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.
• Rule 108 of the Rules of Court — This rule was cited by the OSG in its argument that the proper venue should be the court where the civil registry of marriage is located, as the proceeding is for the correction of a civil registry entry.
• Article 15 of the Civil Code — The nationality principle, which subjects Filipino citizens to Philippine laws on status and family relations regardless of their residence.