Morisono vs. Morisono

Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies to mixed marriages regardless of whether the Filipino spouse or the alien spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding, provided the Filipino spouse petitioning for recognition proves the divorce as a fact and demonstrates its conformity to the foreign national law allowing it.

Luzviminda Dela Cruz Morisono, a Filipino citizen, and Ryoji Morisono, a Japanese national, were married in Quezon City on December 8, 2009. The Philippines does not provide for absolute divorce, but Article 26(2) of the Family Code creates an exception for mixed marriages: where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. The scope of this provision—specifically whether it covers divorces initiated by the Filipino spouse rather than the alien spouse—was the central legal question, recently resolved in Republic vs. Manalo.

Luzviminda Dela Cruz Morisono, a Filipino citizen, married Ryoji Morisono, a Japanese national, in Quezon City on December 8, 2009. After the wedding, the couple lived together in Japan for one year and three months but had no children. Their married life was marked by constant quarreling, primarily due to Ryoji's philandering and the significant age disparity between them.

To end the marriage, Luzviminda and Ryoji submitted a "Divorce by Agreement" before the City Hall of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan. The divorce was approved on January 17, 2012 and duly recorded with the Head of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan on July 1, 2012.

On August 24, 2012, Luzviminda filed a petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 105, seeking to cancel her former husband's surname from her passport and to regain the capacity to remarry. After jurisdictional requirements were complied with, the case was set for hearing. No one appeared to oppose the petition except the government, and Luzviminda was allowed to present her evidence ex parte. Her formal offer of evidence was admitted as proof of compliance with jurisdictional requirements and as part of the testimony of the witnesses, absent any objection from the Public Prosecutor.

The RTC, in its Decision dated July 18, 2016, denied Luzviminda's petition. While acknowledging that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse may be recognized in the Philippines if valid under the alien's national law, the RTC ruled that this principle does not apply when the Filipino spouse herself procured the divorce. Invoking the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 26(2) of the Family Code, the RTC held that because Luzviminda is a Filipino citizen whose national laws do not allow divorce, the foreign divorce decree she obtained in Japan is not binding in the Philippines.

• Applicability of Article 26(2): Luzviminda invoked Article 26(2) of the Family Code, seeking judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree so that she could cancel her former husband's surname in her passport and be able to remarry.

• Recognition of Foreign Divorce Initiated by Filipino Spouse: Whether the RTC correctly denied Luzviminda's petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree she procured with Ryoji.

• Recognition of Foreign Divorce Initiated by Filipino Spouse: No. The RTC's denial—anchored solely on the ground that Luzviminda, as a Filipino citizen, initiated the divorce—was rendered nugatory by Republic vs. Manalo, which extended Article 26(2) of the Family Code to cover divorces initiated by the Filipino spouse. However, the case was remanded because Luzviminda had yet to prove the fact of the divorce and its conformity with prevailing Japanese law.

• Recognition of Foreign Divorce Initiated by Filipino Spouse: Philippine law recognizes four rules on divorce: (1) Philippine courts cannot grant absolute divorce; (2) a divorce obtained abroad by two Filipino citizens does not dissolve the marital bond; (3) a divorce obtained abroad by two aliens may be recognized if consistent with their respective national laws; and (4) in mixed marriages, a Filipino spouse is allowed to remarry if the alien spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad capacitating him or her to remarry. The fourth rule is embodied in Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to the Filipino spouse without trying the case on the merits, the rationale being to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married while the alien spouse is free to remarry. In Republic vs. Orbecido III, the Court held that two elements must concur: (a) a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner, and (b) a valid divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. In Republic vs. Manalo, the Court En Banc extended the application of Article 26(2) to cover mixed marriages where the Filipino citizen initiated the divorce, reasoning that the provision's plain language requires only that a divorce be "validly obtained abroad" and does not distinguish whether the Filipino or the alien spouse initiated the proceeding; that a Filipino who initiates a foreign divorce is in the same circumstance as one who is at the receiving end of an alien-initiated proceeding; and that the provision's corrective purpose—to avoid the absurd situation of the Filipino remaining bound while the alien is free—applies equally in both scenarios. Applying Manalo, the RTC's sole ground for denial—that Luzviminda initiated the divorce—was rendered nugatory. Nevertheless, the Court could not simply grant the petition, because Luzviminda had yet to prove the fact of her "Divorce by Agreement" and its conformity with prevailing Japanese law on divorce—matters the RTC never ruled on and which require examination of factual matters, warranting a remand.

• Article 26(2) of the Family Code — Scope and Application — Article 26(2) provides that where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Pursuant to Republic vs. Manalo, the provision applies regardless of whether the Filipino spouse or the alien spouse initiated the divorce proceeding, because the law's plain language requires only that a divorce be "validly obtained abroad" and does not distinguish based on who initiated it. The Filipino spouse petitioning for recognition must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign national law allowing it.

• Elements for Article 26(2) Application (Republic vs. Orbecido III) — Two elements must concur: (a) there is a valid marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and (b) a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The provision also applies where the parties were both Filipino citizens at the time of marriage but one later acquired foreign citizenship by naturalization, initiated a divorce proceeding, and obtained a favorable decree.

• Purpose of Article 26(2) — The provision is a corrective measure to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce recognized under his or her national law, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. It provides the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have the marriage to the alien spouse considered dissolved and to be capacitated 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." — This passage from the Manalo ruling, quoted and adopted in the decision, articulates the textual basis for extending Article 26(2) to divorces initiated by the Filipino spouse.

• "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 wife." — This passage from Manalo states the equal-protection rationale: that no real and substantial difference exists between a Filipino who initiates a foreign divorce and one who is at the receiving end of an alien-initiated proceeding, and that distinguishing between them is unfair.

• "the party petitioning for the recognition of such foreign divorce decree – presumably the Filipino citizen – must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it." — This states the evidentiary burden that the Filipino spouse must discharge, which was the basis for the remand in this case.

• Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018 — Controlling precedent. The Court En Banc extended the application of Article 26(2) of the Family Code to cover mixed marriages where the Filipino citizen initiated and obtained the foreign divorce. This ruling rendered nugatory the RTC's sole ground for denying Luzviminda's petition.

• Republic vs. Orbecido III, 509 Phil. 108 (2005) — Established the two elements necessary for Article 26(2) to apply: (a) a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner, and (b) a valid divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. Also clarified that Article 26(2) applies where one spouse naturalized as a foreigner and then obtained a divorce.

• Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, 642 Phil. 420 (2010) — Discussed the legislative intent behind Article 26(2) as benefiting the Filipino spouse by clarifying marital status and providing a substantive right to have the marriage to the alien spouse considered dissolved. Cited for the proposition that an action under Article 26(2) is not limited to mere recognition of the decree but can include a declaration that the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry.

• Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723 (2001) — Cited for the requirement that the party petitioning for recognition of a foreign divorce decree must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it—the evidentiary burden that warranted remand in this case.

• Article 26(2), Family Code — Provides that where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Applied as the substantive basis for recognizing the foreign divorce decree, with the Court holding—pursuant to Manalo—that the provision applies regardless of which spouse initiated the divorce.

• Article 15, Civil Code — Provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad. The RTC invoked this provision to deny the petition, but the Supreme Court's application of Manalo rendered that reliance nugatory.

• Article 17, Civil Code — Provides that the forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. Cited in the Court's summary of divorce rules, noting that Philippine policy against absolute divorce cannot be subverted by foreign judgments, with Article 26(2) serving as the direct exception.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred. Caguioa, J., filed a separate concurring opinion but maintained his dissent in Republic vs. Manalo.