Nullada vs. Ito

Under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, a divorce validly obtained abroad that capacitates the alien spouse to remarry entitles the Filipino spouse to capacity to remarry under Philippine law, regardless of whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce, was the respondent, or mutually agreed to the divorce; the provision does not distinguish on the basis of which party commenced the proceeding. The foreign divorce decree and the alien spouse’s national law permitting divorce must, however, be properly alleged and proved as facts under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Marlyn Monton Nullada, a Filipino citizen, married Akira Ito, a Japanese national, on July 29, 1997 in Katsushika-Ku, Tokyo, Japan. Their marriage was reported to the Philippine Embassy and duly registered in Manila. A child, Shin Ito, was born to the union. The relationship deteriorated, and in 2009 the spouses mutually decided to divorce. They secured a divorce decree in Japan, as evidenced by a Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines and an Acceptance Certificate from the Head of Katsushika-ku, Japan. Marlyn thereafter sought judicial recognition of the foreign divorce in the Philippines to cancel the entry of marriage and regain capacity to remarry.

• Marriage and Divorce: Petitioner Marlyn Monton Nullada, a Filipino citizen, married Japanese national Akira Ito on July 29, 1997 in Katsushika-Ku, Tokyo, Japan. The marriage was recorded with the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo and registered with the Local Civil Registry of Manila. They had one child, Shin Ito. Marital relations soured, and they decided to divorce by mutual agreement. In 2009, they obtained a divorce decree in Japan. A Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines certified the divorce date as November 16, 2009. An Acceptance Certificate from the Head of Katsushika-ku, Japan (with English translation) confirmed the notification of divorce by agreement.
• Petition before the RTC: Marlyn filed a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, seeking recognition of the foreign divorce decree, cancellation of the entry of marriage, registration of the divorce decree, and a declaration that she had capacity to remarry under Philippine law. She attached documentary evidence: the Report of Marriage, Divorce Certificate, Acceptance Certificate, and photocopied excerpts of the Civil Code of Japan.
• Proceedings: After publication and service, the OSG entered its appearance but presented no opposing evidence. Akira did not file an answer despite summons by publication. Marlyn testified and identified her documentary evidence; a registration officer from the Local Civil Registrar of Manila also presented original certificates filed with that office.
• RTC Determination: The trial court denied the petition. It relied on Article 17(3) of the New Civil Code as expressing a policy against divorce, and interpreted Article 26(2) of the Family Code as applicable only where the alien spouse alone initiates the divorce. Because Marlyn and Akira mutually agreed to the divorce and jointly filed for it, the RTC held she could not invoke the beneficial provision.

• Construction of Article 26(2): Petitioner argued that Article 26(2) of the Family Code does not restrict its application to cases where the alien spouse unilaterally initiated the divorce. The plain language merely requires a divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse that capacitates him or her to remarry, without any distinction as to who commenced the proceeding. Mutual agreement between the spouses should not bar recognition.
• Legislative Intent: Petitioner maintained that denying recognition would defeat the provision’s purpose—to prevent the absurdity of a Filipino spouse remaining legally married while the alien spouse is freed from the marital bond under his or her national law.

• The OSG appeared for the Republic but did not present evidence or argument beyond deputizing the City Prosecutor. The RTC’s denial effectively articulated the state’s position: under the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the New Civil Code and the prohibition in Article 17(3), a Filipino spouse who actively procured a foreign divorce cannot invoke Article 26(2), as that would allow a domestic legal effect contrary to Philippine public policy against divorce.

• Scope of Article 26(2): Whether Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies only when the alien spouse unilaterally initiates the foreign divorce; conversely, whether a divorce obtained by mutual agreement of the spouses, where the Filipino spouse actively participated, entitles the Filipino spouse to recognition and capacity to remarry.
• Proof of Foreign Law: Whether petitioner proved the relevant Japanese divorce law in accordance with the Rules of Court to support recognition of the foreign divorce decree.

• Scope of Article 26(2): Article 26(2) applies regardless of who initiated the foreign divorce proceeding. The provision’s text requires only a divorce validly obtained abroad capacitating the alien spouse to remarry; it does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner, respondent, or a mutual participant. Relying on Republic v. Manalo, the purpose is to remedy the anomalous situation where the Filipino spouse remains bound to a marriage the alien spouse has already severed. The nationality principle is not absolute; Article 26(2) operates as an exception. The RTC’s denial based solely on Marlyn’s mutual agreement to the divorce was therefore erroneous.
• Proof of Foreign Law: The recognition could not be granted outright. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws; the alien spouse’s national law permitting divorce and the foreign decree must be alleged and proved as facts under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Marlyn submitted only a photocopy of excerpts of the Civil Code of Japan stamped by the library of the Embassy of Japan, which did not constitute sufficient attestation and authentication. Consistent with the remedy in Manalo, the case was remanded to the trial court for reception of proper evidence on Japanese divorce law.

• Manalo Doctrine under Article 26(2), Family Code — Article 26(2) entitles the Filipino spouse to capacity to remarry when a divorce validly obtained abroad capacitates the alien spouse to remarry, irrespective of which party initiated or applied for the foreign divorce. The provision makes no distinction between a Filipino who initiates, mutually agrees to, or is the respondent in the foreign proceeding. It is a corrective measure designed to avoid the anomaly where the Filipino remains legally married while the alien spouse is no longer bound. The nationality principle yields to this statutory exception.
• Proof of Foreign Law in Foreign Divorce Recognition — Foreign divorce decrees and the alien spouse’s national law on divorce must be alleged and proven as facts. Under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the proponent must present an official copy of the foreign law, properly attested by the officer having legal custody, and authenticated by a Philippine foreign service officer. A mere library-stamped photocopy is insufficient. Where the foreign law is not adequately proved, remand for further reception of evidence is the proper remedy rather than outright dismissal.

• "Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of 'a divorce ... validly obtained abroad by the alien 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 Court is bound by the words of the statute; neither can We put words in the mouths of the lawmakers. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure." — Summarizing the ratio of Manalo, this passage establishes the plain-meaning approach that forecloses any judicial distinction on who initiated the divorce.
• "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. 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 clarifies the legislative purpose animating Article 26(2) and justifies equal treatment regardless of who commenced the foreign proceeding.

• Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018 — Served as the controlling precedent. The Court adopted its ruling that Article 26(2) applies even when the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce, and applied the same reasoning to mutual divorce. The case was decided after the petition was filed but before this resolution.
• Dacasin v. Dacasin, 625 Phil. 494 (2010); Van Dorn v. Judge Romillo, Jr., 223 Phil. 357 (1985) — Cited in Manalo as earlier cases where the Court recognized the collateral legal effects of a foreign divorce obtained by the Filipino spouse on child custody and property relations, laying groundwork for full recognition of marital dissolution.
• Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524 (2013); Medina v. Koike, 791 Phil. 645 (2016) — Cases where the effects of foreign divorce on marital status were implicitly acknowledged, supporting a consistent jurisprudential trend toward full recognition.
• Ando v. Department of Foreign Affairs, 742 Phil. 37 (2014) — Invoked for the rule that Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and divorce decrees; they must be alleged and proved.
• ATCI Overseas Corp., et al. v. Echin, 647 Phil. 43 (2010) — Reiterated the specific requirements under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 for proving foreign public documents and laws, which petitioner failed to meet.

• Article 26, Family Code — Paragraph 2 was the dispositive provision. The Court held that its plain language requires only that the alien spouse obtained a divorce valid abroad and is capacitated to remarry; no distinction is drawn as to which party commenced the proceeding. It operates as an exception to the general rule of lex nationalii.
• Article 17, third paragraph, New Civil Code — Invoked by the RTC to deny recognition on public policy grounds. The Supreme Court treated Article 26(2) as a legislative qualification to this prohibition in the specific context of mixed marriages.
• Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Prescribe the manner of proving official records of foreign countries. Section 24 requires attestation and authentication of foreign public documents; Section 25 specifies the content of the attestation. Petitioner’s photocopy of Japanese law excerpts did not comply, necessitating remand.

Peralta (Chairperson), Leonen, Hernando, and Carandang (Designated Member), JJ., concurred.