AI-generated
Updated 13th February 2025
Republic vs. Manalo
The Supreme Court ruled that a divorce decree obtained abroad by a Filipino citizen against a foreign spouse can be recognized in the Philippines, allowing the Filipino citizen to remarry, provided the divorce is valid according to the laws of the foreign country. The Court partially affirmed the Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case to the lower court to determine the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

Primary Holding

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen who has obtained a valid divorce decree abroad against a foreign spouse to remarry, provided the divorce is valid under the laws of the foreign country.

Background

Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, married a Japanese national. She later obtained a divorce decree in Japan and filed a petition in the Philippines for the recognition of the divorce and the cancellation of her marriage record. The lower court denied her petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

Facts

  • 1. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo married Yoshino Minoro, a Japanese national, in the Philippines.
  • 2. Manalo obtained a divorce decree in Japan on December 6, 2011.
  • 3. Manalo filed a petition in the Philippines to recognize the divorce decree and cancel the entry of her marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, and to revert to her maiden name.
  • 4. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code, stating that Philippine law does not allow Filipinos to divorce.
  • 5. Manalo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC decision, citing Article 26 of the Family Code.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  • 1. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that Article 26 of the Family Code should only apply when the alien spouse initiates and obtains the divorce.
  • 2. The OSG asserted that since Manalo, a Filipino citizen, initiated the divorce, the divorce decree should not be recognized in the Philippines due to the nationality principle.

Arguments of the Respondents

  • 1. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo argued that Article 26 of the Family Code should apply regardless of who initiated the divorce proceedings.
  • 2. She contended that the divorce decree obtained in Japan should be recognized, allowing her to remarry and cancel the entry of marriage in the civil registry.

Issues

  • 1. Whether a divorce decree obtained abroad by a Filipino citizen against a foreign spouse can be recognized in the Philippines under Article 26 of the Family Code.
  • 2. Whether a Filipino citizen who initiated the divorce proceedings abroad has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

Ruling

  • 1. The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, holding that Article 26 Paragraph 2 of the Family Code applies even if the divorce was initiated by the Filipino spouse. The Court reasoned that the provision aims to prevent the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married while the alien spouse is no longer married.

Doctrines

  • 1. Nationality Principle: 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 (Article 15 of the Civil Code). However, the Court clarified that this principle is not absolute and can have exceptions as provided in Article 26 of the Family Code.
  • 2. Lex Loci Celebrationis: 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 (Article 17 of the Civil Code).
  • 3. Comity: The principle of comity dictates that courts of one jurisdiction should respect the laws and judicial decisions of another jurisdiction.
  • 4. Equal Protection Clause: The limitation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 only to a foreign divorce decree initiated by the alien spouse is unreasonable as it is based on superficial, arbitrary, and whimsical classification.

Precedents Cited

  • 1. Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. (223 Phil. 357 (1985)): This case established that an alien spouse of a Filipino is bound by a divorce decree obtained abroad, even if the divorce was obtained by the Filipino spouse.
  • 2. Republic of the Phils. v. Orbecido III (509 Phil. 108 (2005)): This case extended the application of Article 26 to situations where one spouse becomes a naturalized foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree.
  • 3. Dacasin v. Dacasin (625 Phil. 494 (2010)): This case recognized a foreign divorce decree initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal effects on the issues of child custody.
  • 4. Fujiki v. Marinay (712 Phil. 524 (2013)): This case recognized the personality of a prior spouse to file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his/her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
  • 5. Medina v. Koike (G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016): This case reiterated the need to prove the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

  • 1. Article 15 of the New Civil Code
  • 2. Article 17 of the New Civil Code
  • 3. Article 26 of the Family Code
  • 4. Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
  • 5. Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
  • 6. Article II, Sections 11, 12 and 14 of the 1987 Constitution