G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Respondent Marelyn Manalo filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese court. However, the trial court denied the petition and ruled that the divorce obtained by Manalo should not be recognized because Article 15 of the New Civil Code does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce. On appeal, the CA overturned the decision. The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 26, par. 2 of the FC allows the recognition of a divorce decree from proceedings filed by a Filipino abroad based on (1) clear and plain reading of the law; (2) the Court’s interpretation of the intent of the law; and (3) the provision as an exception to the nationality rule in Art. 15 of the CC. Thus, the Court held that Article 26, par. 2 should not make a distinction between a divorce initiated by the alien spouse and a divorce initiated by the Filipino spouse. However, the respondent’s case is remanded for further proceedings as proof on Japanese law on divorce was not submitted.
FACTS:
Respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese court. She was married in the Philippines to a Japanese national named YOSHINO MINORO and later on a case for divorce was filed by petitioner in Japan and after due proceedings, a divorce decree dated December 6, 2011 was rendered by the Japanese Court. In ruling that the divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be recognized, the trial court opined that, based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code, the Philippine law “does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce, whether they are in the country or living abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or in another country” and that unless Filipinos “are naturalized as citizens of another country, Philippine laws shall have control over issues related to Filipinos’ family rights and duties, together with the determination of their condition and legal capacity to enter into contracts and civil relations, including marriages.” On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree they obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry. The appellate court ruled that the meaning of the law should be based on the intent of the lawmakers and in view of the legislative intent behind Article 26, it would be the height of injustice to consider Manalo as still married to the Japanese national, who, in turn, is no longer married to her. For the appellate court, the fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce case is inconsequential. The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied; hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a foreign divorce decree obtained by the Filipino spouse against an alien spouse is binding in the PH – YES, but remanded for the trial court for reception of proof of the foreign law
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The Court stated in this case that based on a clear and plain reading of the Article 26, 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.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the word “obtained” should be interpreted to mean that the divorce proceeding must be actually initiated by the alien spouse, still, the Court will not follow the letter of the statute when to do so would depart from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. 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. 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. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instances, it is extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter’s national law.
The Court further held that the nationality principle found under Article 15 of the Civil Code, is not an absolute and unbending rule. In fact, the mere existence of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is a testament that the State may provide for an exception thereto. Moreover, blind adherence to the nationality principle must be disallowed if it would cause unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of individuals whose rights are equally protected by law. The courts have the duty to enforce the laws of divorce as written by the Legislature only if they are constitutional. A Filipino who is married to another Filipino is not similarly situated with a Filipino who is married to a foreign citizen. There are real, material and substantial differences between them. Ergo, they should not be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and liabilities imposed. On the contrary, there is no real and substantial difference between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceedings and a Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of his or her alien spouse. In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both are considered as Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations in an alien land.
Based on the above-mentioned, the Court ruled that Article 26, par. 2 of the Family Code allows the recognition of a divorce decree from proceedings filed by a Filipino abroad. However, the case is remanded for further proceedings as proof on Japanese law on divorce was not submitted.