G.R. No. 226013, July 2, 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Luzviminda was married to private respondent Ryoji Morisono (Ryoji) in Quezon City on December 8, 2009. She and Ryoji submitted a “Divorce by Agreement” before the City Hall of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan, which was eventually approved on January 17, 2012 and duly recorded with the Head of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan on July 1, 2012. She filed a petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree obtained by her and Ryoji before the RTC. The RTC denied Luzviminda’s petition. It held that while a divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse may be recognized in the Philippines — provided that such decree is valid according to the national law of the alien — the same does not find application when it was the Filipino spouse, i.e., petitioner, who procured the same. The Supreme Court held that pursuant to Manalo, foreign divorce decrees obtained to nullify marriages between a Filipino and an alien citizen may already be recognized in this jurisdiction, regardless of who between the spouses initiated the divorce; provided, of course, that 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. However, as Luzviminda has yet to prove the fact of her “Divorce by Agreement” obtained in Nagoya City, Japan and its conformity with prevailing Japanese laws on divorce the case was remanded to the trial court.
FACTS:
Luzviminda was married to private respondent Ryoji Morisono (Ryoji) in Quezon City on December 8, 2009. Thereafter, they lived together in Japan for one (1) year and three (3) months but were not blessed with a child. During their married life, they would constantly quarrel mainly due to Ryoji’s philandering ways, in addition to the fact that he was much older than Luzviminda. As such, she and Ryoji submitted a “Divorce by Agreement” before the City Hall of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan, which was eventually approved on January 17, 2012 and duly recorded with the Head of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan on July 1, 2012. In view of the foregoing, she filed a petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree obtained by her and Ryoji before the RTC so that she could cancel the surname of her former husband in her passport and for her to be able to marry again. The RTC denied Luzviminda’s petition. It held that while a divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse may be recognized in the Philippines — provided that such decree is valid according to the national law of the alien — the same does not find application when it was the Filipino spouse, i.e., petitioner, who procured the same.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC correctly denied Luzviminda’s petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree she procured with Ryoji – NO. Case was remanded back to the trial court for petitioner to have an opportunity to prove the foreign law.
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
The rules on divorce prevailing in this jurisdiction can be summed up as follows: first, Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce, and hence, the courts cannot grant the same; second, consistent with Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code, the marital bond between two (2) Filipino citizens cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad; third, an absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws; and fourth, in mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
According to Republic v. Orbecido III, the following elements must concur in order for Article 26 (2) to apply, namely: (a) that there is a valid marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and (b) that a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. In the same case, the Court also initially clarified that Article 26 (2) applies not only to cases where a foreigner was the one who procured a divorce of his/her marriage to a Filipino spouse, but also to instances where, at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them acquired foreign citizenship by naturalization, initiated a divorce proceeding, and obtained a favorable decree.
Pursuant to Republic v. Manalo, foreign divorce decrees obtained to nullify marriages between a Filipino and an alien citizen may already be recognized in this jurisdiction, regardless of who between the spouses initiated the divorce; provided, of course, that 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.
In this case, a plain reading of the RTC ruling shows that the denial of Luzviminda’s petition to have her foreign divorce decree recognized in this jurisdiction was anchored on the sole ground that she admittedly initiated the divorce proceedings which she, as a Filipino citizen, was not allowed to do. In light of the doctrine laid down in Manalo, such ground relied upon by the RTC had been rendered nugatory. However, the Court cannot just order the grant of Luzviminda’s petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree, as Luzviminda has yet to prove the fact of her “Divorce by Agreement” obtained in Nagoya City, Japan and its conformity with prevailing Japanese laws on divorce. Notably, the RTC did not rule on such issues. Since these are questions which require an examination of various factual matters, a remand to the court a quo is warranted.