G.R. No. 221029 April 24, 2018
Effects of a Divorce Decree Initiated by a Filipino Citizen
Facts: Respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for cancellation of Entry of marriage by virtue of a judgment of divorce Japanese court. The Amended Petition, which captioned as if it is also a petition for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment alleged:
- That petitioner is previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese national
- That a case for divorce was filed by Manalo in Japan and a divorce decree was rendered by the Japanese Court
- That this petition is filed for the purpose of causing the cancellation of entry of the marriage between the petitioner and the said Japanese national
- That petitioner prays, among others, that she be allowed to return and use her maiden surname, MANALO.
The trial court denied the petition for lack of merit. It 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 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 may obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry.
The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied; hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry.
Held: Yes. Based on a clear and plain reading of the paragraph 2 of Artilce 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.
To reiterate, 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. 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.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the fact of divorce must still first be proven. Before a a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
No comments:
Post a Comment