Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 136 views

    Art. 26 - Republic v. Manalo

    Uploaded by

    Heather Amoroso
    The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, the Filipino spouse can initiate divorce proceedings abroad instead of the foreign spouse. The Court's aim in interpreting the law was to avoid an absurd situation where the Filipino spouse would still be considered married even though the foreign spouse was no longer married. However, the Court found there was insufficient evidence presented to determine if the divorce Marelyn Manalo obtained in Japan was valid in the Philippines, so it remanded the case back to the lower court to accept evidence on relevant Japanese divorce law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Art. 26 - Republic v. Manalo

    Uploaded by

    Heather Amoroso
    136 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, the Filipino spouse can initiate divorce proceedings abroad instead of the foreign spouse. The Court's aim in interpreting the law was to avoid an absurd situation where the Filipino spouse would still be considered married even though the foreign spouse was no longer married. However, the Court found there was insufficient evidence presented to determine if the divorce Marelyn Manalo obtained in Japan was valid in the Philippines, so it remanded the case back to the lower court to accept evidence on relevant Japanese divorce law.

    Original Description:

    Republic v Manalo

    Original Title

    Art. 26- Republic v. Manalo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, the Filipino spouse can initiate divorce proceedings abroad instead of the foreign spouse. The Court's aim in interpreting the law was to avoid an absurd situation where the Filipino spouse would still be considered married even though the foreign spouse was no longer married. However, the Court found there was insufficient evidence presented to determine if the divorce Marelyn Manalo obtained in Japan was valid in the Philippines, so it remanded the case back to the lower court to accept evidence on relevant Japanese divorce law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    136 views2 pages

    Art. 26 - Republic v. Manalo

    Uploaded by

    Heather Amoroso
    The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, the Filipino spouse can initiate divorce proceedings abroad instead of the foreign spouse. The Court's aim in interpreting the law was to avoid an absurd situation where the Filipino spouse would still be considered married even though the foreign spouse was no longer married. However, the Court found there was insufficient evidence presented to determine if the divorce Marelyn Manalo obtained in Japan was valid in the Philippines, so it remanded the case back to the lower court to accept evidence on relevant Japanese divorce law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Republic v.

    Manalo
    G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018

    Facts:
    Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married to a Japanese national, Yoshino Minoro. Manalo
    filed a case for divorce in Japan and after due proceedings, a divorce decree dated December
    6, 2011, was granted. Manalo now wants to cancel the entry of marriage between her and
    Minoro from the Civil Registry and to be allowed to reuse her maiden surname, Manalo.

    According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code,


    Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce
    is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse incapacitating him or her to remarry,
    the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

    Issues:
    1. Under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, can the Filipino spouse initiate the divorce
    instead of the foreign spouse?
    2. Was the divorce obtained by Marelyn Manalo from Japan valid here in the Philippines?

    Ruling:
    1. Yes. The Court ruled that in interpreting the law, the intent should be taken into consideration.
    According to Justice Alicia Sempio-Dy, a member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, the aim
    of the amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of having the Filipino deemed still married to a
    foreign spouse even though the latter is no longer married to the former. According to the
    Supreme Court, the wording of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code requires only that
    there be a valid divorce obtained abroad and does not discriminate as to who should file the
    divorce, i.e., whether it is the Filipino spouse or the foreign spouse. Also, even if assuming
    arguendo that the provision should be interpreted that the divorce proceeding should be initiated
    by the foreign spouse, the Court will not follow such interpretation since doing so would be
    contrary to the legislative intent of the law.

    In the issue of the application of Article 15 of the Civil Code in this case, the Court ruled that
    even if Manalo should be bound by the nationality principle, blind adherence to it should not be
    allowed if it will cause unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of individuals
    whose rights are equally protected by the law.

    The Court also ruled that Article 26 of the Family Code is in violation of the equal protection
    clause. They said that the limitation provided by Article 26 is based on a superficial, arbitrary,
    and whimsical classification. The violation of the equal protection clause in this case is shown
    by the discrimination against Filipino spouses who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding and
    Filipinos who obtained a divorce decree because the foreign spouse had initiated the divorce
    proceedings. Their circumstances are alike, and making a distinction between them as regards
    to the validity of the divorce decree obtained would give one undue favor and unjustly
    discriminate against the other.

    The Court also said that it is the State’s duty not only to strengthen the solidarity of the Filipino
    family but also to defend, among others, the right of children to special protection from all forms
    of neglect abuse, cruelty, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. The State
    cannot do this if the application of paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is limited to only
    those foreign divorces initiated by the foreign spouse.

    2. The Court cannot determine due to insufficient evidence.

    It has been ruled that foreign laws must be proven. There are two basic types of divorces: (1)
    absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii, which terminates the marriage, and (2) limited divorce
    or a mensa et thoro, which suspends it and leaves the bond in full force.

    The presentation solely of the divorce decree will not suffice to lead the Court to believe that the
    decree is valid or constitutes absolute divorce. The fact of divorce must still be proven.
    Therefore, the Japanese law on divorce must still be proved.

    In this case, the Court remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings and
    reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

    You might also like