WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED.

The
Decision dated 15 October 2012 of the Regional Trial
Today is Friday, August 27, 2021home Court of Dagupan City, First Judicial Region, Branch
43, in SPEC. PROC. NO. 2012-0005 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.
ConstitutionStatutesExecutive IssuancesJudicial
IssuancesOther IssuancesJurisprudenceInternational Let a copy of this Decision be served on the Local
Legal ResourcesAUSL Exclusive Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila.

G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018, The facts are undisputed.

♦ Decision, Peralta, [J] On January 10, 2012, respondent Marelyn Tanedo

Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for cancellation of
♦ Dissent Opinion, Caguioa, [J] Entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan ,
Metro Manila, by virtueof a judgment of divorce
♦ Concurring Opinion, Leonen, [J]
Japanese court.

Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and in

EN BANC substance, Branch 43 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Dagupan City set the case for initial hearing
on April 25, 2012. The petition and the notice of
April 24, 2018 initial hearing were published once a week for three
consecutive weeks in newspaper of general
circulation. During the initial hearing, counsel for
Manalo marked the documentary evidence
G.R. No. 221029
(consisting of the trial courts Order dated January
25, 2012, affidavit of publication, and issues of the
Northern Journal dated February 21-27, 2012,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner February 28 - March 5, 2012, and March 6-12, 2012)
for purposes of compliance with the jurisdictional
vs
requirements.
MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, Respondent
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its
appearance for petitioner Republic of the Philippines
authorizing the Office of the City Prosecutor of
RESOLUTION
Dagupan to appear on its behalf. Likewise, a
Manifestation and Motion was filed questioning the
title and/or caption of the petition considering that
PERALTA, J.: based on the allegations therein, the proper action
should be a petition for recognition and enforcement
of a foreign judgment.
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
As a result, Manalo moved to admit an Amended
of the Rules of Court (Rules) seeks to reverse and set
Petition, which the court granted. The Amended
aside the September 18, 2014 Decision1 and October
Petition, which captioned that if it is also a petition
12, 2015 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment
CA-G.R. CV No. 100076. The dispositive portion of
alleged:
the Decision states:
 3. Issues of the Northern Journal dated February 21-
27, 2012, February 28 - March 5, 2012, and March 6-
2. That petitioner is previously married in the
12, 2012;
Philippines to a Japanese national named YOSHINO
MINORO as shown by their Marriage Contract xxx;

3. That recently, a case for divorce was filed by 4. Certificate of Marriage between Manalo and her
herein [petitioner] in Japan and after die former Japanese husband;
proceedings, a divorce decree dated December 6,
5. Divorce Decree of Japanese court;
2011 was rendered by the Japanese Court x x x;
6. Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine
4. That at present, by virtue of the said divorce
Consulate General in Osaka, Japan of the Notification
decree, petitioner and her divorce Japanese husband
of Divorce; and
are no longer living together and in fact, petitioner
and her daughter are living separately from said 7. Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce.5
Japanese former husband;
The OSG did not present any controverting evidence
5. That there is an imperative need to have the entry to rebut the allegations of Manalo.
of marriage in Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro
Manila cancelled, where the petitioner and the On October 15, 2012, the trial court denied the
former Japanese husband's marriage was previously petition for lack of merit. In ruling that the divorce
registered, in order that it would not appear obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be
anymore that petitioner is still married to the said recognized, it opined that, based on Article 15 of the
Japanese national who is no longer her husband or is New Civil Code, the Philippine law "does not afford
no longer married to her, she shall not be bothered Filipinos the right to file for a divorce whether they
and disturbed by aid entry of marriage; are in the country or living abroad, if they are
married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they
6. That this petition is filed principally for the celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or in
purpose of causing the cancellation of entry of the another country" and that unless Filipinos "are
marriage between the petitioner and the said naturalized as citizens of another country, Philippine
Japanese national, pursuant to Rule 108 of the laws shall have control over issues related to
Revised Rules of Court, which marriage was already Filipinos' family rights and duties, together with the
dissolved by virtue of the aforesaid divorce decree; determination of their condition and legal capacity
[and] to enter into contracts and civil relations, inclusing
marriages."6
7. That petitioner prays, among others, that together
with the cancellation of the said entry of her On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It
marriage, that she be allowed to return and use her held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the
maiden surname, MANALO.4 Philippines (Family Code) is applicable even if it was
Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese
Manalo was allowed to testify in advance as she was
husband because the decree may obtained makes
scheduled to leave for Japan for her employment.
the latter no longer married to the former,
Among the documents that were offered and
capacitating him to remarry. Conformably with
admitted were:
Navarro, et al. V. Exec. Secretary Ermita, et al.7
1. Court Order dated January 25, 2012, finding the ruling that the meaning of the law should be based
petition and its attachments to be sufficient in form on the intent of the lawmakers and in view of the
and in substance; legislative intent behind Article 26, it would be
height of injustice to consider Manalo as still married
2. Affidavit of Publication;
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. Cited as similar to this case was Van (Committee),but it was presented and approved at a
Dorn v. Judge Romilo, Jr.8 where the mariage Cabinet meeting after Pres. Aquino signed E.O. No.
between a foreigner an a Filipino was dissolved filed 209.19 As modified, Article 26 now states:
abroad by the latter.

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the

The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in
was denied; hence, this petition. the where country where they were solemnized, and
valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country,
We deny the petition and partially affirm the CA
except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5)
decision.
and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
Divorce, the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a
Where a marriage between Filipino citizen and a
cause arising after the marriage, are of two types: (1)
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii, which
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
terminates the marriage, and (2) limited divorce or a
spouse capacitating him her to remarry under
mensa et thoro, which suspends it and leaves the
Philippine law.
bond in full force.9 In this jurisdiction, the following
rules exist: Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on
Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign
1. Philippine law does not provide for absolute
divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without
divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it.10
undergoing trial to determine the validity of the
2. Consistent with Articles 1511 and 1712 of the New dissolution of the marriage.20 It authorizes our
Civil Code, the marital bond between two Filipinos courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce
cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not
obtained abroad.13 allow divorce.21 Philippine courts cannot try the
case on the merits because it is tantamount to trying
3. An absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple, a divorce case.22 Under the principles of comity,
who both aliens, may be recognized in the our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained
Philippines, provided it is consistent with their by the spouse of foreign nationality, but the legal
respective national laws.14 effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care and support
of the children or property relations of the spouses,
must still be determined by our courts.23
4. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a
According to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of
foreigner, the former is allowed to contract a
the Committee, the idea of the amendment is to
subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is
avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as still being
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
married to his or her alien spouse, although the
capacitating him or her to remarry.15
latter is no longer married to the former because he
or she had obtained a divorce abroad that is
recognized by his or national law.24 The aim was
On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino that it would solved the problem of many Filipino
signed into law Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, women who, under the New Civil Code, are still
otherwise known as the Family Code of the considered married to their alien husbands even
Philippines, which took effect on August 3, 1988.16 after the latter have already validly divorced them
Shortly thereafter , E.O. No. 227 was issued on July under their (the husbands') national laws and
17, 1987.17 Aside from amending Articles 36 and 39 perhaps have already married again.25
of the Family Code, a second paragraph was added
to Article 26.18 This provision was originally deleted In 2005, this Court concluded that Paragraph 2 of
by the Civil Code Revision Committee Article 26 applies to a case where, at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, the parties were Filipino obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the
citizens, but later on, one of them acquired foreign latter to remarry.
citizenship by naturalization, initiated a divorce
Now, the Court is tasked to resolve whether, under
proceeding, and obtained a favorable decree. We
the same provision, a Filipino citizen has the capacity
held in Republic of the Phils. v. Orbecido III:26
to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a
The jurisprudential answer lies latent in the 1998 divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable
case of Quita v. Court of Appeals. In Quita, the judgment against his or her alien spouse who is
parties were, as in this case, Filipino citizens when capacitated to remarry. Specifically, Manalo pleads
they got married. The wife became naturalized for the recognition of enforcement of the divorced
American citizen n 1954 and obtained a divorce in decree rendered by the Japanese court and for the
the same year. The court therein hinted, by the way cancellation of the entry of marriage in the local civil
of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by his registry " in order that it would not appear anymore
naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married that she is still married to the said Japanese national
under Philippine law and can thus remarry. who is no longer her husband or is no longer married
to her; [and], in the event that [she] decides to be
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent
remarried, she shall not be bothered and disturbed
and applying the rule of reason, we hold that
by said entry of marriage," and to use her maiden
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to
surname.
include cases involving parties who, at the time of
the celebration of the marriage were Filipino We rule in the affirmative.
citizens, but later on, one of them becomes
Both Dacasin v. Dacasin28 and Van Dorn29 already
naturalized as foreign citizen and obtains divorce
recognized a foreign divorce decree that was
decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be
initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and
allowed to remarry as if the other party were
extended its legal effects on the issues of child
foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the
custody and property relation, respectively.
marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction
absurdity and injustice. x x x In Dacasin, post-divorce, the former spouses
executed an Agreement for the joint custody of their
minor daughter. Later on, the husband who is a US
If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent to citizen, sued his Filipino wife enforce the Agreement,
avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse alleging that it was only the latter who exercised sole
remains married to the alien spouse who after custody of their child. The trial court dismissed the
obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the action for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground, among
Filipino spouse, then the instant case must be others, that the divorce decree is binding following
deemed as coming within the contemplation of the "nationality rule" prevailing in this jurisdiction.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26. The husband moved to reconsider, arguing that the
divorce decree obtained by his former wife is void,
In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements
but it was denied. In ruling that the trial court has
for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as
jurisdiction to entertain the suit bu not to enforce
follows:
the Agreement, which is void, this Court said:
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated
Nor can petitioner rely on the divorce decree's
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
alleged invalidity - not because the Illinois court
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien lacked jurisdiction or that the divorced decree
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. violated Illinois law, but because the divorce was
obtained by his Filipino spouse - to support the
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the Agreement's enforceability . The argument that
parties at the time of the celebration of marriage, foreigners in this jurisdiction are not bound by
but their citizenship at the time valid divorced foreign divorce decrees is hardly novel. Van Dron v.
Romillo settled the matter by holding that an alien private respondent from the marriage from
spouse of a Filipino is bound by a divorce decree standards of American law, under which divorce
obtained abroad. There, we dismissed the alien dissolves the marriage. As stated by the Federal
divorcee's Philippine suit for accounting of alleged Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs.
post-divorce conjugal property and rejected his Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794,799:
submission that the foreign divorce (obtained by the
Filipino spouse) is not valid in this jurisdiction x x x.30
"The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from
Van Dorn was decided before the Family Code took
the bond of matrimony by a court of competent
into effect. There, a complaint was filed by the ex-
jurisdiction are to change the existing status or
husband , who is a US citizen, against his Filipino wife
domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free
to render an accounting of a business that was
them both from the bond. The marriage tie, when
alleged to be a conjugal property and to be declared
thus severed as stone party, ceases to bind either. A
with right to manage the same. Van Dorn moved to
husband without a wife, or a wife without a
dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of
husband, is unknown to the law. When the law
action was barred by previous judgment in the
provides in the nature of penalty, that the guilty
divorce proceedings that she initiated, but the trial
party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the
court denied the motion. On his part, her ex-
other, is still absolutely feed from the bond of the
husband averred that the divorce decree issued by
former marriage."
the Nevada court could not prevail over the
prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared Thus, pursuant to his national law, private
national policy; that the acts and declaration of a respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner.
foreign court cannot, especially if the same is He would have no standing to sue in the case below
contrary to public policy, divest Philippine courts of as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control
jurisdiction to entertain matters within its over conjugal assets. As he is estopped by his own
jurisdiction . In dismissing the case filed by the alien representation before said court from asserting his
spouse, the Court discussed the effect of the foreign right over the alleged conjugal property.
divorce on the parties and their conjugal property in
the Philippines. Thus: To maintain, as private respondent does, that under
our laws, petitioner has to be considered still
married to private respondent and still subject to a
wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the
There can be no question as to the validity of that
Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be
Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United
obliged to live together with, observe respect and
States. The decree is binding on private respondent
fidelity, and render support to private respondent.
as an American citizen. For instance, private
The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs
respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in
with possible rights to conjugal property. She should
any State of the Union. What he is contending in this
not be discriminated against in her own country if
case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in
the ends of justice are to be served.31
this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law
and public policy. In addition, the fact that a validity obtained foreign
divorce initiated by the Filipino spouse can be
recognized and given legal effects in the Philippines
Is it true that owing to the nationality principle is implied from Our rulings in Fujiki v. Marinay, et
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only al.32 and Medina v. Koike.33
Philippine nationals are covered by the policy and
In Fujiki, the Filipino wife, with the help of her
morality. However, aliens may obtain divorce
husband, who is a Japanese national, was able to
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines,
obtain a judgment from Japan's family court. Which
provided they are valid according to their national
declared the marriage between her and her second
law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released
husband, who is a Japanese national, void on the petition before the RTC for judicial recognition of
ground of bigamy. In resolving the issue of whether a foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to
husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a remarry pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 26. The
petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying RTC denied the petition on the ground that the
the subsequent marriage between his her spouse foreign divorce decree and the national law of the
and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy, We alien spouse recognizing his capacity to obtain a
ruled: divorce must be proven in accordance with Sections
24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence. This Court agreed and ruled that,
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to consistent with Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, et al.35 and
recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment Garcia v. Recio,36 the divorce decree and the
nullifying the marriage between Marinay and national law of the alien spouse must be proven.
Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the Instead of dismissing the case, We referred it to the
judgment concerns his civil status as married to CA for appropriate action including the reception of
Marinay. For the same reason he has the personality evidence to determine and resolve the pertinent
to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry factual issues.
of marriage between Marinay and Maekara in the
There is no compelling reason to deviate from the
civil registry on the basis of the decree of the
above-mentioned rulings. When this Court
Japanese Family Court.
recognized a foreign divorce decree that was
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and
personal and material interest in maintaining the extended its legal effects on the issues of child
integrity of the marriage he contracted and the custody and property relation, it should not stop
property relations arising from it. There is also no short in a likewise acknowledging that one of the
doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an usual and necessary consequences of absolute
entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil registry, divorce is the right to remarry. Indeed, there is no
which compromises the public record of his longer a mutual obligation to live together and
marriage. The interest derives from the substantive observe fidelity. When the marriage tie is severed
right of the spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, and ceased to exist, the civil status and the domestic
in limited instances) his most intimate human relation of the former spouses change as both of
relation, but also to protect his property interests them are freed from the marital bond.
that arise by operation of law the moment he
The dissent is of the view that, under the nationality
contracts marriage. These property interests in
principle, Manalo's personal status is subject to
marriage included the right to be supported "in
Philippine law, which prohibits absolute divorce.
keeping with the financial capacity of the family" and
Hence, the divorce decree which she obtained under
preserving the property regime of the marriage.
Japanese law cannot be given effect, as she is,
without dispute, a national not of Japan, bit of the
Philippines. It is said that that a contrary ruling will
Property rights are already substantive rights subvert not only the intention of the framers of the
protected by the Constitution, but a spouse's right in law, but also that of the Filipino peopl, as expressed
a marriage extends further to relational rights in the Constitution. The Court is, therefore, bound to
recognized under Title III ("Rights and Obligations respect the prohibition until the legislature deems it
between Husband and Wife") of the Family Code. x x fit to lift the same.
x34
We beg to differ.

Paragraph 2 of Artilce 26 speaksof "a divorce x x x

On the other hand, in Medina, the Filipino wife and validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
her Japanese husband jointly filed for divorce, which capacitating him or her to remarry." Based on a clear
was granted.1âwphi1 Subsequently, she filed a
and plain reading of the provision, it only requires measure is free to marry under the laws of his or her
that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The countr.42 Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the
letter of the law does not demand that the alien foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable
spouse should be the one who initiated the decree dissolving the marriage bond and
proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry will
It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is have the same result: the Filipino spouse will
the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino
divorce proceeding. The Court is bound by the words who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the
of the statute; neither can We put words in the same place and in like circumstances as a Filipino
mouth of lawmakers.37 The legislature is presumed who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated
to know the meaning of the words to have used proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should
words advisely and to have expressed its intent by not make a distinction. In both instance, it is
the use of such words as are found in the statute. extended as a means to recognize the residual effect
Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of the foreign divorce decree on a Filipinos whose
if a statute there should be departure."38 marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by
operations of their alien spouses are severed by
operation on the latter's national law.
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 Conveniently invoking the nationality principle is
alien spouse, still, the Court will not follow the letter erroneous. Such principle, found under Article 15 of
of the statute when to do so would depart from the the City Code, is not an absolute and unbending rule.
true intent of the legislature or would otherwise In fact, the mer e existence of Paragraph 2 of Article
yield conclusions inconsistent with the general 26 is a testament that the State may provide for an
purpose of the act.39 Law have ends to achieve, and exception thereto. Moreover, blind adherence to the
statutes should be so construed as not to defeat but nationality principle must be disallowed if it would
to carry out such ends and purposes.40 As held in cause unjust discrimination and oppression to
League of Cities of the Phils. et al. v. COMELEC et. certain classes of individuals whose rights are equally
al.:41 protected by law. The courts have the duty to
enforce the laws of divorce as written by the
Legislature only if they are constitutional.43
The legislative intent is not at all times accurately
reflected in the manner in which the resulting law is
couched. Thus, applying a verba legis or strictly While the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in
literal interpretation of a statute may render it providing for a valid classification and that its
meaningless and lead to inconvience, an absurd decision is accorded recognition and respect by the
situation or injustice. To obviate this aberration, and court of justice, such classification may be subjected
bearing in mind the principle that the intent or the to judicial review.44 The deference stops where the
spirit of the law is the law itself, resort should be to classification violates a fundamental right, or
the rule that the spirit of the law control its letter. prejudices persons accorded special protection by
the Constitution.45 When these violations arise, this
Court must discharge its primary role as the
To reiterate, the purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 vanguard of constitutional guaranties, and require a
is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino stricter and more exacting adherence to
spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, constitutional limitations.46 If a legislative
after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the classification impermissibly interferes with the
country where it was rendered, is no longer married exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the
to the Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class strict judicial
scrutiny is required since it is presumed procedures, all too unfamiliar, that a Filipino national
unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the who is married to an alien spouse has to contend
government to prove that the classification is with. More importantly, while a divorce decree
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and obtained abroad by a Filipino against another Filipino
that it is the least restrictive means to protect such is null and void, a divorce decree obtained by an
interest.47 alien against his her Filipino spouse is recognized if
made in accordance with the national law of the
foreigner.55
"Fundamental rights" whose infringement leads to
strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause are
those basic liberties explicitly or implicitly On the contrary, there is no real and substantial
guaranteed in the Constitution.48 It includes the difference between a Filipino who initiated a foreign
right to free speech, political expression, press, divorce proceedings a Filipino who obtained a
assembly, and forth, the right to travel, and the right divorce decree upon the instance of his or her alien
to vote.49 On the other hand, what constitutes spouse . In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign
compelling state interest is measured by the scale laws, both are considered as Filipinos who have the
rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution and same rights and obligations in a alien land. The
calibrated by history.50 It is akin to the paramount circumstances surrounding them are alike. Were it
interest of the state for which some individual not for Paragraph 2 of Article 26, both are still
liberties must give way, such as the promotion of married to their foreigner spouses who are no longer
public interest, public safety or the general their wives/husbands. Hence, to make a distinction
welfare.51 It essentially involves a public right or between them based merely on the superficial
interest that, because of its primacy, overrides difference of whether they initiated the divorce
individual rights, and allows the former to take proceedings or not is utterly unfair. Indeed, the
precedence over the latter.52 treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly
discriminate against the other.

Although the Family Code was not enacted by the

Congress, the same principle applies with respect to Further, the differentiation in Paragraph 2 Article 26
the acts of the President which have the force and is arbitrary. There is inequality in treatment because
effect of law unless declared otherwise by the court. a foreign divorce decree that was initiated and
In this case, We find that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 obtained by a Filipino citizen against his or her alien
violates one of the essential requisites53 of the spouse would not be recognized even if based on
equal protection clause.54 Particularly, the limitation grounds similar to Articles 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the
of the provision only to a foreign divorce decree Family Code.56 In filing for divorce based on these
initiated by the alien spouse is unreasonable as it is grounds, the Filipino spouse cannot be accused of
based on superficial, arbitrary, and whimsical invoking foreign law at whim, tantamount to
classification. insisting that he or she should be governed with
whatever law he or she chooses. The dissent's
comment that Manalo should be "reminded that all
A Filipino who is married to another Filipino is not is not lost, for she may still pray for the severance of
similarly situated with a Filipino who is married to a her martial ties before the RTC in accordance with
foreign citizen. There are real, material and the mechanism now existing under the Family Code"
substantial differences between them. Ergo, they is anything but comforting. For the guidance of the
should not be treated alike, both as to rights bench and the bar, it would have been better if the
conferred and liabilities imposed. Without a doubt, dissent discussed in detail what these "mechanism"
there are political, economic cultural, and religious are and how they specifically apply in Manalo's case
dissimilarities as well as varying legal systems and as well as those who are similarly situated. If the
dissent refers to a petition for declaration of nullity Motive for entering into a marriage are varied and
or annulment of marriage, the reality is that there is complex. The State does not and cannot dictated on
no assurance that our courts will automatically grant the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. Any
the same. Besides, such proceeding is duplicitous, attempt to regulate their lifestyle would go into the
costly, and protracted. All to the prejudice of our realm of their right to privacy and would raise
kababayan. serious constitutional questions. The right marital
privacy allows married couples to structure their
marriages in almost any way they see it fit, to live
It is argued that the Court's liberal interpretation of together or live apart, to have children or no
Paragraph 2 of Artilce 26 encourages Filipinos to children, to love one another or not, and so on. Thus,
marry foreigners, opening the floodgate to the marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or
indiscriminate practice of Filipinos marrying foreign otherwise, such as convenience, companionship,
nationals or initiating divorce proceedings against money, status, and title, provided that they comply
their alien spouses. with all the legal requisites, are equally valid. Love,
though the ideal consideration in a marriage
contract, is not the only valid cause for marriage.
Other considerations, not precluded by law, may
The supposition is speculative and unfounded.
validly support a marriage.63

First, the dissent falls into a hasty generalization as

The 1987 Constitution expresses that marriage, as an
no data whatsoever was sworn to support what he
inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
intends to prove. Second, We adhere to the
family and shall be protected by the State.64
presumption of good faith in this jurisdiction. Under
Nevertheless, it was not meant to be a general
the rules on evidence, it is disputable presumed (i.e.,
prohibition on divorce because Commissioner Jose
satisfactory if uncontradicted and overcome by other
Luis Martin C. Gascon, in response to a question by
evidence) that a person is innocent of crime or
Father Joaquin G. Bernas during the deliberations of
wrong,57 that a person takes ordinary care of his
the 1986 Constitutional Commission, was categorical
concerns,59 that acquiescence resulted from a belief
about this point.65 Their exchange reveal as follows:
that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the
law and fact, 60 that a man and woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage,61 and that the law has MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that
been obeyed.62 It is whimsical to easily attribute any Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
illegal, irregular or immoral conduct on the part of a
Filipino just because he or she opted to marry a
foreigner instead of a fellow Filipino. It is presumed THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco).
that interracial unions are entered into out of Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
genuine love and affection, rather than prompted by
pure lust or profit. Third, We take judicial notice of
the fact that Filipinos are relatively more forbearing FR. BERNAS. Just one question, and I am not sure if it
and conservative in nature and that they are more has been categorically answered. I refer specifically
often the victims or losing end of mixed marriages. to the proposal of Commissioner Gascon. Is this be
And Fourth, it is not for Us to prejudge the motive understood as a prohibition of a general law on
behind Filipino's decision to marry an alien national. divorce? His intention is to make this a prohibition so
In one case, it was said: that the legislature cannot pass a divorce law.
MR. GASCON. Mr. Presding Officer, that was not Through the years, there has been constant clamor
primarily my intention. My intention was primarily to from various sectors of the Philippine society to re-
encourage the social institution of marriage, but not institute absolute divorce. As a matte of fcat, in the
necessarily discourage divorce. But now that the currnet 17th Congress, House Bill (H.B.) Nos. 11671
mentioned the issue of divorce, my personal opinion 106272 238073 and 602774 were filed in the House
is to discourage it. Mr. Presiding Officer. of representatives. In substitution of these bills, H.B.
No. 7303 entitled "An Act Instituting Absolute
Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage in the
FR. BERNAS. No my question is more categorical. Philippines" or the Absolute Divorce Act of 2018 was
Does this carry the meaning of prohibiting a divorce submitted by the House Committee on Population
law?

And Family Relations of February 8, 2018. It was

MR. GASCON. No Mr. Presiding Officer. approved on March 19, 2018 on Third Reading - with
134 in favor, 57 against, and 2 absentations. Under
the bill, the grounds for a judicial decree of absolute
divorce are as follows:
FR. BERNAS. Thank you.66

1. The grounds for legal separation under Article 55

Notably, a law on absolute divorce is not new in our
of the Family Code, modified or amended, as
country. Effectivity March 11, 1917, Philippine courts
follows:
could grant an absolute divorce in the grounds of
adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on
the part of the husband by virtue of Act No. 2710 of
the Philippine Legislature.67 On March 25, 1943, a. Physical violence or grossly abusive conduct
pursuant to the authority conferred upon him by the directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a
Commander-in-Chief fo the Imperial Japanese Forces child of the petitioner;
in the Philippines and with the approval of the latter,
the Chairman of the Philippine Executive
Commission promulgated an E.O. No. 141 ("New b. Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the
Divorce Law"), which repealed Act No. 2710 and petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
provided eleven ground for absolute divorce, such as
intentional or unjustified desertion continuously for
at least one year prior to the filing of the action, c. Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the
slander by deed or gross insult by one spouse against petitioner, a common child, or a child of a petitioner,
the other to such an extent as to make further living to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such
together impracticable, and a spouse's incurable corruption or inducement;
insanity.68 When the Philippines was liberated and
the Commonwealth Government was restored, it
ceased to have force and effect and Act No. 2710
d. Final judgment sentencing the respondent to
again prevailed.69 From August 30, 1950, upon the
imprisonment of more than six (6) years, even if
effectivity of Republic Act No. 836 or the New Civil
pardoned;
Code, an absolute divorce obatined by Filipino
citizens, whether here or abroad, is no longer
recognized.70
e. Drug addiction or habitual alchoholism ro chronic
gambling of respondent;
f. Homosexuality of the respondent; b. either party was of unsound mind, unless such
party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with
the other as husband and wife;
g. Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent
bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or
abroad; c. The consent of either party was obtained by fraud,
unless such party afterwards with full knowledge of
the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited
h. Marital infidelity or perversion or having a child with the other husband and wife;
with another person other than one's spouse during
the marriage, except when upon the mutual
agreement of the spouses, a child is born to them by d. consent of either party was obtained by force,
in vitro or a similar procedure or when the wife intimidation or undue influence, unless the same
bears a child after being a victim of rape; having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter
freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

i. attempt by the respondent against the life of the

petitioner, a common child or a child of a petitioner; e. Either party was physically incapable of
and consummating the marriage with the other and such
incapacity continues or appears to be incurable; and

j. Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without

justifiable cause for more than one (1) year. f. Either part was afflicted with the sexually
transmissible infection found to be serious or
appears to be incurable.
When the spouses are legally separated by judicial
decree for more thath two (2) years, either or both
spouses can petition the proper court for an Provided, That the ground mentioned in b, e and f
absolute divorce based on said judicial decree of existed either at the time of the marriage or
legal separation. supervening after the marriage.

1. Grounds for annulment of marriage under Article 1. When the spouses have been separated in fact for
45 of the Family Code restated as follows: at least five (5) years at the time the petition for
absolute divorce is filed, and the reconciliation is
highly improbable;
a. The party in whose behalf it is sought to have the
marriage annulled was eighteen (18) years of age or
over but below twety-one (21), and the marriage 2. Psychological incapacity of either spouse as
was solemnized without the consent of the parents provided for in Article 36 of the Family Code,
guradian or personl having substitute parental whether or not the incapacity was present at the
authority over the party, in that order, unless after time of the celebration of the marriage or later;
attaining the age of twenty-one (21) such party
freely cohabited with the other and both lived
together as husband and wife; 3. When one of the spouses undergoes a gender
reassignment surgery or transition from one sex to
another, the other spouse is entitled to petition for
absolute divorce with the transgender or transsexual actively promote its total development.79 It is also
as respondent, or vice-versa; obligated to defend, among others, the right of
children to special protection from all forms of
neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other
4. Irreconcilable marital differences and conflicts conditions prejudicial to their development.80 To
which have resulted in the total breakdown of the Our mind, the State cannot effectively enforce these
marriage beyond repair, despite earnest and obligation s if We limit the application of Paragraph 2
repeated efforts at reconciliation. or Article 26 only those foreign divorce initiated by
the alien spouse. It is not amiss to point that the
women and children are almost always the helpless
victims of all forms of domestic abuse and violence.
To be sure, a good number of Filipinos led by the
In fact, among the notable legislation passed in order
Roman Catholic Church react adversely to any
to minimize, if not eradicate, the menace are R.A.
attempt to enact a law on absolute divorce, viewing
No. 9262 ("Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
it as contrary to our customs, morals, and traditions
Children Act of 2004") R.A. No. 9710 ("The Magna
that has looked upon marriage and family as an
Carta of Women"), R.A. No 10354 ("The Responsible
institution and their nature of permanence,
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012")
and R.A. No 9208 ("Anti-Trafficking in Person Act of
2003"), as amended by R.A. No. 10364
In the same breath that the establishment clause ("ExpandedAnti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012").
restricts what the government can do with religion, Moreover, in protecting and strengthening the
it also limits what religious sects can or cannot do. Filipino family as a basic autonomous social
They can neither cause the government to adopt institution, the Court must not lose sight of the
their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, nor constitutional mandate to value the dignity of every
can they cause the government to restrict other human person, guarantee full respect for human
groups. To do so, in simple terms, would cause the rights, and ensure the fundamental equality before
State to adhere to a particular religion and, thus the law of women and men.81
establish a state religion.76

A prohibitive view of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would

The Roman Catholic Church can neither impose its do more harm than good. If We disallow a Filipino
beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of citizen who initiated and obtained a foreign divorce
the citizenry nor can it demand that the nation from the coverage of Paragraph 2 Article 26 and still
follow its beliefs, even if it is sincerely believes that require him or her to first avail of the existing
they are good for country.77 While marriage is "mechanisms" under the Family Code, any
considered a sacrament, it has civil and legal subsequent relationship that he or she would enter
consequences which are governed by the Family in the meantime shall be considered as illicit in the
Code.78 It is in this aspect, bereft of any eyes of the Philippine law. Worse, any child born out
ecclesiastical overtone, that the State has a such "extra-marital" affair has to suffer the stigma of
legitimate right and interest to regulate. being branded as illegitimate. Surely, these are just
but a few of the adverse consequences, not only to
the parent but also to the child, if We are to hold a
The declared State policy that marriage, as an restrictive interpretation of the subject provision.
inviolable social institution, is a foundation of the The irony is that the principle of inviolability of
family and shall be protected by the State, should marriage under Section 2, Article XV of the
not be read in total isolation but must be Constitution is meant to be tilted in favor of
harmonized with other constitutional provision. marriage and against unions not formalized by
Aside from strengthening the solidarity of the marriage, but without denying State protection and
Filipino family, the State is equally mandated to
assistance to live-in arrangements or to families
formed according to indigenous customs.82
Thus, we interpret and apply the law not
independently of but in consonance with justice. Law
and justice are inseparable, and we must keep them
This Court should not turn a blind eye to the realities
so. To be sure, there are some laws that, while
of the present time. With the advancement of
generally valid, may seem arbitrary when applied in
communication and information technology, as well
a particular case because only of our nature and
as the improvement of the transportation system
functions, to apply them just the same, in slavish
that almost instantly connect people from all over
obedience to their language. What we do instead is
the world, mixed marriages have become not too
find a balance between the sord and the will, that
uncommon. Likewise, it is recognized that not all
justice may be done even as the law is obeyed.
marriages are made in heaven and that imperfect
humans more often than not create imperfect
unions.83 Living in a flawed world, the unfortunate
As judges, we are not automatons. We do not and
reality for some is that the attainment of the
must not unfeelingly apply the law as it worded,
individual's full human potential and self fulfillment
yielding like robots to the literal command without
is not found and achieved in the context of a
regard to its cause and consequence. "Courts are apt
marriage. Thus it is hypocritical to safeguard the
to err by sticking too closely to the words of law," so
quantity of existing marriages and, at the same time,
we are warned, by Justice Holmes agaian, "where
brush aside the truth that some of them are rotten
these words import a policy that goes beyond them."
quality.

xxxx
Going back, we hold that marriage, being a mutual
and shared commitment between two parties,
cannot possibly be productive of any good to the
society where one is considered released from the More that twenty centuries ago, Justinian defined
marital bond while the other remains bound to it.84 justice "as the constant and perpetual wish to render
In reiterating that the Filipino spouse should not be every one of his due." That wish continues to
discriminated against in his or her own country if the motivate this Court when it assesses the facts and
ends of justice are to be served, San Luis v. San the law in ever case brought to it for decisions.
Luis85 quoted: Justice is always an essential ingredient of its
decisions. Thus when the facts warrant, we interpret
the law in a way that will render justice, presuming
that it was the intention if the lawmaker, to begin
x x x In Alonzo v. Intermediate Applellate Court, the
with, that the law be dispensed with justice.86
Court stated:

Indeed, where the interpretation of a statute

But as has also been aptly observed, we test a law by
according to its exact and literal import would lead
its results: and likewise, we may add, by its purposes.
to mischievous results or contravene the clear
It is a cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning of
purpose of the legislature, it should be construed
the law, the first concern of the judge should be to
according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far
discover in its provisions the intent of the lawmaker.
as necessary the letter of the law.87 A statute may
Unquestionably, the law should never be interpreted
therefore, be extended to cases not within the literal
in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never
meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its
within the legislative intent. An indispensable part of
spirit or intent.88
that intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives
of the legislature, is to render justice.
The foregoing notwithstanding, We cannot yet write Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippines
finis to this controversy by granting Manalo's Consulate General in Osaka, Japan of the Decree of
petition to recognize and enforce the divorce decree Divorce; and 3) Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce
rendered by the Japanese court and to cancel the byu the Petitioner and the Japanese national. Under
entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39,
Metro Manila. Section 48 (b) of the Rules of Court, these
documents sufficiently prove the subject Divorce
Decree as a fact. Thus, We are constrained to
Jurisprudence has set guidelines before the recognize the Japanese Court's judgment decreeing
Philippine courts recognize a foreign judgment the divorce.93
relating to the status of a marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of foreign country. Presentation
solely of the divorce decree will not suffice.89 The If the opposing party fails to properly object, as in
fact of divorce must still first be proven.90 Before a a this case, the divorce decree is rendered admissible
foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our a a written act of the foreign court.94 As it appears,
courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce the existence of the divorce decree was not denied
as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the by the OSG; neither was the jurisdiction of the
foreign law allowing it.91 divorce court impeached nor the validity of its
proceedings challenged on the ground of collusion,
fraud, or clear mistake of fact or law, albeit an
x x x Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive opportunity to do so.95
evidentiary value, the document must first be
presented and admitted in evidence. A divorce
obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree Nonetheless, the Japanese law on divorce must still
itself. The decree purports to be written act or be proved.
record of an act of an official body or tribunal of
foreign country.
x x x The burden of proof lies with the "party who
alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other the prosecution or defense of an action." In civil
hand, a writing or document may be proven as a cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the
public or official record of a foreign country by either material defendants have the burden of proving the
(1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof material allegations in their answer when they
attested by the officer having legal custody of the introduce new matters. x x x
document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines,
such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate
issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts
the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any
country in which the record is kept and other facts, they must alleged and proved. x x x The
(b)authenticated by the seal of his office.92 power of judicial notice must be exercise d with
caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the
subject should be resolved in the negative.96
In granting Manalo's petition, the CA noted:

Since the divorce was raised by Manalo, the burden

In this case, Petitioner was able to submit before the of proving the pertinent Japanese law validating it,
court a quo the 1) Decision of the Japanese Court as well as her former husband's capacity to remarry,
allowing the divorce; 2) the fall squarely upon her. Japanese laws on persons and
family relations are not among those matters that 95 See Bayot v. Hoen Coutrt of Appeals, et al., supra
Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of note 75, at 470-471; and Roehr v. Rodriguez, supra
their judicial function. note 23, at 617.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is 96 Garcia v. Recio, supra note 9 at 735. (Citations
DENIED. The September 18, 2014 Decision and omitted). See also Vda. de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee,
October 12, 2015 Resolution if the Court of Appeals supra note 23, at 500-501; San Luis v. San Luis, supra
in CA G.R. CV. No. 100076, are AFFIRMED IN PART. note 16, at 295; Republic of the Phils. v. Orbecido, III,
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for supra note 16, at 116; Llorente v. Court of Appeals,
further proceedings and reception of evidence as to supra note 13, 354.
the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

SO ORDERED

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice

90 Fujiki v. Marinay, supra note 20, at 544 and Vda.

de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee, supra note 23, at 499.

91 Garcia v. Recio, supra note 9, at 731, as cited in

Medina v. Koike, supra note 10 and Republic of the
Phils. v. Orbecido III, supra note 16, at 116. See also
Bayot v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. 591 Phil.
45, 470 (2008).

92 Garcia v. Recio, supra note 9, at 732-733.

(Citations omitted). See also Vda. de Catalan v.
Catalan-Lee, supra note 23, at 499 and 501-502 and
San Luis v. San Luis, supra note 16, at 294.

93 Rollo, pp. 29-30.

94 Garcia v. Recio, supra note 9, at 733-734.