G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018 (Case Brief - Digest)

G.R. No. 221029.
April 24, 2018 (Case Brief / Digest)
Title: Republic of the Philippines v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo
Facts:
Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, was previously married to a Japanese national,
Yoshino Minoro. A divorce decree was rendered by a Japanese court on December 6, 2011,
dissolving their marriage. Seeking recognition of this divorce in the Philippines and the
subsequent cancellation of their marriage entry in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro
Manila, Manalo filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entry of Marriage on January 10, 2012, in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City. During the proceedings, the petition’s title
was questioned, leading to its amendment to also seek recognition and enforcement of the
foreign judgment. After presenting evidence and notwithstanding the absence of a challenge
from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the RTC denied the petition for lack of merit,
upholding the Philippine law on marriages involving Filipino citizens. The Court of Appeals
(CA) later reversed the RTC decision, invoking Article 26 of the Family Code, which relates
to the recognition of foreign divorce decrees involving Filipino citizens married to
foreigners. The OSG’s motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the appeal to the
Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in applying Article 26 of the Family Code in granting the
petition for recognition and enforcement of the foreign divorce decree.
2. Whether or not a Filipino citizen, who initiated and obtained a divorce abroad against a
foreign spouse, has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision, with a remand to the
court of origin for further proceedings on the relevant Japanese law on divorce. The Court
upheld the application of Article 26 of the Family Code, stating that it was crafted to avoid
the absurd situation where a Filipino is still married to a foreign spouse who, in turn, is
considered not married to the Filipino because of a recognized divorce abroad. The Court
discerned no substantial distinction between a Filipino who initiated foreign divorce
proceedings and a Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of an alien
spouse regarding their capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Doctrine:
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is interpreted to include cases involving
parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage, were Filipino citizens but later
© 2024 - batas.org | 1
G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018 (Case Brief / Digest)
on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree
abroad. This provision applies regardless of which party initiated the divorce proceeding
abroad, so long as the divorce enables the foreign spouse to remarry.
Class Notes:
1. Philippine law does not allow absolute divorce for Filipino citizens, but recognizes foreign
divorce decrees under specific conditions, as stated in Article 26 of the Family Code.
2. For a foreign divorce decree to be recognized in the Philippines, the party pleading it
must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing
it.
3. The case highlights the intersection between the principles of comity and the public
policy against absolute divorce, illustrating the legal system’s accommodation of the
realities of mixed marriages involving Filipino citizens.
Historical Background:
The prohibition of absolute divorce in the Philippines is deeply rooted in the country’s civil
and family laws, reflecting the state’s policy to protect marriage as an inviolable social
institution. The introduction of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 in the Family Code marked a
significant legal accommodation to address the peculiar predicaments faced by Filipino
citizens in mixed marriages, particularly when foreign divorce decrees are involved. This
legal provision represents the Philippines’ nuanced approach to recognizing foreign divorce
decrees involving its citizens, balancing the country’s conservative stance on marriage with
the practicalities of international matrimonial relations.
© 2024 - batas.org | 2

G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018 (Case Brief - Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018 (Case Brief - Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018 (Case Brief - Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 221029.

April 24, 2018 (Case Brief / Digest)

Title: Republic of the Philippines v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo

You might also like