Republic v. Manalo

Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino, married a Japanese national, Yoshino Minoro, and the marriage was registered in San Juan, Metro Manila. Manalo filed a divorce case in Japan, and a Japanese court granted a divorce decree dated December 6, 2011. In 2012 she petitioned the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City to cancel the entry of marriage in the civil registry. After the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) objected to the caption, she amended the petition so that it also sought recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment, and she asked to resume her maiden surname. She presented the divorce decree, an authentication by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, and an acceptance of the certificate of divorce. The OSG offered no contrary evidence. The RTC denied the petition, holding that under Art. 15 of the Civil Code Philippine law does not give Filipinos the right to divorce. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, holding that Art. 26 of the Family Code applies even though it was Manalo who filed for divorce. The Republic appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. 1Whether, under Art. 26(2) of the Family Code, a Filipino who initiated and obtained a divorce abroad against an alien spouse has capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
2. 2Whether the Japanese divorce could already be recognized on the evidence presented.

On the first issue, yes. Art. 26(2) "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." The provision's purpose, as explained in Orbecido, is to avoid the absurdity of a Filipino who stays married to an alien who is no longer married to him or her. Van Dorn and Dacasin had already given effect to divorces obtained by the Filipino spouse on property and custody, and the Court saw no reason to withhold the usual consequence of an absolute divorce, the capacity to remarry. The nationality principle in Art. 15 of the Civil Code is not absolute, and Art. 26(2) is itself an exception to it. The Court added that limiting Art. 26(2) to divorces initiated by the alien spouse would be a "superficial, arbitrary, and whimsical classification" that violates equal protection. On the second issue, no. A divorce decree alone is not enough: the divorce must be proven as a fact, together with its conformity to the foreign law that allows it. The decree itself was admissible because the OSG did not object to it or challenge its existence or the Japanese court's jurisdiction. However, courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. The burden of proving Japanese divorce law and the former husband's capacity to remarry rested on Manalo. The petition was denied, the CA decision was affirmed in part, and the case was remanded for reception of evidence on the relevant Japanese law on divorce.