remarry.

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the

time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time
a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the
latter to remarry.
EN BANC
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; When the marriage tie is severed
April 24, 2018 and ceased to exist, the civil status and the domestic relation of the
former spouses change as both of them are freed from the marital
bond.—There is no compelling reason to deviate from the above
G.R. No. 221029 mentioned rulings. When this Court recognized a foreign divorce
decree that was initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner extended its legal effects on the issues of child custody and property
vs relation, it should not stop short in likewise acknowledging that one of
MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, Respondent the usual and necessary consequences of absolute divorce is the right
to remarry. Indeed, there is no longer a mutual obligation to live
together and observe fidelity. When the marriage tie is severed and
Civil Law; Family Law; Persons and Family Relations; Marriages; ceased to exist, the civil status and the domestic relation of the former
Divorce; Divorce, the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause spouses change as both of them are freed from the marital bond.
arising after marriage, are of two (2) types: (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 Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The letter of the law does not
full force.—Divorce, the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the
arising after marriage, are of two types: (1) absolute divorce or a proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted.—Paragraph 2 of
vinculo matrimonii, which terminates the marriage, and (2) limited Article 26 speaks of “a divorce x x x validly obtained abroad by the
divorce or a mensa et thoro, which suspends it and leaves the bond in alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.” Based on a clear and
full force. In this jurisdiction, the following rules exist: 1. Philippine law plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce
does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that
it. 2. Consistent with Articles 15 and 17 of the New Civil Code, the the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding
marital bond between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by an wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish
absolute divorce obtained abroad. 3. An absolute divorce obtained whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the
abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is bound by the words of the
Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws. statute; neither can We put words in the mouths of the lawmakers.
4. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is “The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to
allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use
is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est
to remarry. recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no
departure.”

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Under the principles of comity, our
jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Whether the Filipino spouse
nationality, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care and initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree
support of the children or property relations of the spouses, must still dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse
be determined by our courts.—Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively
jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign be without a husband or wife.—The purpose of paragraph 2 of Article
divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage. It authorizes married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is
our courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce decree precisely effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married to
because the Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine courts the Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective measure to address
cannot try the case on the merits because it is tantamount to trying a an anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the
divorce case. Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country.
a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign nationality, but the Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or
legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care and support of the children not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating
or property relations of the spouses, must still be determined by our his or her alien spouse to remarry will have the same result: the
courts. Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino
who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in
like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; In 2005, the Supreme Court (SC) initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make
concluded that paragraph 2 of Article 26 applies to a case where, at a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as a means to recognize
the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties were Filipino the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose
citizens, but later on, one of them acquired foreign citizenship by marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operation of the
naturalization, initiated a divorce proceeding, and obtained a favorable latter’s national law.
decree.—In 2005, this Court concluded that paragraph 2 of Article 26
applies to a case where, at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
the parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them acquired Same; Conflict of Laws; Nationality Principle; Blind adherence to the
foreign citizenship by naturalization, initiated a divorce proceeding, and nationality principle must be disallowed if it would cause unjust
obtained a favorable decree. We held in Republic of the Phils. v. discrimination and oppression to certain classes of individuals whose
Orbecido III: The jurisprudential answer lies latent in the 1998 case of rights are equally protected by law.—Conveniently invoking the
Quita v. Court of Appeals. In Quita, the parties were, as in this case, nationality principle is erroneous. Such principle, found under Article 15
Filipino citizens when they got married. The wife became a naturalized of the Civil Code, is not an absolute and unbending rule. In fact, the
American citizen in 1954 and obtained a divorce in the same year. The mere existence of paragraph 2 of Article 26 is a testament that the
Court therein hinted, by way of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced State may provide for an exception thereto. Moreover, blind adherence
by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine to the nationality principle must be disallowed if it would cause unjust
law and can thus re marry. Thus, taking into consideration the discrimination and oppression to certain classes of individuals whose
legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that rights are equally protected by law. The courts have the duty to
paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases enforce the laws of divorce as written by the Legislature only if they
involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage are constitutional.
were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as
a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse Constitutional Law; Equal Protection of the Laws; “Fundamental rights”
should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a whose infringement leads to strict scrutiny under the equal protection
foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule clause are those basic liberties explicitly or implicitly guaranteed in the
otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. x x x If we are Con stitution.—While the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in
to give meaning to the legislative intent to avoid the absurd situation providing for a valid classification and that its decision is accorded
where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, recognition and respect by the courts of justice, such classification may
after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Filipino spouse, be subjected to judicial review. The deference stops where the
then the instant case must be deemed as coming within the classification violates a fundamental right, or prejudices persons
contemplation of paragraph 2 of Article 26. In view of the foregoing, accorded special protection by the Constitution. When these violations
we state the twin elements for the application of paragraph 2 of Article arise, this Court must discharge its primary role as the vanguard of
26 as follows: 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated constitutional guaranties, and require a stricter and more exacting
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and  2. A valid divorce is adherence to constitutional limitations. If a legislative classification
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or
operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class strict judicial country. While marriage is considered a sacrament, it has civil and
scrutiny is required since it is presumed unconstitutional, and the legal consequences which are governed by the Family Code. It is in
burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is this aspect, bereft of any ecclesiastical overtone, that the State has a
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least legitimate right and interest to regulate. The declared State policy that
restrictive means to protect such interest. “Fundamental rights” whose marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
infringement leads to strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause family and shall be protected by the State, should not be read in total
are those basic liberties explicitly or implicitly guaranteed in the isolation but must be harmonized with other constitutional provisions.
Constitution. It includes the right of procreation, the right to marry, the Aside from strengthening the solidarity of the Filipino family, the State
right to exercise free speech, political expression, press, assembly, and is equally mandated to actively promote its total development. It is
so forth, the right to travel, and the right to vote. On the other hand, also obligated to defend, among others, the right of children to special
what constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale of protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and
rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated by history. other conditions prejudicial to their development. To Our mind, the
It is akin to the paramount interest of the state for which some State cannot effectively enforce these obligations if We limit the
individual liberties must give way, such as the promotion of public application of paragraph 2 of Article 26 only to those foreign divorce
interest, public safety or the general welfare. It essentially involves a initiated by the alien spouse. It is not amiss to point that the women
public right or interest that, because of its primacy, overrides individual and children are almost always the helpless victims of all forms of
rights, and allows the former to take precedence over the latter. domestic abuse and violence. In fact, among the notable legislation
passed in order to minimize, if not eradicate, the menace are R.A. No.
6955 (prohibiting mail order bride and similar practices), R.A. No. 9262
Same; Same; Marriages; Divorce; The Supreme Court (SC) finds that
(“Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004”), R.A.
paragraph 2 of Article 26 violates one of the essential requisites of the
No. 9710 (“The Magna Carta of Women”), R.A. No. 10354 (“The
equal protection clause. Particularly, the limitation of the provision only
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012”), and
to a foreign divorce decree initiated by the alien spouse is
R.A. No. 9208 (“Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”), as amended
unreasonable as it is based on superficial, arbitrary, and whimsical
by R.A. No. 10364 (“Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
classification.—Although the Family Code was not enacted by the
2012”). Moreover, in protecting and strengthening the Filipino family
Congress, the same principle applies with respect to the acts of the
as a basic autonomous social institution, the Court must not lose sight
President, which have the force and effect of law unless declared
of the constitutional mandate to value the dignity of every human
otherwise by the court. In this case, We find that paragraph 2 of
person, guarantee full respect for human rights, and ensure the
Article 26 violates one of the essential requisites of the equal
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
protection clause. Particularly, the limitation of the provision only to a
foreign divorce decree initiated by the alien spouse is unreasonable as
it is based on superficial, arbitrary, and whimsical classification. A Civil Law; Family Law; Persons and Family Relations; Marriages;
Filipino who is married to another Filipino is not similarly situated with Divorce; Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our
a Filipino who is married to a foreign citizen. There are real, material courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and
and substantial differences between them. Ergo, they should not be demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.—Indeed,
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and liabilities imposed. where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal
Without a doubt, there are political, economic, cultural, and religious import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear
dissimilarities as well as varying legal systems and procedures, all too purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit
unfamiliar, that a Filipino national who is married to an alien spouse and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A
has to contend with. More importantly, while a divorce decree obtained statute may, therefore, be extended to cases not within the literal
abroad by a Filipino against another Filipino is null and void, a divorce meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent.
decree obtained by an alien against his or her Filipino spouse is The foregoing notwithstanding, We cannot yet write finis to this
recognized if made in accordance with the national law of the controversy by granting Manalo’s petition to recognize and enforce the
foreigner. divorce decree rendered by the Japanese court and to cancel the entry
of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila.
Jurisprudence has set guide lines before Philippine courts recognize a
Same; Same; Same; Same; There is no real and substantial difference
foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the
between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceedings and a
parties is a citizen of a foreign country. Presentation solely of the
Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of his or her
divorce decree will not suffice. The fact of divorce must still first be
alien spouse. In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both are
proven. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our
considered as Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations in an
courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and
alien land.—There is no real and substantial difference between a
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceedings and a Filipino who
obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of his or her alien spouse.
In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both are considered as PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations in an alien land. Court of Appeals.
The circumstances surrounding them are alike. Were it not for
paragraph 2 of Article 26, both are still married to their foreigner
RESOLUTION
spouses who are no longer their wives/husbands. Hence, to make a
distinction between them based merely on the superficial difference of
whether they initiated the divorce proceedings or not is utterly unfair. PERALTA, J.:
Indeed, the treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly
discriminate against the other. Further, the differentiation in paragraph This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
2 of Article 26 is arbitrary. There is inequality in treatment because a Court (Rules) seeks to reverse and set aside the September 18, 2014
foreign divorce decree that was initiated and obtained by a Filipino Decision1 and October 12, 2015 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals
citizen against his or her alien spouse would not be recognized even if (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100076. The dispositive portion of the Decision
based on grounds similar to Articles 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Family states:
Code. In filing for divorce based on these grounds, the Filipino spouse
cannot be accused of invoking foreign law at whim, tantamount to
insisting that he or she should be governed with whatever law he or WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision  dated
she chooses. The dissent’s comment that Manalo should be “reminded 15 October 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, First
that all is not lost, for she may still pray for the severance of her Judicial Region, Branch 43, in SPEC. PROC. NO. 2012-0005
marital ties before the RTC in accordance with the mechanisms now is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
existing under the Family Code” is anything but comforting. For the
guidance of the bench and the bar, it would have been better if the Let a copy of this Decision be served on the Local Civil Registrar of San
dissent discussed in detail what these “mechanisms” are and how they Juan, Metro Manila.
specifically apply in Manalo’s case as well as those who are similarly
situated. If the dissent refers to a petition for declaration of nullity or
annulment of marriage, the reality is that there is no assurance that SO ORDERED.3
our courts will automatically grant the same. Besides, such proceeding
is duplicitous, costly, and protracted. All to the prejudice of our The facts are undisputed.
kababayan.
On January 10, 2012, respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo)
Same; Freedom of Religion; The Roman Catholic Church can neither filed a petition for cancellation of
impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of the
citizenry nor can it demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it
sincerely believes that they are good for the country.—The Roman Entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan , Metro Manila, by
Catholic Church can neither impose its beliefs and convictions on the virtueof a judgment of divorce Japanese court.
State and the rest of the citizenry nor can it demand that the nation
follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they are good for the
Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and in substance, Branch On October 15, 2012, the trial court denied the petition for lack of
43 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City set the case for merit. In ruling that the divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should
initial hearing on April 25, 2012. The petition and the notice of initial not be recognized, it opined that, based on Article 15 of the New Civil
hearing were published once a week for three consecutive weeks in Code, the Philippine law "does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a
newspaper of general circulation. During the initial hearing, counsel for divorce whether they are in the country or living abroad, if they are
Manalo marked the documentary evidence (consisting of the trial married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they celebrated their
courts Order dated January 25, 2012, affidavit of publication, and marriage in the Philippines or in another country" and that unless
issues of the Northern Journal dated February 21-27, 2012, February Filipinos "are naturalized as citizens of another country, Philippine laws
28 - March 5, 2012, and March 6-12, 2012) for purposes of compliance shall have control over issues related to Filipinos' family rights and
with the jurisdictional requirements. duties, together with the determination of their condition and legal
capacity to enter into contracts and civil relations, inclusing
marriages."6
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance for
petitioner Republic of the Philippines authorizing the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Dagupan to appear on its behalf. Likewise, a On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article 26
Manifestation and Motion was filed questioning the title and/or caption of the Family Code of the Philippines (Family Code) is applicable even
of the petition considering that based on the allegations therein, the if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband
proper action should be a petition for recognition and enforcement of a because the decree may obtained makes the latter no longer married
foreign judgment. to the former, capacitating him to remarry. Conformably with Navarro,
et al. V. Exec. Secretary Ermita, et al.7 ruling that the meaning of the
law should be based on the intent of the lawmakers and in view of the
As a result, Manalo moved to admit an Amended Petition, which the
legislative intent behind Article 26, it would be height of injustice to
court granted. The Amended Petition, which captioned that if it is also
consider Manalo as still married to the Japanese national, who, in turn,
a petition for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment
is no longer married to her. For the appellate court, the fact that it was
alleged:
Manalo who filed the divorce case is inconsequential. Cited as similar
to this case was Van Dorn v. Judge Romilo, Jr.8 where the mariage
2. That petitioner is previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese between a foreigner an a Filipino was dissolved filed abroad by the
national named YOSHINO MINORO as shown by their Marriage latter.
Contract xxx;
The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied; hence,
3. That recently, a case for divorce was filed by herein [petitioner] in this petition.
Japan and after die proceedings, a divorce decree dated December 6,
2011 was rendered by the Japanese Court x x x;
We deny the petition and partially affirm the CA decision.

4. That at present, by virtue of the said divorce decree, petitioner and

Divorce, the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after
her divorce Japanese husband are no longer living together and in
the marriage, are of two types: (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo
fact, petitioner and her daughter are living separately from said
matrimonii, which terminates the marriage, and (2) limited divorce
Japanese former husband;
or a mensa et thoro, which suspends it and leaves the bond in full
force.9 In this jurisdiction, the following rules exist:
5. That there is an imperative need to have the entry of marriage in
Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila cancelled, where the petitioner
1. Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce;
and the former Japanese husband's marriage was previously
hence, our courts cannot grant it.10
registered, in order that it would not appear anymore that petitioner is
still married to the said Japanese national who is no longer her
husband or is no longer married to her, she shall not be bothered and 2. Consistent with Articles 1511 and 1712 of the New Civil
disturbed by aid entry of marriage; Code, the marital bond between two Filipinos cannot be
dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad.13
6. That this petition is filed principally for the purpose of causing the
cancellation of entry of the marriage between the petitioner and the 3. An absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who
said Japanese national, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it
Court, which marriage was already dissolved by virtue of the aforesaid is consistent with their respective national laws.14
divorce decree; [and]
4. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner,
7. That petitioner prays, among others, that together with the the former is allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in
cancellation of the said entry of her marriage, that she be allowed to case the absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the
return and use her maiden surname, MANALO.4 alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.15

Manalo was allowed to testify in advance as she was scheduled to On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law
leave for Japan for her employment. Among the documents that were Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code
offered and admitted were: of the Philippines, which took effect on August 3, 1988.16 Shortly
thereafter , E.O. No. 227 was issued on July 17, 1987.17 Aside from
amending Articles 36 and 39 of the Family Code, a second paragraph
1. Court Order dated January 25, 2012, finding the petition and its
was added to Article 26.18 This provision was originally deleted by
attachments to be sufficient in form and in substance;
the Civil Code Revision Committee (Committee),but it was presented
and approved at a Cabinet meeting after Pres. Aquino signed E.O. No.
2. Affidavit of Publication; 209.19 As modified, Article 26 now states:

3. Issues of the Northern Journal dated February 21-27, 2012, Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance
February 28 - March 5, 2012, and March 6-12, 2012; with the laws in force in the where country where they were
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country,
4. Certificate of Marriage between Manalo and her former Japanese except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37
husband; and 38.

5. Divorce Decree of Japanese court; Where a marriage between Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating him her to remarry under Philippine law.
6. Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General
in Osaka, Japan of the Notification of Divorce; and
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to
extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse
7. Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce. 5
without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of
the marriage.20 It authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a
The OSG did not present any controverting evidence to rebut the foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow
allegations of Manalo. divorce.21 Philippine courts cannot try the case on the merits because it
is tantamount to trying a divorce case.22 Under the principles of comity,
our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by the spouse of
foreign nationality, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care
and support of the children or property relations of the spouses, must ground, among others, that the divorce decree is binding following the
still be determined by our courts.23 "nationality rule" prevailing in this jurisdiction. The husband moved to
reconsider, arguing that the divorce decree obtained by his former wife
is void, but it was denied. In ruling that the trial court has jurisdiction
According to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Committee, the
to entertain the suit bu not to enforce the Agreement, which is void,
idea of the amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as
this Court said:
still being married to his or her alien spouse, although the 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 that it Nor can petitioner rely on the divorce decree's alleged invalidity - not
would solved the problem of many Filipino women who, under the New because the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction or that the divorced
Civil Code, are still considered married to their alien husbands even decree violated Illinois law, but because the divorce was obtained by
after the latter have already validly divorced them under their (the his Filipino spouse - to support the Agreement's enforceability . The
husbands') national laws and perhaps have already married again.25 argument that foreigners in this jurisdiction are not bound by foreign
divorce decrees is hardly novel. Van Dron v. Romillo settled the matter
by holding that an alien spouse of a Filipino is bound by a divorce
In 2005, this Court concluded that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 applies to
decree obtained abroad. There, we dismissed the alien divorcee's
a case where, at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the
Philippine suit for accounting of alleged post-divorce conjugal property
parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them acquired
and rejected his submission that the foreign divorce (obtained by the
foreign citizenship by naturalization, initiated a divorce proceeding, and
Filipino spouse) is not valid in this jurisdiction x x x.30
obtained a favorable decree. We held in Republic of the Phils. v.
Orbecido III:26
Van Dorn was decided before the Family Code took into effect. There,
a complaint was filed by the ex-husband , who is a US citizen, against
The jurisprudential answer lies latent in the 1998 case of Quita v.
his Filipino wife to render an accounting of a business that was alleged
Court of Appeals. In Quita,  the parties were, as in this case, Filipino
to be a conjugal property and to be declared with right to manage the
citizens when they got married. The wife became naturalized American
same. Van Dorn moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the
citizen n 1954 and obtained a divorce in the same year. The court
cause of action was barred by previous judgment in the divorce
therein hinted, by the way of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by
proceedings that she initiated, but the trial court denied the motion.
his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine
On his part, her ex-husband averred that the divorce decree issued by
law and can thus remarry.
the Nevada court could not prevail over the prohibitive laws of the
Philippines and its declared national policy; that the acts and
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the declaration of a foreign court cannot, especially if the same is contrary
rule of reason, we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be to public policy, divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction to entertain
interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the matters within its jurisdiction . In dismissing the case filed by the alien
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of spouse, the Court discussed the effect of the foreign divorce on the
them becomes naturalized as foreign citizen and obtains divorce parties and their conjugal property in the Philippines. Thus:
decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if
the other party were foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in
marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and
any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private
injustice. x x x
respondent as an American citizen. For instance, private respondent
cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union.
If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent to avoid the absurd What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and
situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and
who after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Filipino public policy.
spouse, then the instant case must be deemed as coming within the
contemplation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26.
Is it true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15
of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorce abroad, which may
of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to
their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a respondent from the marriage from standards of American law, under
Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and which divorce dissolves the marriage.  As stated by the Federal
Supreme Court of the United States in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed.
794,799:
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry.
"The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of
matrimony by a court of competent jurisdiction are to change the
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free
the celebration of marriage, but their citizenship at the time valid them both from the bond. The marriage tie, when thus severed as
divorced obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to stone party, ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife
remarry. without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides in
the nature of penalty, that the guilty party shall not marry again, that
Now, the Court is tasked to resolve whether, under the same party, as well as the other, is still absolutely feed from the bond of the
provision, a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine former marriage."
law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a
favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the
to remarry. Specifically, Manalo pleads for the recognition of husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case
enforcement of the divorced decree rendered by the Japanese court below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal
and for the cancellation of the entry of marriage in the local civil assets. As he is estopped by his own representation before said court
registry " in order that it would not appear anymore that she is still from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.
married to the said Japanese national who is no longer her husband or
is no longer married to her; [and], in the event that [she] decides to
be remarried, she shall not be bothered and disturbed by said entry of To maintain, as private respondent does, that under our laws,
marriage," and to use her maiden surname. 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
Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live
We rule in the affirmative. together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to
private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her
Both Dacasin v. Dacasin28 and Van Dorn29 already recognized a foreign heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be
divorce decree that was initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to
and extended its legal effects on the issues of child custody and be served.31
property relation, respectively.
In addition, the fact that a validity obtained foreign divorce initiated by
In Dacasin, post-divorce, the former spouses executed an Agreement the Filipino spouse can be recognized and given legal effects in the
for the joint custody of their minor daughter. Later on, the husband Philippines is implied from Our rulings in Fujiki v. Marinay, et
who is a US citizen, sued his Filipino wife enforce the Agreement, al.32 and Medina v. Koike.33
alleging that it was only the latter who exercised sole custody of their
child. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, on the
In Fujiki,  the Filipino wife, with the help of her husband, who is a recedendum, or from the words if a statute there should be
Japanese national, was able to obtain a judgment from Japan's family departure."38
court. Which declared the marriage between her and her second
husband, who is a Japanese national, void on the ground of bigamy. In
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the word "obtained" should
resolving the issue of whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage
be interpreted to mean that the divorce proceeding must be actually
can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the
initiated by the alien spouse, still, the Court will not follow the letter of
subsequent marriage between his her spouse and a foreign citizen on
the statute when to do so would depart from the true intent of the
the ground of bigamy, We ruled:
legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent with the
general purpose of the act.39 Law have ends to achieve, and statutes
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese should be so construed as not to defeat but to carry out such ends and
Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and purposes.40 As held in League of Cities of the Phils. et al. v. COMELEC
Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his et. al.:41
civil status as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the
personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of
The legislative intent is not at all times accurately reflected in the
marriage between Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on the
manner in which the resulting law is couched. Thus, applying a verba
basis of the decree of the Japanese Family Court.
legis or strictly literal interpretation of a statute may render it
meaningless and lead to inconvience, an absurd situation or injustice.
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material To obviate this aberration, and bearing in mind the principle that the
interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage he contracted and intent or the spirit of the law is the law itself, resort should be to the
the property relations arising from it. There is also no doubt that he is rule that the spirit of the law control its letter.
interested in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the
civil registry, which compromises the public record of his marriage. The
To reiterate, the purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the
interest derives from the substantive right of the spouse not only to
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien
preserve (or dissolve, in limited instances) his most intimate human
spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the
relation, but also to protect his property interests that arise by
country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino
operation of law the moment he contracts marriage. These property
spouse. The provision is a corrective measure is free to marry under
interests in marriage included the right to be supported "in keeping
the laws of his or her countr.42 Whether the Filipino spouse initiated
with the financial capacity of the family" and preserving the property
the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving
regime of the marriage.
the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry
will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without
Property rights are already substantive rights protected by the a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding
Constitution, but a spouse's right in a marriage extends further to is in the same place and in like circumstances as a Filipino who is at
relational rights recognized under Title III ("Rights and Obligations the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the
between Husband and Wife") of the Family Code. x x x34 subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is
extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign
divorce decree on a Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses
On the other hand, in Medina, the Filipino wife and her Japanese
are severed by operations of their alien spouses are severed by
husband jointly filed for divorce, which was
operation on the latter's national law.
granted.1âwphi1 Subsequently, she filed a petition before the RTC for
judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to
remarry pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 26. The RTC denied the Conveniently invoking the nationality principle is erroneous. Such
petition on the ground that the foreign divorce decree and the national principle, found under Article 15 of the City Code, is not an absolute
law of the alien spouse recognizing his capacity to obtain a divorce and unbending rule. In fact, the mer e existence of Paragraph 2 of
must be proven in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of Article 26 is a testament that the State may provide for an exception
the Revised Rules on Evidence. This Court agreed and ruled that, thereto. Moreover, blind adherence to the nationality principle must be
consistent with Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, et al.35 and Garcia v. Recio,36 the disallowed if it would cause unjust discrimination and oppression to
divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse must be certain classes of individuals whose rights are equally protected by law.
proven. Instead of dismissing the case, We referred it to the CA for The courts have the duty to enforce the laws of divorce as written by
appropriate action including the reception of evidence to determine the Legislature only if they are constitutional.43
and resolve the pertinent factual issues.
While the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid
There is no compelling reason to deviate from the above-mentioned classification and that its decision is accorded recognition and respect
rulings. When this Court recognized a foreign divorce decree that was by the court of justice, such classification may be subjected to judicial
initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal review.44 The deference stops where the classification violates a
effects on the issues of child custody and property relation, it should fundamental right, or prejudices persons accorded special protection
not stop short in a likewise acknowledging that one of the usual and by the Constitution.45 When these violations arise, this Court must
necessary consequences of absolute divorce is the right to remarry. discharge its primary role as the vanguard of constitutional guaranties,
Indeed, there is no longer a mutual obligation to live together and and require a stricter and more exacting adherence to constitutional
observe fidelity. When the marriage tie is severed and ceased to exist, limitations.46 If a legislative classification impermissibly interferes with
the civil status and the domestic relation of the former spouses change the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
as both of them are freed from the marital bond. disadvantage of a suspect class strict judicial scrutiny is required since
it is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the
government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a
The dissent is of the view that, under the nationality principle, Manalo's
compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to
personal status is subject to Philippine law, which prohibits absolute
protect such interest.47
divorce. Hence, the divorce decree which she obtained under 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 "Fundamental rights" whose infringement leads to strict scrutiny under
subvert not only the intention of the framers of the law, but also that the equal protection clause are those basic liberties explicitly or
of the Filipino peopl, as expressed in the Constitution. The Court is, implicitly guaranteed in the Constitution.48 It includes the right to free
therefore, bound to respect the prohibition until the legislature deems speech, political expression, press, assembly, and forth, the right to
it fit to lift the same. travel, and the right to vote.49 On the other hand, what constitutes
compelling state interest is measured by the scale rights and powers
arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated by history.50 It is akin to the
We beg to differ.
paramount interest of the state for which some individual liberties
must give way, such as the promotion of public interest, public safety
Paragraph 2 of Artilce 26 speaksof "a divorce x x x validly obtained or the general welfare.51 It essentially involves a public right or interest
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry." Based that, because of its primacy, overrides individual rights, and allows the
on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there former to take precedence over the latter.52
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
Although the Family Code was not enacted by the Congress, the same
proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not
principle applies with respect to the acts of the President which have
distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the
the force and effect of law unless declared otherwise by the court. In
respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is bound by
this case, We find that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 violates one of the
the words of the statute; neither can We put words in the mouth of
essential requisites53 of the equal protection clause.54 Particularly, the
lawmakers.37 The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the
limitation of the provision only to a foreign divorce decree initiated by
words to have used words advisely and to have expressed its intent by
the alien spouse is unreasonable as it is based on superficial, arbitrary,
the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est
and whimsical classification.
A Filipino who is married to another Filipino is not similarly situated The 1987 Constitution expresses that marriage, as an inviolable social
with a Filipino who is married to a foreign citizen. There are real, institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
material and substantial differences between them. Ergo, they should State.64 Nevertheless, it was not meant to be a general prohibition on
not be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and liabilities imposed. divorce because Commissioner Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon, in response
Without a doubt, there are political, economic cultural, and religious to a question by Father Joaquin G. Bernas during the deliberations of
dissimilarities as well as varying legal systems and procedures, all too the 1986 Constitutional Commission, was categorical about this
unfamiliar, that a Filipino national who is married to an alien spouse point.65 Their exchange reveal as follows:
has to contend with. More importantly, while a divorce decree obtained
abroad by a Filipino against another Filipino is null and void, a divorce
MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that Commissioner Bernas
decree obtained by an alien against his her Filipino spouse is
be recognized.
recognized if made in accordance with the national law of the
foreigner.55
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Colayco). Commissioner Bernas is
recognized.
On the contrary, there is no real and substantial difference between a
Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceedings a Filipino who
obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of his or her alien FR. BERNAS. Just one question, and I am not sure if it has been
spouse . In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both are categorically answered. I refer specifically to the proposal of
considered as Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations in a Commissioner Gascon. Is this be understood as a prohibition of a
alien land. The circumstances surrounding them are alike. Were it not general law on divorce? His intention is to make this a prohibition so
for Paragraph 2 of Article 26, both are still married to their foreigner that the legislature cannot pass a divorce law.
spouses who are no longer their wives/husbands. Hence, to make a
distinction between them based merely on the superficial difference of MR. GASCON. Mr. Presding Officer, that was not primarily my
whether they initiated the divorce proceedings or not is utterly unfair. intention. My intention was primarily to encourage the social institution
Indeed, the treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly of marriage, but not necessarily discourage divorce. But now that the
discriminate against the other. mentioned the issue of divorce, my personal opinion is to discourage it.
Mr. Presiding Officer.
Further, the differentiation in Paragraph 2 Article 26 is arbitrary. There
is inequality in treatment because a foreign divorce decree that was FR. BERNAS. No my question is more categorical. Does this carry the
initiated and obtained by a Filipino citizen against his or her alien meaning of prohibiting a divorce law?
spouse would not be recognized even if based on grounds similar to
Articles 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Family Code.56 In filing for divorce
based on these grounds, the Filipino spouse cannot be accused of MR. GASCON. No Mr. Presiding Officer.
invoking foreign law at whim, tantamount to insisting that he or she
should be governed with whatever law he or she chooses. The FR. BERNAS. Thank you.66
dissent's comment that Manalo should be "reminded that all is not lost,
for she may still pray for the severance of her martial ties before the
RTC in accordance with the mechanism now existing under the Family Notably, a law on absolute divorce is not new in our country. Effectivity
Code" is anything but comforting. For the guidance of the bench and March 11, 1917, Philippine courts could grant an absolute divorce in
the bar, it would have been better if the dissent discussed in detail the grounds of adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the
what these "mechanism" are and how they specifically apply in part of the husband by virtue of Act No. 2710 of the Philippine
Manalo's case as well as those who are similarly situated. If the dissent Legislature.67 On March 25, 1943, pursuant to the authority conferred
refers to a petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage, upon him by the Commander-in-Chief fo the Imperial Japanese Forces
the reality is that there is no assurance that our courts will in the Philippines and with the approval of the latter, the Chairman of
automatically grant the same. Besides, such proceeding is duplicitous, the Philippine Executive Commission promulgated an E.O. No. 141
costly, and protracted. All to the prejudice of our kababayan. ("New Divorce Law"), which repealed Act No. 2710 and provided
eleven ground for absolute divorce, such as intentional or unjustified
desertion continuously for at least one year prior to the filing of the
It is argued that the Court's liberal interpretation of Paragraph 2 of action, slander by deed or gross insult by one spouse against the other
Artilce 26 encourages Filipinos to marry foreigners, opening the to such an extent as to make further living together impracticable, and
floodgate to the indiscriminate practice of Filipinos marrying foreign a spouse's incurable insanity.68 When the Philippines was liberated and
nationals or initiating divorce proceedings against their alien spouses. the Commonwealth Government was restored, it ceased to have force
and effect and Act No. 2710 again prevailed.69 From August 30, 1950,
The supposition is speculative and unfounded. upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 836 or the New Civil Code, an
absolute divorce obatined by Filipino citizens, whether here or abroad,
is no longer recognized.70
First, the dissent falls into a hasty generalization as no data
whatsoever was sworn to support what he intends to prove. Second,
We adhere to the presumption of good faith in this jurisdiction. Under Through the years, there has been constant clamor from various
the rules on evidence, it is disputable presumed (i.e., satisfactory if sectors of the Philippine society to re-institute absolute divorce. As a
uncontradicted and overcome by other evidence) that a person is matte of fcat, in the currnet 17th Congress, House Bill (H.B.) Nos.
innocent of crime or wrong,57 that a person takes ordinary care of his 11671 106272 238073 and 602774 were filed in the House of
concerns,59 that acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing representatives. In substitution of these bills, H.B. No. 7303
acquiesced in was conformable to the law and fact, 60 that a man and entitled "An Act Instituting Absolute Divorce and Dissolution of
woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a Marriage in the Philippines"  or the Absolute Divorce Act of 2018 was
lawful contract of marriage,61 and that the law has been obeyed.62 It is submitted by the House Committee on Population
whimsical to easily attribute any illegal, irregular or immoral conduct
on the part of a Filipino just because he or she opted to marry a And Family Relations of February 8, 2018. It was approved on March
foreigner instead of a fellow Filipino. It is presumed that interracial 19, 2018 on Third Reading - with 134 in favor, 57 against, and 2
unions are entered into out of genuine love and affection, rather than absentations. Under the bill, the grounds for a judicial decree of
prompted by pure lust or profit. Third, We take judicial notice of the absolute divorce are as follows:
fact that Filipinos are relatively more forbearing and conservative in
nature and that they are more often the victims or losing end of mixed
marriages. And Fourth, it is not for Us to prejudge the motive behind 1. The grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family
Filipino's decision to marry an alien national. In one case, it was said: Code, modified or amended, as follows:

Motive for entering into a marriage are varied and complex. The State a. Physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed
does not and cannot dictated on the kind of life that a couple chooses against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the
to lead. Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm petitioner;
of their right to privacy and would raise serious constitutional
questions. The right marital privacy allows married couples to structure b. Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the
their marriages in almost any way they see it fit, to live together or live petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;
apart, to have children or no children, to love one another or not, and
so on. Thus, marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or
otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money, status, and c. Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner,
title, provided that they comply with all the legal requisites, are equally a common child, or a child of a petitioner, to engage in
valid. Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
not the only valid cause for marriage. Other considerations, not
precluded by law, may validly support a marriage.63
 d. Final judgment sentencing the respondent to To be sure, a good number of Filipinos led by the Roman Catholic
imprisonment of more than six (6) years, even if pardoned; Church react adversely to any attempt to enact a law on absolute
divorce, viewing it as contrary to our customs, morals, and traditions
that has looked upon marriage and family as an institution and their
e. Drug addiction or habitual alchoholism ro chronic
nature of permanence,
gambling of respondent;

In the same breath that the establishment clause restricts what the
f. Homosexuality of the respondent;
government can do with religion, it also limits what religious sects can
or cannot do. They can neither cause the government to adopt their
g. Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous particular doctrines as policy for everyone, nor can they cause the
marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad; government to restrict other groups. To do so, in simple terms, would
cause the State to adhere to a particular religion and, thus establish a
h. Marital infidelity or perversion or having a child with state religion.76
another person other than one's spouse during the marriage,
except when upon the mutual agreement of the spouses, a The Roman Catholic Church can neither impose its beliefs and
child is born to them by in vitro or a similar procedure or convictions on the State and the rest of the citizenry nor can it demand
when the wife bears a child after being a victim of rape; that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it is sincerely believes that
they are good for country.77 While marriage is considered a sacrament,
i. attempt by the respondent against the life of the it has civil and legal consequences which are governed by the Family
petitioner, a common child or a child of a petitioner; and Code.78 It is in this aspect, bereft of any ecclesiastical overtone, that
the State has a legitimate right and interest to regulate.

j. Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without

justifiable cause for more than one (1) year. The declared State policy that marriage, as an inviolable social
institution, is a foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
State, should not be read in total isolation but must be harmonized
When the spouses are legally separated by judicial decree for more with other constitutional provision. Aside from strengthening the
thath two (2) years, either or both spouses can petition the proper solidarity of the Filipino family, the State is equally mandated to
court for an absolute divorce based on said judicial decree of legal actively promote its total development.79 It is also obligated to defend,
separation. among others, the right of children to special protection from all forms
of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial
1. Grounds for annulment of marriage under Article 45 of the Family to their development.80 To Our mind, the State cannot effectively
Code restated as follows: enforce these obligation s if We limit the application of Paragraph 2 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
a. The party in whose behalf it is sought to have the helpless victims of all forms of domestic abuse and violence. In fact,
marriage annulled was eighteen (18) years of age or over among the notable legislation passed in order to minimize, if not
but below twety-one (21), and the marriage was solemnized eradicate, the menace are R.A. No. 9262 ("Anti-Violence Against
without the consent of the parents guradian or personl Women and Their Children Act of 2004") R.A. No. 9710 ("The Magna
having substitute parental authority over the party, in that Carta of Women"), R.A. No 10354 ("The Responsible Parenthood and
order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one (21) such Reproductive Health Act of 2012") and R.A. No 9208 ("Anti-Trafficking
party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together in Person Act of 2003"),  as amended by R.A. No.
as husband and wife; 10364 ("ExpandedAnti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012"). Moreover,
in protecting and strengthening the Filipino family as a basic
b. either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after autonomous social institution, the Court must not lose sight of the
coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as constitutional mandate to value the dignity of every human person,
husband and wife; guarantee full respect for human rights, and ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men.81
c. The consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless
such party afterwards with full knowledge of the facts A prohibitive view of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would do more harm
constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other than good. If We disallow a Filipino citizen who initiated and obtained
husband and wife; a foreign divorce from the coverage of Paragraph 2 Article 26 and still
require him or her to first avail of the existing "mechanisms" under the
Family Code, any subsequent relationship that he or she would enter in
d. consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation the meantime shall be considered as illicit in the eyes of the Philippine
or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or law. Worse, any child born out such "extra-marital" affair has to suffer
ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other the stigma of being branded as illegitimate. Surely, these are just but a
as husband and wife; few of the adverse consequences, not only to the parent but also to
the child, if We are to hold a restrictive interpretation of the subject
e. Either party was physically incapable of consummating the provision. The irony is that the principle of inviolability of marriage
marriage with the other and such incapacity continues or under Section 2, Article XV of the Constitution is meant to be tilted in
appears to be incurable; and favor of marriage and against unions not formalized by marriage, but
without denying State protection and assistance to live-in
arrangements or to families formed according to indigenous customs.82
f. Either part was afflicted with the sexually transmissible
infection found to be serious or appears to be incurable.
This Court should not turn a blind eye to the realities of the present
time. With the advancement of communication and information
Provided, That the ground mentioned in b, e and f existed either at the
technology, as well as the improvement of the transportation system
time of the marriage or supervening after the marriage.
that almost instantly connect people from all over the world, mixed
marriages have become not too uncommon. Likewise, it is recognized
1. When the spouses have been separated in fact for at least five (5) that not all marriages are made in heaven and that imperfect humans
years at the time the petition for absolute divorce is filed, and the more often than not create imperfect unions.83 Living in a flawed
reconciliation is highly improbable; world, the unfortunate reality for some is that the attainment of the
individual's full human potential and self fulfillment is not found and
achieved in the context of a marriage. Thus it is hypocritical to
2. Psychological incapacity of either spouse as provided for in Article
36 of the Family Code, whether or not the incapacity was present at safeguard the quantity of existing marriages and, at the same time,
brush aside the truth that some of them are rotten quality.
the time of the celebration of the marriage or later;

3. When one of the spouses undergoes a gender reassignment surgery Going back, we hold that marriage, being a mutual and shared
commitment between two parties, cannot possibly be productive of
or transition from one sex to another, the other spouse is entitled to
petition for absolute divorce with the transgender or transsexual as any good to the society where one is considered released from the
marital bond while the other remains bound to it.84 In reiterating that
respondent, or vice-versa;
the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his or her
own country if the ends of justice are to be served, San Luis v. San
4. Irreconcilable marital differences and conflicts which have resulted Luis85 quoted:
in the total breakdown of the marriage beyond repair, despite earnest
and repeated efforts at reconciliation.
x x x In Alonzo v. Intermediate Applellate Court, the Court stated:
But as has also been aptly observed, we test a law by its results: and If the opposing party fails to properly object, as in this case, the
likewise, we may add, by its purposes. It is a cardinal rule that, in divorce decree is rendered admissible a a written act of the foreign
seeking the meaning of the law, the first concern of the judge should court.94 As it appears, the existence of the divorce decree was not
be to discover in its provisions the intent of the lawmaker. denied by the OSG; neither was the jurisdiction of the divorce court
Unquestionably, the law should never be interpreted in such a way as impeached nor the validity of its proceedings challenged on the ground
to cause injustice as this is never within the legislative intent. An of collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of fact or law, albeit an opportunity
indispensable part of that intent, in fact, for we presume the good to do so.95
motives of the legislature, is to render justice.
Nonetheless, the Japanese law on divorce must still be proved.
Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but in
consonance with justice. Law and justice are inseparable, and we must
x x x The burden of proof lies with the "party who alleges the
keep them so. To be sure, there are some laws that, while generally
existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of
valid, may seem arbitrary when applied in a particular case because
an action." In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the
only of our nature and functions, to apply them just the same, in
material defendants have the burden of proving the material
slavish obedience to their language. What we do instead is find a
allegations in their answer when they introduce new matters. x x x
balance between the sord and the will, that justice may be done even
as the law is obeyed.
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial
notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must alleged and
As judges, we are not automatons. We do not and must not
proved. x x x The power of judicial notice must be exercise d with
unfeelingly apply the law as it worded, yielding like robots to the literal
caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be
command without regard to its cause and consequence. "Courts are
resolved in the negative.96
apt to err by sticking too closely to the words of law," so we are
warned, by Justice Holmes agaian, "where these words import a policy
that goes beyond them." Since the divorce was raised by Manalo, the burden of proving the
pertinent Japanese law validating it, as well as her former husband's
capacity to remarry, fall squarely upon her. Japanese laws on persons
xxxx
and family relations are not among those matters that Filipino judges
are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.
More that twenty centuries ago, Justinian defined justice "as the
constant and perpetual wish to render every one of his due." That wish
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The
continues to motivate this Court when it assesses the facts and the law
September 18, 2014 Decision and October 12, 2015 Resolution if the
in ever case brought to it for decisions. Justice is always an essential
Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV. No. 100076, are AFFIRMED IN
ingredient of its decisions. Thus when the facts warrant, we interpret
PART. The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further
the law in a way that will render justice, presuming that it was the
proceedings and reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese law
intention if the lawmaker, to begin with, that the law be dispensed
on divorce.
with justice.86

SO ORDERED
Indeed, where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and
literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear
purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed in part. Case
and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law.87 A remanded to court of origin.
statute may therefore, be extended to cases not within the literal
meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent.88

Notes.—Article 78 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1083 states that the

The foregoing notwithstanding, We cannot yet write finis to this care and custody of children below seven (7) whose parents are
controversy by granting Manalo's petition to recognize and enforce the
divorced shall belong to the mother, and the minor above 7 but below
divorce decree rendered by the Japanese court and to cancel the entry
the age of puberty may choose the parent with whom he/she wants to
of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila.
stay. (Mendez vs. Shari’a District Court, 5th Shari’a District, Cotabato
City, 780 SCRA 53 [2016])
Jurisprudence has set guidelines before the Philippine courts recognize
a foreign judgment 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 fact of divorce must still first be It is well to reiterate that Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, is
proven.90 Before a a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our not a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the grounds
courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and for divorce manifest themselves; a marriage, no matter how
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.91 unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage. (Del Rosario vs. Del
Rosario, 818 SCRA 83 [2017])
x x x Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value,
the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence. A
divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. The
decree purports to be written act or record of an act of an official body
or tribunal of foreign country.

Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or

document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign
country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof
attested by the officer having legal custody of the 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 the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept and (b)authenticated by the seal of
his office.92

In granting Manalo's petition, the CA noted:

In this case, Petitioner was able to submit before the court a quo the
1) Decision of the Japanese Court allowing the divorce; 2)
the Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippines Consulate
General in Osaka, Japan of the Decree of Divorce; and 3) Acceptance
of Certificate of Divorce byu the Petitioner and the Japanese national.
Under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48
(b) of the Rules of Court, these documents sufficiently prove the
subject Divorce Decree as a fact. Thus, We are constrained to
recognize the Japanese Court's judgment decreeing the divorce.93