Republic v.

Manalo
GR 221029 April 24, 2018

Doctrine
The aim of the amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of having the Filipino deemed still married
to a foreign spouse even though the latter is no longer married to the former. According to the
Supreme Court, the wording of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code requires only that there be
a valid divorce obtained abroad and does not discriminate as to who should file the divorce, i.e.,
whether it is the Filipino spouse or the foreign spouse. Also, even if assuming arguendo that the
provision should be interpreted that the divorce proceeding should be initiated by the foreign spouse,
the Court will not follow such interpretation since doing so would be contrary to the legislative intent
of the law.

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

Facts
1. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married in the Philippines to Yoshino Minoro, a Japanese national.
She divorced Minoro in Japan and a Japanese court issued the divorce decree dated December 6,
2011.
2. On January 10, 2012, she filed in the RTC of Dagupan City a petition for cancellation of entry of
marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Manila, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. She
also prayed that she be allowed to use her maiden surname: Manalo.
3. She claims there is an imperative need to have the entry of marriage cancelled so that it would
not appear that she is still married to a Japanese national who is no longer married to her, and so
that she shall not be bothered and disturbed by said entry should she decide to remarry.
4. The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Dagupan questioned the caption of the petition and
alleges that the proper action should be a petition for recognition and enforcement of judgment;
this was admitted by Manalo and accordingly amended the petition.
5. RTC Ruling: Petition denied. The divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be recognized
based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code.
6. CA Ruling: RTC ruling was overturned. Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable even if it was
Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree they obtained
makes the latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry.
7. Conformably with Navarro, et al. vs. Exec. Secretary Ermita, et al. ruling, the meaning of the law
should be based on the intent of the lawmakers. In view of the legislative intent behind Article
 26, it would be the height of injustice to consider Manalo as still married to the Japanese national
who is no longer married to her. The fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce case is
inconsequential.

Issues
1. W/N Filipino spouse can initiate the divorce instead of the foreign spouse under Article 26,
paragraph 2 of the Family Code. [Yes]
2. W/N the divorce obtained by Marelyn Manalo from Japan is valid here in the Philippines. [No]

Decision
1. Initiation of Divorce
The Court ruled that in interpreting the law, the intent should be taken into consideration. According
to Justice Alicia Sempio-Dy, a member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, the aim of the
amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of having the Filipino deemed still married to a foreign
spouse even though the latter is no longer married to the former. According to the Supreme Court,
the wording of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code requires only that there be a valid divorce
obtained abroad and does not discriminate as to who should file the divorce, i.e., whether it is the
Filipino spouse or the foreign spouse. Also, even if assuming arguendo that the provision should be
interpreted that the divorce proceeding should be initiated by the foreign spouse, the Court will not
follow such interpretation since doing so would be contrary to the legislative intent of the law.
In the issue of the application of Article 15 of the Civil Code in this case, the Court ruled that even if
Manalo should be bound by the nationality principle, blind adherence to it should not be allowed if it
will cause unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of individuals whose rights are
equally protected by the law.

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

The Court also said that it is the State’s duty not only to strengthen the solidarity of the Filipino family
but also to defend, among others, the right of children to special protection from all forms of neglect
abuse, cruelty, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. The State cannot do this if the
application of paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is limited to only those foreign divorces
initiated by the foreign spouse.
2. Validity of Divorce Obtained.
It has been ruled that foreign laws must be proven. There are two basic types of divorces: (1) absolute
divorce or a vinculo matrimonii, which terminates the marriage, and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et
thoro, which suspends it and leaves the bond in full force.

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

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