AMDG

G.R. No. 221029

April 24, 2018
REPUBLIC v. MARELYN TANEDO MANALO

Facts:

Manalo, who contracted a marriage in the Philippines with a Japanese national named Minoro, filed a
petition for divorce in Japan. After due proceedings, a divorce decree was issued by the Japanese court, by virtue of
which Manalo sought the cancellation of her entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan in the Philippines.

RTC however denied her petition. Accordingly, Manalo, being a Filipino national, is subject to Philippines
laws over issues related to family rights and duties in accordance with Article 15 of the Civil Code. The Philippine
laws does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce, whether they are in the country or living abroad. The
CA however overturned the decision, decreeing that Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable even if it was the
Filipino spouse who filed for divorce against her foreign husband because the divorce decree obtained makes the
latter no longer married to the former.

Issue:

Article 26 of the Family Code states that

“Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law”.

Is the same applicable even if it was the Filipino spouse who obtained a divorce decree against her foreign
spouse?

Held:

Yes, Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable even if it was the Filipino spouse who obtained a divorce
decree against her foreign spouse.

Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign
divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the
marriage. Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a 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 still be determined by our courts.

The idea of inserting the provision of Article 26 in the Family Code, thereby effectively amending the Civil
Code provision on family relations, is, to quote

“To avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as 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 her national law.The aim was that it would solve the problem of
many Filipino women who, under the New Civil Code, are still considered married to their alien
husbands even after the latter have already validly divorced them under their (the husbands')
national laws and perhaps have already married again.”

Thus, Article 26 applies to a case where, at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties
were both Filipino citizens, but later on, the spouse who acquired foreign citizenship by naturalization
initiated a divorce proceeding and obtained a favorable decree. Furthermore, two former cases, Dacasin v.
Dacasin and Van Dorn v Romillo, already recognized a foreign divorce decree that was initiated and
obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal effects on the issues of child custody and property
relation, respectively.
 Taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26 should
be likewise made applicable in the issue of cancellation of the entry of marriage. When the court recognized
a foreign divorce decree that was initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal effects
on the issues of child custody and property relation, it should not stop short in likewise acknowledging that
one of the usual and necessary consequences of absolute divorce is the right to remarry.

As to the dissent due to the principle of nationality, it must be noted that based on a clear and plain
reading of Article 26 of the Family Code, it 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. 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 alien spouse,
still, the Court will not follow the letter of the statute when to do so would depart from the true intent of the
legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. The
purpose of the subject provision is to provide a corrective measure to address an anomaly where the Filipino
spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country.
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 initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should
not make a distinction.

Additional Notes to take note (but not important for the full understanding of the case)

 There are two types of divorce: (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
 There is no absolute divorce in the Philippines. The marital bond between two Filipinos cannot be
dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad by virtue of Article 151 and 172 of the Civil Code.
 An absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.
 In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is allowed to contract a subsequent
marriage in case the absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry
 If a legislative classification interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the
disadvantage of a particular 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 compelling
state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. Right to remarry is a
fundamental right.

1
Art 15 CC Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad
2
Art 17 CC Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have, for their object,
public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated,
or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.