Republic v.

Manalo
G.R. No. 221029
April 24, 2018

Facts:
Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married to a Japanese national, Yoshino Minoro. Manalo filed a case for divorce in
Japan and after due proceedings, a divorce decree dated December 6, 2011, was granted. Manalo now wants to
cancel the entry of marriage between her and Minoro from the Civil Registry and to be allowed to reuse her
maiden surname, Manalo.

According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code,

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 incapacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall
likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law

Issues:
1. Under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, can the Filipino spouse initiate the divorce instead of the
foreign spouse?

2. Was the divorce obtained by Marelyn Manalo from Japan valid here in the Philippines?

Ruling:
1. Yes. 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.

2. The Court cannot determine due to insufficient evidence.

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.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The September 18, 2014 Decision and
October 12, 2015 Resolution if the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV. No. 100076, are AFFIRMED IN
PART. The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence as to
the relevant Japanese law on divorce.