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.

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. 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.