IN RE: Article 26, Par (2) in relation to Article 15 of NCC

Republic of the Philippines v. Marelyn Tanedo 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. She filed a Petition at the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City.

The Trial Court denied the petition for lack of merit. RTC Dagupan ratiocinated that
based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code the Philippine law "does not afford Filipinos
the right to file for a divorce, whether they are in the country or living abroad, if they are
married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines
or in another country" and that unless Filipinos "are naturalized as citizens of another
country, Philippine laws shall have control over issues related to Filipinos' family rights
and duties, together with the determination of their condition and legal capacity to enter
into contracts and civil relations, including marriages."

CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the
Philippines (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.

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.

More so, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 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. It authorizes our courts to adopt
the effects of a foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow
divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on the merits because it is tantamount to
trying a divorce case. 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

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 principle found
in Article 15 of the New Civil Code, is not absolute and unbending rule. In fact, the mere
existence of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is a testament that the State provided an
exception thereto.

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 stated 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.