G.R. No. 247297 - Republic vs. Bayog-Saito

Helen Bayog-Saito, a Filipino citizen, and Toru Saito, a Japanese national, were married on August 30, 1999, in Pasay City, Philippines.
The couple had no children or conjugal properties.

Due to differences in culture and nationality, the marriage broke down and the spouses lived separately for years.
Toru initiated divorce proceedings abroad and requested Helen to sign the divorce notification papers, which she did.
Toru submitted the divorce documents to the Mayor of Minami-A-ku, Yokohama City, Japan.
The divorce notification was accepted by the Japanese authorities, as evidenced by the authenticated “Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce Notification” and its English translation, both authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
The divorce was duly recorded in the family registry of Toru (authenticated Family Register and English translation).
The Vice Consul of the Japanese Embassy in the Philippines issued a Divorce Certificate certified and authenticated by the DFA, showing the marriage was dissolved on October 16, 2012.

On June 30, 2014, Helen filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decree before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City, seeking recognition of the Japanese divorce and declaration of her legal capacity to remarry under Article 26, Family Code.
The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance and admitted the following evidences:

The RTC rendered a Decision judicially recognizing the divorce and declared Helen legally capacitated to remarry.
The RTC ordered the City Civil Registrar of Pasay City to record the divorce decree on their marriage record.
Petitioner (Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General) filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied, emphasizing the injustice of denying recognition.

Petitioner appealed to the CA, arguing that absolute divorce is against Philippine public policy and cannot be recognized, especially that Helen supposedly participated jointly in filing for divorce which is prohibited to Filipinos.
The CA denied the appeal, affirming the RTC decision. It held that the divorce decree was initiated by Toru and Helen’s mere acceptance of the notification was not equivalent to joint initiation.
The CA ruled that a foreign divorce validly obtained by the foreign spouse from whom the Filipino is married may be recognized, provided evidence is sufficient.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration to the CA was also denied.

Helen failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 26, Family Code;
The Family Code prohibits absolute divorce and only allows limited divorce or legal separation;
The exception under paragraph 2, Article 26 covers only divorces initiated solely by the foreign spouse;
Here, the divorce was mutually agreed and jointly obtained; therefore, recognition is illegal;
The divorce decree contradicts Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code, which bind Filipino citizens to Philippine laws governing family relations and capacity.

Respondent Helen denies joint initiation, insists Toru solely initiated the divorce, and her acceptance does not bar recognition.
Petitioner maintains the divorce was a joint act and should not be recognized.

Whether the foreign divorce decree obtained by Helen and Toru in Japan, which was purportedly initiated jointly, should be judicially recognized in the Philippines under paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code.

Whether Helen is legally capacitated to remarry under Philippine law given the nature of the foreign divorce decree.