Case Summary (G.R. No. 234457)
Petitioner
Raemark S. Abel, who seeks judicial recognition in the Philippines of a California divorce decree dissolving his marriage to Mindy P. Rule.
Respondents
Mindy P. Rule; Office of the Civil Registry General–Philippine Statistics Authority; City Civil Registry Office of Manila; and all others claiming an interest.
Key Dates
• December 18, 2005: Marriage solemnized in Los Angeles, California.
• November 18, 2008: Joint Petition for summary dissolution of marriage filed in California.
• July 31, 2009: California court grants dissolution; judgment received by Abel eight days later.
• December 3, 2008: Abel reacquires Philippine citizenship.
• September 21, 2012: Rule naturalizes as a U.S. citizen.
• January 10, 2017: California judgment authenticated and recorded in Manila.
• July 5 and September 6, 2017: Regional Trial Court issues orders dismissing recognition petition and denying reconsideration.
• May 12, 2021: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution: Ensures fundamental equality before the law of women and men (Art. II, Sec. 14).
• Family Code of the Philippines, Article 26(2): Recognizes foreign divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry; Filipino spouse likewise acquires capacity to remarry.
• Republic Act No. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women), Section 19: Mandates equal rights in matters relating to marriage and family relations.
Background of Marriage and Divorce Proceedings
Abel and Rule married in Los Angeles on December 18, 2005. They neither acquired community assets nor had children. Within five years, they filed a Joint Petition for summary dissolution on November 18, 2008, waiving rights to appeal and spousal support. The California Superior Court granted the dissolution on July 31, 2009.
Recording and Initial Philippine Petition
Following authentication, the California judgment was recorded with the Manila City Registry on January 10, 2017. Abel then filed a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and correction of civil entry before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
Opposition by the Office of the Solicitor General
The Office of the Solicitor General contended that recognition was impermissible because the divorce was jointly obtained by both spouses, contrary to Article 26(2), which allegedly permits recognition only when the foreign spouse alone secures the decree. It argued that joint filings violate public policy, amounting to collusion.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On July 5, 2017, the Regional Trial Court granted the OSG’s Opposition and dismissed Abel’s petition. It held that Article 26(2) allows recognition only where the alien spouse independently obtains the foreign divorce. Joint filings by a Filipino and a foreign spouse were deemed forbidden by the lex nationali principle and contrary to public policy.
Denial of Reconsideration
The Regional Trial Court denied Abel’s motion for reconsideration on September 6, 2017, reaffirming that a joint divorce petition contravened Articles 15 and 17(3) of the New Civil Code and Philippine public policy.
Petition for Review before the Supreme Court
Abel elevated the matter via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, asserting that Article 26(2) does not require the alien spouse to be the sole petitioner and that legislative intent favors recognition to prevent anomalous dual marital status.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Abel argued that a strict literal reading of Article 26(2) would defeat its remedial purpose and deny equality as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Magna Carta of Women. He emphasized that he, as the foreign spouse, obtained the divorce validly and that the joint petition did not involve collusion or other vices.
Arguments of the Republic
The Republic, through the OSG, maintained that Philippine law opposes absolute divorce and that Article 26(2) explicitly contemplates recognition only when initiated by the alien spouse. It warned that allowing joint recognition discriminates against Filipinos and undermines public policy.
Legal Issue
Whether a foreign divorce decree jointly obtained by a Filipino spouse and an alien spouse may be judicially recognized in the Philippines under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
Precedents Establishing Gender Equality in Divorce Recognition
In Republic v. Manalo and subsequent decisions (e.g., Galapon v. Republic), the Supreme Court held that A
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 234457)
Facts
- On December 18, 2005, Raemark S. Abel, a U.S. citizen, and Mindy P. Rule, a Filipino citizen, were married in Los Angeles, California.
- During their marriage, the couple acquired no community assets or liabilities and had no children.
- On November 18, 2008, they jointly filed a Petition for Summary Dissolution of Marriage in the Los Angeles Superior Court, waiving rights to appeal, new trial, and spousal support.
- The California court granted the dissolution on July 31, 2009; Abel received the judgment seven days later.
- Abel reacquired Filipino citizenship on December 3, 2008, becoming a dual citizen.
- Rule naturalized as a U.S. citizen on September 21, 2012.
- On January 10, 2017, the authenticated California divorce decree was recorded with the Manila City Civil Registry.
Procedural History
- Abel filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Correction of Civil Entry (SP No. 17-137507) before the RTC of Manila, Branch 7.
- The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance (February 22, 2017) and required its publication in a newspaper for three weeks.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed recognition, arguing the joint filing contravened Article 26(2) of the Family Code and public policy.
- Abel replied, asserting (a) the decree was obtained through judicial proceedings, not collusion; (b) the Family Code does not require the foreign spouse to file alone; and (c) Article 26(2) does not prohibit joint petitions.
- On July 5, 2017, the RTC granted the OSG’s Opposition and dismissed Abel’s petition as contrary to public policy.
- Abel’s motion for reconsideration was denied on September 6, 2017.
- Abel elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 234457).
Issue
- Whether a foreign divorce decree jointly obtained by a Fil