Galapon vs. Republic

Factual Background

Cynthia A. Galapon, a Filipina, and Noh Shik Park, a South Korean national, were married in Manila on February 27, 2012. The marriage later dissolved in South Korea by a divorce decree confirmed by the Cheongju Local Court on July 16, 2012; the Korean decree reflected a divorce by mutual agreement under Section 5, Article 834 of the Korean Civil Code. Thereafter, Cynthia filed a petition before the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree. The RTC set the petition for hearing, caused publication of notice, and received testimony from Abigail Galapon, Cynthia’s sister and attorney-in-fact, who identified her judicial affidavit and testified that Cynthia could not attend because her Korean visa had expired and that Cynthia agreed to the divorce under coercion.

RTC Proceedings and Ruling

The RTC of Sto. Domingo, Branch 88, found the petition sufficient in form and substance, entertained evidence, and on July 3, 2015 issued a Decision granting the petition and recognizing the foreign divorce decree, directing civil registrars to record the divorce upon presentation of authenticated copies and fees, and declaring Cynthia capacitated to remarry pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration arguing, inter alia, that venue lay in the RTC of Manila where the marriage was recorded under Rule 108, that absolute divorce is contrary to Philippine public policy and therefore Article 26(2) could not apply to a divorce obtained jointly, and that Cynthia was not entitled to the benefits of Article 26(2) because the decree was obtained by mutual agreement. The RTC denied the motion and reasoned that recognition petitions may proceed under an action for declaratory relief under Rule 63, that Section 2, Rule 4 was analogous for venue when no specific rule applied, and that the evidence satisfied the requisites of Article 26(2) because there was a valid mixed marriage and a valid foreign divorce capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41. The CA reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and Resolution on February 27, 2017 and dismissed Cynthia’s petition for lack of merit. The CA concluded that while the RTC did not err in taking cognizance because the OSG did not move for dismissal for improper venue at the first instance, the foreign divorce could not be recognized insofar as Cynthia was concerned because the decree was obtained by mutual agreement. The CA interpreted Article 26(2) to require that the foreign divorce be initiated and obtained by the foreign spouse alone, not by joint petition, and held that a divorce valid under Korean law by mutual agreement therefore did not meet the second element of Republic v. Orbecido III. The CA also questioned the probative value of Abigail’s testimony because it allegedly rested on matters not within her personal knowledge.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Cynthia A. Galapon contended that the CA erred by conducting more than a limited review of a foreign judgment and by substituting its judgment for the Korean courts on matters of status and capacity of a Korean national. She argued that the evidence established the validity and authenticity of the Korean decree and that recognition under Article 26(2) should follow. The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, maintained that Article 26(2) did not apply because the divorce was obtained by mutual agreement of both spouses and not by the foreign spouse alone, and it challenged the admissibility and weight of Abigail’s testimony as hearsay.

Issue Presented

The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the CA erred in denying recognition to the divorce decree obtained by mutual agreement between Cynthia A. Galapon and her foreign spouse, thereby refusing to declare Cynthia capacitated to remarry under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court reversed and set aside the CA Decision dated February 27, 2017 and Resolution dated September 29, 2017, and reinstated the RTC Decision dated July 3, 2015. The Court declared that by virtue of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code and the Certification of the Cheongju Local Court dated July 16, 2012, Cynthia A. Galapon was capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court examined the twin elements articulated in Republic v. Orbecido III for the application of Article 26(2): (i) the existence of a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner; and (ii) a valid foreign divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The Court considered the CA’s narrow interpretation that Article 26(2) required the divorce to have been initiated and obtained solely by the alien spouse and found that view contrary to the subsequent en banc ruling in Republic v. Manalo, which construed Article 26(2) to require only that the divorce be validly obtained abroad and capacitate the alien spouse to remarry without distinguish