G.R. No. 226013 - Morisono vs. Morisono

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226013)

Key Dates and Constitutional Basis

Marriage: December 8, 2009. Japanese divorce approval: January 17, 2012; recorded July 1, 2012. Petition for recognition filed August 24, 2012. RTC Decision denying the petition: July 18, 2016. Supreme Court decision under review: July 2, 2018. Because the controlling decision is dated after 1990, the applicable constitutional framework is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as applied and interpreted in the cited jurisprudence.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 105, Quezon City, for recognition of the foreign divorce decree. After compliance with jurisdictional requirements, the RTC set the matter for hearing; petitioner presented evidence ex parte because only the government appeared to oppose. The RTC admitted petitioner’s formal offer of evidence but denied the petition on the ground that the divorce was procured by the Filipino spouse. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Facts Relevant to the Dispute

The parties lived together in Japan for approximately one year and three months and had marital difficulties attributed to respondent’s philandering and a substantial age difference. They had no children. The spouses jointly submitted and obtained a “Divorce by Agreement” in Mizuho‑Ku, Nagoya City, Japan, which was approved January 17, 2012 and recorded July 1, 2012. Petitioner seeks judicial recognition in the Philippines of that foreign decree.

RTC Ruling and Rationale

The RTC denied recognition of the foreign divorce decree on the ground that petitioner, a Filipino citizen, had procured the divorce. The court invoked the nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code (laws relating to family rights and status are binding upon Filipino citizens even if living abroad) in relation to Article 26(2) of the Family Code, and held that a foreign divorce procured by a Filipino cannot be recognized in the Philippines.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the RTC correctly denied petitioner’s petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree she procured in Japan, i.e., whether a foreign divorce obtained in a mixed marriage can be recognized in the Philippines when the Filipino spouse was the petitioner or otherwise participated in obtaining the decree.

Legal Rules on Divorce Under Philippine Law (As Applied)

The Court summarized the prevailing rules: (1) Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; (2) under Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code, an absolute divorce obtained abroad between two Filipino citizens cannot dissolve the marital bond in the Philippines; (3) an absolute divorce obtained abroad by two aliens may be recognized if valid under their national laws; and (4) in mixed marriages (Filipino and foreigner), Article 26(2) of the Family Code allows the Filipino spouse to be capacitated to remarry if the alien spouse validly obtained a foreign divorce that capacitated the alien to remarry.

Article 26(2) of the Family Code — Scope and Effect

Article 26(2) provides that 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 capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. The Court explained that this provision authorizes Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without trying the foreign divorce on the merits (doing so would amount to deciding a divorce, which Philippine law does not allow). Recognition is founded on comity to avoid the anomalous situation in which a Filipino remains married domestically while the alien spouse is free to remarry under his or her national law. The legal effects of the foreign decree on matters such as custody, support, and property relations, however, remain for Philippine courts to determine.

Precedents Interpreting Article 26(2)

The Court cited prior cases: Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas explained the remedial purpose of Article 26(2) in enabling a Filipino spouse to be declared capacitated to remarry when the alien spouse has been capacitated to remarry abroad. Republic v. Orbecido III identified the elements for application: (a) a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner; and (b) a valid foreign divorce obtained by the alien spouse capacitating the alien to remarry. In Republic v. Manalo (En Banc), the Court extended Article 26(2) to cover situations where the Filipino spouse initiated and obtained the foreign divorce, holding that the statute requires only that a divorce be validly obtained abroad and that it capacitated the alien to remarry, regardless of which spouse initiated the foreign proceedings. Manalo emphasized legislative purpose, equality of treatment between Filipinos who initiate foreign divorce proceedings and those who are respondents in foreign-initiated divorces, and the adverse consequences of a restrictive interpretation.

Application of the Law to the Present Case

The RTC denied petitioner’s petition solely because she, a Filipino, initiated the foreign divorce. Under Manalo, that ground is no longer dispositive: Article 26(2) applies to mixed marriages irrespective of which spouse initiated the foreign divorce, provided the foreign decree is validly obtained and it capacitated the alien to remarry. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court emphasized that recognition under Article 26(2) still requires proof: the petitioner must establish the fact of the foreign divorce and demonstrate its conformity with the foreign law (here, Japanese law) that allows it. The RTC did not rule on those factual and choice‑of‑law issues; they involve examination of evidence and findings of fact.

Supreme Court Ruling and Relief

The Supreme Court held the petition partly meritorious. It reversed and set aside the RTC Decision dated July 18, 2016 and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings to determine the fa

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 226013)

Case Title, Citation and Procedural Posture

G.R. No. 226013; Decision dated July 02, 2018; Second Division; reported at 834 Phil. 823.
Direct recourse to the Supreme Court from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 105, via a petition for review on certiorari.
RTC rendered a Decision dated July 18, 2016 in SP. PROC. NO. Q-12-71830 denying petitioner’s petition; petition before the Supreme Court assails that denial.
Decision of the RTC was penned by Presiding Judge Rosa M. Samson.
Rollo references and internal footnotes appear in the source material (rollo, pp. cited).

Parties and Nature of Relief Sought

Petitioner: Luzviminda Dela Cruz Morisono (Filipino citizen).
Private respondent: Ryoji (also rendered in parts as “Kyoji”) Morisono (Japanese national).
Public respondent/nominal respondent: Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City.
Relief sought: Judicial recognition in the Philippines of a foreign divorce decree ("Divorce by Agreement") obtained in Nagoya City, Japan, with attendant relief to cancel the former husband’s surname in petitioner’s passport and to enable petitioner to remarry.

Material Facts

Marriage: Luzviminda and Ryoji were married in Quezon City on December 8, 2009.
Post-marriage residence: The spouses lived together in Japan for one (1) year and three (3) months.
Marital difficulties: The couple were not blessed with a child; they constantly quarreled, attributed mainly to Ryoji’s philandering and to the significant age difference between them.
Foreign divorce procured: The spouses submitted a "Divorce by Agreement" before the City Hall of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan; the divorce was approved on January 17, 2012 and was recorded with the Head of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City on July 1, 2012 (Divorce Notification referenced).
Petition for recognition: Luzviminda filed a petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree before the RTC (petition dated August 24, 2012 per source), seeking recognition so she could cancel her former husband’s surname in her passport and be able to marry again.
RTC proceedings: Jurisdictional requirements were complied with; RTC set the case for hearing; no opposing private party appeared except the government; Luzviminda presented evidence ex parte; in the absence of objection from the Public Prosecutor, Luzviminda’s formal offer of evidence was admitted as proof of compliance with jurisdictional requirements and as part of witness testimony.

RTC Ruling (Decision dated July 18, 2016)

Disposition: RTC denied Luzviminda’s petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree.
Grounding of denial: The RTC held that while a divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse may be recognized in the Philippines provided that such decree is valid according to the national law of the alien, that rule does not apply when it was the Filipino spouse who procured the divorce.
Legal basis cited by the RTC: Invocation of the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 26(2) of the Family Code; the RTC concluded that because petitioner is a Filipino citizen whose national laws do not allow divorce, the foreign divorce decree she herself obtained in Japan is not binding in the Philippines.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the RTC correctly denied Luzviminda’s petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree she procured in Japan.

Controlling Legal Principles Stated by the Supreme Court

Summary of applicable rules on divorce as articulated by the Court:
- Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce; Philippine courts therefore cannot grant absolute divorce.
- Under Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code, the marital bond between two Filipino citizens cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad.
- An absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple who are both aliens may be recognized in the Philippines provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.
- In mixed marriages (Filipino and foreigner), where an absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse is likewise allowed to contract a subsequent marriage under Philippine law — the rule in Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

Text of Article 26(2) and Doctrinal Function

Article 26(2) (as quoted in the source): “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 capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
Doctrinal effect:
- Article 26(2) confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to the Filipino spouse without conducting a trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage (because that would amount to trying divorce in the Philippines).
- The provision authorizes Philippine courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce decree (not to adjudicate the foreign decree’s merits).
- The law seeks to avoid the anomalous situation where a Filipino remains married at home while the alien spouse is no longer married under his/her national law.
- The extension under Article 26(2) does not foreclose Philippine courts from determining legal effects controll