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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226013)

Procedural History and Applicable Law

The petition was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 105, under SP. PROC. NO. Q-12-71830. The RTC denied Luzviminda’s petition to recognize the foreign divorce decree on July 18, 2016. Luzviminda then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari. The applicable law is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly its provisions regarding marriage and family, along with the Family Code and the Civil Code.

RTC’s Basis for Denial

The RTC held that foreign divorce decrees obtained abroad by an alien spouse may be recognized, provided the decree is valid under the alien spouse’s national law. However, it ruled that this exception does not apply when the Filipino spouse is the one who procured the divorce. The RTC relied on the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code and Article 26(2) of the Family Code. Since Luzviminda, a Filipino citizen, initiated the foreign divorce, and Philippine law disallows divorce, the decree was deemed not binding domestically.

Core Issue Before the Supreme Court

The main question was whether the RTC correctly denied the petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree when the Filipino spouse obtained the decree along with the foreign spouse.

Summary of the Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition, holding that the rules on divorce in the Philippines must be understood as follows:

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, courts cannot grant absolute divorce domestically.
Marriages between two Filipino citizens cannot be dissolved, even by a foreign divorce decree obtained abroad.
Absolute divorce decrees obtained abroad by two foreign spouses may be recognized under Philippine law if valid under their national law.
In mixed marriages between a Filipino and a foreigner, if the foreign spouse obtains a valid foreign divorce decree capacitating him/her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law (Article 26(2) of the Family Code).

Article 26(2) authorizes Philippine courts to recognize foreign divorce decrees validly obtained abroad by the foreign spouse without conducting a trial on the merits of the dissolution. This principle avoids the anomaly where a Filipino spouse remains married domestically while the foreign spouse is free to remarry abroad.

Doctrinal Development and Jurisprudence

The Court cited Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, which clarified that Article 26(2) was designed to protect Filipino spouses married to foreigners by recognizing the dissolution abroad where the foreign spouse obtains a divorce. It confirmed that a valid foreign divorce decree capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry also confers the Filipino spouse with capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

In Republic v. Orbecido III, the Court enumerated the elements for Article 26(2) application: a valid marriage between Filipino and foreign citizen, and a valid foreign divorce obtained by the alien spouse giving capacity to remarry. This applies even in cases where the foreign spouse later acquired foreign citizenship and secured a divorce.

Extension of the Doctrine in Republic v. Manalo

The Court further extended the scope in Republic v. Manalo, ruling that Article 26(2) applies regardless of which spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding. The ruling reasoned that the language of the statute does not require the foreign spouse to be the petitioner in the foreign divorce action. The purpose is to avoid the unfair situation where one spouse is free to remarry abroad while the Filipino spouse remains legally married in the Philippines. The Court emphasized the need to harmonize the inviolability of marriage with the realities of multinational marriages in a globalized world and to protect Filipino spouses and their children from ad

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 226013)

Facts of the Case

Luzviminda Dela Cruz Morisono (petitioner), a Filipino citizen, married Ryoji Morisono, a Japanese national, in Quezon City on December 8, 2009.
The couple resided in Japan for one year and three months but did not have any children.
Their marital life was marked by frequent quarrels, primarily due to Ryoji’s philandering and their significant age difference.
Luzviminda and Ryoji jointly filed a "Divorce by Agreement" petition before the City Hall of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan.
The divorce was approved on January 17, 2012, and recorded on July 1, 2012, in Japan.
Luzviminda filed a petition for recognition of this foreign divorce decree before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City to enable her to cancel her former husband's surname on her passport and to remarry.
After meeting jurisdictional requirements, the RTC set the case for hearing where no formal opposition appeared except from the government.
Luzviminda presented evidence ex-parte, which was admitted without objection by the Public Prosecutor.

RTC Decision and Grounds for Denial

The RTC denied Luzviminda’s petition on July 18, 2016.
It held that the recognition of foreign divorces in the Philippines is limited and does not apply when the Filipino spouse procures the divorce.
Citing Article 15 of the Civil Code and Article 26(2) of the Family Code, the court reasoned that Philippine law does not allow divorce for Filipino citizens.
Therefore, the foreign divorce attained by Luzviminda as the Filipino spouse is not binding domestically.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether the RTC correctly denied the petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree obtained by Luzviminda, the Filipino spouse, in Japan.

Legal Principles on Recognition of Foreign Divorce in the Philippines

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; courts lack jurisdiction to grant it domestically.
Marital bonds between two Filipino citizens cannot be dissolved by a foreign absolute divorce.
Absolute divorce decrees obtained abroad by two alien spouses may be recognized if valid under their national laws.
In mixed marriages (Filipino and foreigner), the Filipino spouse is allowed to remarry if the foreign spouse validly obtains an absolute divorce abroad.
Article 26(2) of the Family Code authorizes Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse, enabling the Filipino spouse to remarry.

Interpretation and Application of Article 26(2) of the Family Code

Article 26(2) alleviates the problem where a Filipino spouse is indefinitely bound in marriage while the foreign spouse is free to remarry.
It confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to recognize the foreign divorce without trying the merits of the dissolutio