Title
Nullada vs. Civil Registrar of Manila
Case
G.R. No. 224548
Decision Date
Jan 23, 2019
Filipina seeks recognition of foreign divorce in Manila; Supreme Court rules Article 26 allows remarriage, remands for proof of Japanese law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224548)

Marriage and Divorce History

Marlyn and Akira married on July 29, 1997 in Tokyo, Japan, duly reported to the Philippine Embassy and registered with Manila’s Local Civil Registry. They had one child, Shin Ito. By mutual agreement, they obtained a divorce decree in Japan on November 16, 2009, evidenced by a Divorce Certificate and Acceptance Certificate issued by Japanese authorities and authenticated for Philippine use.

Procedural Posture

In 2014, Marlyn filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Manila, for recognition of the foreign divorce and cancellation of her Philippine marriage entry. She prayed for dissolution of marriage under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, capacity to remarry, and registration of the Japanese divorce. The Office of the Solicitor General intervened, but neither Akira nor the Republic presented evidence against her petition.

RTC Ruling

On January 21, 2016, the RTC denied recognition, relying on Article 17 of the New Civil Code (policy of non‐recognition of divorce) and a restrictive reading of Article 26(2) of the Family Code. It held that a Filipino spouse who actively participated in procuring the divorce cannot invoke the remedial provision allowing remarriage.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether Article 26(2) of the 1987 Constitution-based Family Code applies only when the alien spouse obtained the divorce, or also when the divorce was mutually or exclusively initiated by the Filipino spouse.

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution; Family Code, Article 26(2) – “Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court recognized a pure question of law warranting direct appeal. Citing Republic v. Manalo (G.R. No. 221029, April 24 , 2018), it held that Article 26(2) requires only a valid foreign divorce capable of freeing the alien to remarry; it imposes no limitation on who initiated the proceeding. The statute’s plain language disallows reading in a nationality-based restriction. Denying recognition because the Fili

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.