G.R. No. 128195 - Lee vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128195)

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained by mere mutual agreement between spouses without adversarial judicial proceedings may be judicially recognized in the Philippines under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.
Whether the respondent sufficiently proved the foreign divorce decree and the applicable foreign law (Japanese law on divorce) for judicial recognition.

Facts and Procedural History

Ruby Ng, a Filipino citizen, married a Japanese national, Akihiro Sono, in Quezon City, Philippines. They bore a child and later moved to Japan. Their marriage dissolved when they secured a "divorce decree by mutual agreement" in Japan in 2007. The divorce was documented by the Japanese Embassy in the Philippines, recorded in the Manila Civil Registry and the Japanese Civil Registry.

In 2018, Ng filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for recognition of the foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. The RTC granted the petition in 2019, recognizing the divorce decree and allowing Ng to remarry. The Republic moved for reconsideration, arguing that the divorce obtained by mutual agreement without judicial proceedings is not worthy of recognition and that Ng failed to sufficiently prove the applicable Japanese divorce law. The RTC denied the motion. The Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Ruling Overview

The Supreme Court majority granted the petition and reversed the RTC decision, remanding the case to the RTC for further evidence showing the applicable Japanese law on divorce. The Court outlined the following principles:

Recognition of Foreign Divorce under Article 26, Family Code

Article 26, paragraph 2 provides that where a valid 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.
Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce and cannot grant it; however, Article 26 allows for recognition of foreign divorces involving mixed marriages to correct the anomaly where the foreign spouse is free to remarry while the Filipino spouse is not.
The key requirement is that the foreign divorce must be "validly obtained abroad," but the law does not specify that this divorce must be obtained solely through judicial or adversarial proceedings.

Judicial Recognition of Divorce by Mutual Agreement

The Court emphasized that divorce by mutual agreement, where both spouses consent and jointly obtain the divorce, is recognized in foreign jurisdictions such as Japan and South Korea.
Prior rulings, including Republic v. Manalo, Racho v. Tanaka, Galapon v. Republic, Basa-Egami v. Bersales, and Republic v. Bayog-Saito, sustain that divorces by mutual agreement are within the ambit of Article 26(2) and may be recognized without requiring judicial adversarial proceedings abroad.
Judicial recognition involves confirming the fact of divorce and proof that it conforms to foreign law capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry, regardless of who initiated or participated in the foreign divorce process.

Jurisprudential Support and Legislative Intent

The provision was enacted to ensure fairness to Filipino spouses in mixed marriages and prevent unjust situations where the foreign spouse is free to remarry while the Filipino spouse remains legally married under Philippine law.
It was recognized as a corrective measure and exception to the strict nationality principle, which prohibits absolute divorce for Filipinos.
The Court underscored that the plain language and spirit of Article 26(2) require only a "validly obtained" foreign divorce and do not limit recognition to judicial divorces alone.

Public Policy Considerations: Absolute Divorce and Collusion

The Court maintained that absolute divorce remains prohibited under Philippine law as a matter of public policy.
However, this public policy does not preclude recognition of valid foreign divorces obtained under foreign law for mixed marriages.
The distinction between "agreement" and "collusion" was clarified: 'agreement' is a mutual understanding, while 'collusion' implies fraudulent or deceitful manipulation of evidence or facts to deceive the court.
Divorce by mutual agreement recognized under Japanese law is not collusion, as there is no deception or suppression of evidence involved.
The protective mechanism against collusion in Philippine annulment and nullity proceedings—namely, prosecutorial involvement—is not applicable to petitions for recognition of foreign divorces since the marriage has already been dissolved abroad.

International Comity and Recognition of Foreign Sovereign Acts

Recognition of foreign divorces, whether judicial or administrative, is an exercise of the principle of international comity.
Comity requires that foreign sovereign acts be respected unless they contravene the state's public policy or work an injustice.
Since the foreign divorce was valid under Japanese law, it should be recognized unless proven to offend Philippine public policy, which was not shown.

Proof Requirements under Philippine Rules of Evidence

Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and foreign laws.
The party seeking judicial recognition must prove:
1. The fact of divorce through proper documentary evidence, and
2. The applicable foreign law capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry, following the strict requirements under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court.
The Court noted that the Office of the Court Administrator issued circulars providing compilations of foreign laws on marriage and divorce (OCA Circular Nos. 157-2022 and 157-2022-A), but these compilations do not dispense with the need for compliance with evidentiary rules.
In the present case, while the respondent adequately proved the fact of divorce through authenticated documents, she failed to properly prove the Japanese divorce law, having presented only an unauthenticated photocopy and translation.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC to allow further evidence on the applicable Japanese law on divorce.

Concurring Opinions Summary

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo concurred with the ponencia, emphasizing the legislative intent behind Article 26(2), the acceptance of foreign divorces obtained by mutual consent under foreign law, and the proper application of evidentiary rules on proof of foreign laws.
Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh and other justices concurred, affirming that recognition of divorce by mutual agreement is consistent with the constitutional and legislative framework and jurisprudence, also weighing crucially on the policy to avoid unjust discrimination against Filipino spouses married to foreigners.

Dissenting Opinion Highlights

Justice Hernando, dissenting, argued that:
- Foreign divorces should be recognized only if obtained through judicial proceedings by courts of competent jurisdiction.
- Divorce by mutual agreement, an extrajudicial and administrative procedure devoid of judicial scrutiny, is not worthy of recognition.
- The decision to recognize such divorces undermines Philippine public policy that prohibits absolute divorce and prohibits collusion in the dissolution of marriage.
- Public policy should require strict compliance with a judicial process abroad before recognizing foreign divorce decrees.
- The Court should defer to the legislature regarding such significant changes in family law.

Summary of Legal Principles

Article 26(2), Family Code is the governing provision for the recognition of foreign divor

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 128195)

Facts and Procedural Posture

Ruby Cuevas Ng, a Filipino citizen, married Akihiro Sono, a Japanese national, in Quezon City on December 8, 2004. They had a child named Rieka Ng Sono.
The spouses later moved to Japan, where they secured a divorce decree by mutual agreement on August 31, 2007.
The Divorce Certificate was issued by the Japanese Embassy in the Philippines, authenticated by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), and recorded by the City Civil Registry Office of Manila. It was also duly recorded in the Civil Registry of Japan supported by an English translation.
On May 28, 2018, Ng filed a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Declaration of Capacity to Remarry under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City.
The RTC admitted all documentary evidence, declared general default, and granted the petition on January 3, 2019, recognizing the foreign divorce and declaring Ng capacitated to remarry.
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on September 6, 2019.
The Republic thereafter filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, contesting the judicial recognition of the divorce decree obtained by mutual agreement and arguing insufficient proof of Japanese divorce law.

Issues

Whether a foreign divorce decree obtained by mutual agreement of spouses without adversarial court proceedings can be judicially recognized under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
Whether the petitioner sufficiently proved the divorce decree and the applicable foreign law on divorce, particularly Japanese law, required for recognition.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The petition is GRANTED. The RTC decision and order are REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further reception of evidence on Japanese divorce law.

Legal Framework on Foreign Divorce Recognition

Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce and courts cannot grant it; however, under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, a Filipino spouse in a mixed marriage may remarry if the foreign spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad.
Article 26(2) serves as a corrective measure addressing the anomaly where the foreign spouse is freed from marriage while the Filipino spouse remains bound.
The provision requires only a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner and a valid foreign divorce capacitating the alien spouse to remarry.
The legislation does not limit recognition exclusively to divorces obtained by judicial proceedings; “validly obtained abroad” includes both judicial and administrative divorces.

Jurisprudential Trends on Divorce by Mutual Agreement

The Court consistently rules that foreign divorce by mutual agreement falls within Article 26(2) and merits recognition, regardless of whether it is initiated by the foreign spouse, the Filipino spouse, or both jointly.
Recognized cases include Racho v. Tanaka, Galapon v. Republic, In Re: Ordaneza v. Republic, Republic v. Bayog-Saito, and Basa-Egami v. Bersales, all affirming recognition of divorce decrees obtained by mutual consent abroad, particularly in Japan and South Korea.
The Court rejects the argument that only judicial divorces may be recognized, emphasizing the legislative intent and the spirit of the law.
Agreement or mutual consent to divorce is distinct from collusion; the former is lawful under foreign law, while collusion involves deceit to circumvent domestic law.

Application of International Comity

Judicial recognition of foreign divorces is based on the principle of international comity, where one nation recognizes sovereign acts of another with due regard to international duty, convenience, and local rights.
Recognition is not limited to foreign judicial judgments but extends to nonjudicial acts, including divorce decrees without court inte