Case Summary (G.R. No. 221029)
Parties
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General)
Respondent: Marelyn Tanedo Manalo
Key Dates
– January 10, 2012: Manalo’s petition filed in RTC, Dagupan City
– October 15, 2012: RTC denied petition for lack of merit
– September 18, 2014: Court of Appeals decision reversing the RTC
– October 12, 2015: CA resolution denying reconsideration
– April 24, 2018: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution, esp. Article XV on protection of marriage and family, and Article III (Equal Protection)
– Family Code (Executive Order No. 209 as amended by EO 227), particularly Article 26(2) on recognition of foreign divorce in mixed marriages
– New Civil Code, Articles 15 and 17 on nationality principle and conflicts of laws
– Rule 45 on certiorari; Rule 108 on recognition of foreign judgments; Rules on Evidence, Rule 132, Sections 24–25
Facts
Manalo, a Filipino married in the Philippines to a Japanese national, secured a divorce decree from a Japanese court dated December 6, 2011. She petitioned the Philippine RTC to cancel her marriage entry in San Juan’s civil registry and to regain her maiden surname. The petition, duly published and noticed, was denied by the RTC on the ground that Philippine law prohibits absolute divorce for Filipino citizens (New Civil Code Articles 15 and 17).
Procedural History
On appeal, the Court of Appeals applied Article 26(2) of the Family Code to recognize the Japanese divorce and granted Manalo capacity to remarry under Philippine law. The OSG’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Republic then filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether Article 26(2) of the Family Code permits a Filipino spouse who obtained a foreign divorce decree against an alien spouse to secure recognition and enforcement of that decree in the Philippines and to cancel the local marriage entry.
Supreme Court Ruling
The petition is denied and the CA decision is affirmed in part. The Court holds that:
- Article 26(2) applies to any valid foreign divorce decree that dissolves a mixed marriage by capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry, regardless of which spouse initiated the foreign proceeding.
- The literal language of Article 26(2) does not distinguish between alien-initiated and Filipino-initiated divorces. To require such distinction would frustrate the provision’s legislative intent “to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married in this jurisdiction while the alien spouse is freed abroad.”
- A purposive construction controls when a literal reading would produce injustice or absurdity. The 1987 Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and fundamental liberties—including the right to marry and to remarry—supports an interpretation of Article 26(2) that does not discriminate against Filipino-initiated foreign divorces.
- Philippine courts may recognize the foreign decree under the principles of comity and Rule 108, but the decree’s validity and the foreign spouse’s capacity to remarry must be proven in accordance with Rules on Evidence, Rule 132, Sections 24–25.
Remand
The case is remanded to the RTC for reception of evidence on the relevant Japanese law on divorce and the foreign spouse’s capacity to remarry.
Concurring Opinion (Leonen, J.)
Justice Leonen emphasizes:
– The State’s constitutional duty under Article II, Section 14 and subsequent statutes (e.g., Magna Carta of Women) to ensure fundamental equality of w
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221029)
Facts
- On January 10, 2012, respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo filed a petition before RTC, Branch 43 of Dagupan City, for cancellation of her marriage entry in San Juan’s civil registry, based on a December 6, 2011 Japanese divorce decree.
- The petition and notice of hearing were published weekly for three consecutive weeks in the Northern Journal.
- Manalo marked as evidence: the court’s January 25, 2012 Order finding the petition sufficient; affidavit of publication; Northern Journal issues; marriage certificate; Japanese divorce decree; Philippine Consulate‐General authentication; and acceptance of the foreign divorce certificate.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appeared for the Republic, questioned the petition’s title, and argued the proper remedy was recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. Manalo was permitted to file an Amended Petition to clarify this point.
Procedural History
- RTC (October 15, 2012): Denied the petition, holding Philippine law (Art. 15, New Civil Code) bars recognition of absolute divorce for Filipino nationals.
- CA Decision (September 18, 2014) and Resolution (October 12, 2015): Reversed the RTC, applied Art. 26(2) of the Family Code to allow recognition of foreign divorce effects on a Filipino petitioner.
- OSG’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Thereafter, the Republic filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether a Filipino citizen who initiates and obtains an absolute divorce decree abroad against a foreign spouse is capacitated under Philippine law (Family Code, Art. 26[2]) to:
- Cancel the marriage entry in the local civil registry; and
- Contract a subsequent marriage without undergoing domestic annulment or nullity proceedings.
Governing Law and Principles
- New Civil Code:
- Art. 15 (nationality principle): Philippine family‐law rules bind Filipino citizens, even abroad.
- Art. 17: Formalities of public instruments governed by the law where executed.
- Family Code, Art. 26(2) (as amended by E.O. 227):
- Valid foreign mar