CASE DIGEST Republic of the Philippines v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018 Supreme Court, En Banc Ponente: Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

 

FACTS

Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, married Ryuichi Manalo, a Japanese national, on November 14, 2002 in the Philippines. After the marriage, they lived together in Japan. Their relationship eventually deteriorated, and Marelyn filed a divorce petition before a Japanese court. The Japanese court granted the divorce and issued a divorce decree dissolving their marriage. Under Japanese law, the divorce capacitated Ryuichi, the Japanese spouse, to remarry.

After obtaining the divorce, Marelyn returned to the Philippines and filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Juan City seeking recognition of the Japanese divorce decree and the cancellation of the corresponding marriage entry in the Philippine civil registry. She also sought recognition of her capacity to remarry. The RTC, however, denied her petition. It held that although Article 26(2) of the Family Code recognizes certain foreign divorces, the provision did not apply because it was Marelyn, the Filipino spouse, who initiated the divorce proceedings in Japan.

Marelyn appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC and ruled in her favor. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Republic argued that Article 26(2) should apply only when the foreign spouse obtained the divorce, and that a Filipino citizen cannot invoke Philippine law to obtain the capacity to remarry after personally initiating a divorce abroad. The case was thereafter elevated to the Supreme Court En Banc because it involved the proper interpretation of Article 26(2) of the Family Code and its relationship with the Philippine policy against absolute divorce.

ISSUE

Whether or not Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies when the Filipino spouse, rather than the foreign spouse, initiated and obtained the foreign divorce decree.

Whether or not a Filipino spouse who obtained a valid foreign divorce against his or her foreign spouse may likewise be considered capacitated to remarry under Philippine law when the divorce capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry.

Whether or not recognizing the effects of such foreign divorce would violate the Philippine policy against absolute divorce, as reflected in the Civil Code and Family Code.

HELD

The Supreme Court DENIED the Republic's petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals. The Court held that Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies even when the Filipino spouse is the one who initiated the foreign divorce proceeding. The law 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 ruled that the phrase "divorce ... validly obtained abroad" does not require that the foreign spouse must have been the person who initiated the divorce proceedings.

The Court explained that Article 26(2) must be interpreted according to its plain language and legislative purpose. The provision was enacted to avoid the absurd situation where the foreign spouse is considered divorced and free to remarry under his or her national law, while the Filipino spouse remains married to that same person under Philippine law. The Court held that there is no substantial reason to distinguish between a Filipino spouse who merely responds to a divorce initiated by the foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse who personally initiates the foreign divorce. In either situation, the marriage has been dissolved abroad and the foreign spouse has been capacitated to remarry.

The Court further held that refusing to apply Article 26(2) merely because the Filipino spouse initiated the divorce would result in unequal and unjust treatment of Filipino spouses similarly situated. The Court emphasized that the law does not distinguish between who initiated the divorce proceeding. To make such a distinction would effectively add a qualification that Congress did not place in the statute. The Court therefore ruled that the Filipino spouse may benefit from the foreign divorce provided that the divorce is valid under the foreign law and capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry.

The Court also reconciled the ruling with the Philippine policy that marriage is an inviolable social institution and that Philippine law does not generally recognize absolute divorce. The Court explained that Article 26(2) constitutes a specific statutory exception to the general rule. It does not authorize Philippine courts to grant divorce; rather, it recognizes the legal effects of a divorce already validly obtained abroad in a mixed marriage. The purpose is to prevent the anomalous situation in which the foreign spouse is no longer married while the Filipino spouse remains legally tied to a person who is already free to remarry.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court recognized that Marelyn Tanedo Manalo had the capacity to remarry under Philippine law, notwithstanding the fact that she was the one who initiated the divorce in Japan. The Court emphasized, however, that recognition of the foreign divorce requires the Filipino spouse to prove the fact of divorce and establish its validity under the foreign law, including the fact that the foreign spouse was capacitated to remarry. The Court thus affirmed the CA's ruling in favor of Manalo.