GARCIA vs. RECIO G.R. No. 138322.

October 2, 2001 divorce terminating the marriage and limited divorce

merely suspending the marriage. In this case, it is not
FACTS: known which type of divorce the respondent procured.
The respondent, a Filipino was married to Editha Samson, Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may
an Australian citizen, in Rizal in 1987. They lived together under some foreign statutes, still restrict remarriage.
as husband and wife in Australia. In 1989, the Australian Under the Australian divorce decree “a party to a
family court issued a decree of divorce supposedly marriage who marries again before this decree becomes
dissolving the marriage. In 1992, respondent acquired absolute commits the offense of bigamy”. This shows that
Australian citizenship. In 1994, he married Grace Garcia, a the divorce obtained by the respondent might have been
Filipina, herein petitioner, in Cabanatuan City. In their restricted. Respondent also failed to produce sufficient
application for marriage license, respondent was declared evidence showing the foreign law governing his status.
as “single” and “Filipino”. Since October 1995, they lived Together with other evidences submitted, they don’t
separately; and in 1996 while in Autralia, their conjugal absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry
assets were divided. In 1998, petitioner filed Complaint according to the alleged foreign law.
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of Case remanded to the court a quo. The marriage between
bigamy, claiming that she learned of the respondent’s the petitioner and respondent can not be declared null
former marriage only in November. On the other hand, and void based on lack of evidence conclusively showing
respondent claims that he told petitioner of his prior the respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner. With
marriage in 1993, before they were married. Respondent the lack of such evidence, the court a quo may declare
also contended that his first marriage was dissolved by a nullity of the parties’ marriage based on two existing
divorce decree obtained in Australia in 1989 and hence, marriage certificates.
he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994.
The trial court declared that the first marriage was
dissolved on the ground of the divorce issued in Australia REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner v. CRASUS L.
as valid and recognized in the Philippines. Hence, this IYOY, respondent.
petition was forwarded before the Supreme Court. G.R. No. 152577.                September 21, 2005

ISSUES: FACTS:
1. Whether or not the divorce between respondent and Crasus Iyoy married Fely on December 16, 1961 in Cebu
Editha Samson was proven. City. They begot five children. After the celebration of
2. Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to marry their marriage, respondent Crasus discovered that Fely
Grace Garcia. was “hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant.” In 1984,
Fely left the Philippines for the United States of America
RULING: (U.S.A.), leaving all of their five children to the care of
The Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; respondent Crasus. Sometime in 1985, respondent Crasus
hence, our courts cannot grant it. In mixed marriages learned, through the letters sent by Fely to their children,
involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the that Fely got married to an American, with whom she
Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent eventually had a child. Fely had five visits in Cebu City but
marriage in case the divorce is “validly obtained abroad never met Crasus. Also, she had been openly using the
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry”. A surname of her American husband in the Philippines and
divorce obtained abroad by two aliens, may be in the USA. Crasus filed a declaration of nullity of
recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent marriage on March 25, 1997.
with their respective laws. Therefore, before our courts
can recognize a foreign divorce, the party pleading it On her Answer, Fely alleged that while she did file for
must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its divorce from respondent Crasus, she denied having
conformity to the foreign law allowing it. herself sent a letter to respondent Crasus requesting him
In this case, the divorce decree between the respondent to sign the enclosed divorce papers. After securing a
and Samson appears to be authentic, issued by an divorce from respondent Crasus, Fely married her
Australian family court. Although, appearance is not American husband and acquired American citizenship.
sufficient; and compliance with the rules on evidence She argued that her marriage to her American husband
regarding alleged foreign laws must be demonstrated, was legal because now being an American citizen, her
the decree was admitted on account of petitioner’s status shall be governed by the law of her present
failure to object properly because he objected to the fact nationality. Fely also prayed that the RTC declare her
that it was not registered in the Local Civil Registry of marriage to respondent Crasus null and void; and that
Cabanatuan City, not to its admissibility. respondent Crasus be ordered to pay to Fely the
Respondent claims that the Australian divorce decree, P90,000.00 she advanced to him, with interest, plus,
which was validly admitted as evidence, adequately moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and
established his legal capacity to marry under Australian litigation expenses.
law. However, there are two types of divorce, absolute The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage of Crasus
and Fely null and void ab ignition on the ground of The Supreme Court held that the marriage of respondent
psychological incapacity. One factor considered by the Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy remains valid and
RTC is that Fely obtained a divorce decree in the United subsisting.
States of America and married another man and has
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO
established another family of her own. Plaintiff is in
G.R. No.154881,         October 5, 2005
an anomalous situation, wherein he is married to a wife
who is already married to another man in another Facts:
country. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s
decision. On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady
Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the
ISSUE: Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage
was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer
1. Whether or not abandonment and sexual infidelity
Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido.
constitute psychological incapacity.
In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United States bringing
2. Whether or not the divorce instituted by
along their son, Kristoffer. A few years later,
Fely abroad was valid.
Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as
RULING: an American citizen.

1st issue: Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his
wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a
The totality of evidence presented during the trial is
certain Innocent Stanley. The respondent thereafter filed
insufficient to support the finding of psychological
with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry
incapacity of Fely. Using the guidelines established by the
invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.
cases of Santos, Molina and Marcos, this Court found that
the totality of evidence presented by respondent Crasus Issue:
failed miserably to establish the alleged psychological
Whether or not respondent can remarry under Article 26
incapacity of his wife Fely; therefore, there is no basis for
of the Family Code.
declaring their marriage null and void under Article 36 of
the Family Code of the Philippines. Irreconcilable Ruling:
differences, conflicting personalities, emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry
alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the
abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would
finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article. be to sanction absurdity and injustice.

2nd issue: The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at
the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their
As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
situation wherein one of the couple getting married is a obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the
Filipino citizen and the other a foreigner at the time the latter to remarry.
marriage was celebrated. By its plain and literal
interpretation, the said provision cannot be applied to The Court ruled that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the
the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because Family Code should be interpreted to allow a Filipino
at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who
Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to
established, Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed remarry. However, considering that in the present
before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from petition there is no sufficient evidence submitted and on
respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the United record, the Court is unable to declare, based on
States in 1984, after which she married her American respondent’s bare allegations that his wife, who was
husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a
she had been an American citizen since 1988. At the time divorce decree and had remarried an American, that
she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Such
pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article declaration could only be made properly upon
15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was respondent’s submission of the aforecited evidence in his
still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, favor.
status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was CORPUZ V. TIROL STO. TOMAS AND THE SOLICITOR
already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and even until GENERAL 
now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino
spouses. Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a G.R. No. 186571,   [11 August 2010]
divorce from respondent Crasus. FACTS:
Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz is a naturalized Canadian petitioner’s presumptive evidence of aright by proving
citizen who married respondent Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas want of jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion,
but subsequently left for Canada due to work and other fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state,
professional commitments. When he returned to the every precaution must be taken to ensure conformity
Philippines, he discovered that Sto. Tomas was already with our laws before a recognition is made, as the foreign
romantically involved with another man. judgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of res
This brought about the filing of a petition for divorce by judicata between the parties, as provided in Section 48,
Corpuz in Canada which was eventually granted by the Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Court Justice of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. A month later,
Fujiki vs. Marinay
the divorce decree took effect. Two years later, Corpuz
has fallen in love with another Filipina and wished to GR No. 196049, June 26, 2013
marry her. He went to Civil Registry Office of Pasig City to
register the Canadian divorce decree on his FACTS:
marriage certificate with Sto. Tomas. However, despite Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national
the registration, an official of National Statistics Office who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay
informed Corpuz that the former marriage still subsists (Marinay) in the Philippines. The marriage did not sit well
under the Philippine law until there has been a judicial with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his
recognition of the Canadian divorce decree by a wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost
competent judicial court in view of NSO Circular No. 4, contact with each other.
series of 1982. Consequently, he filed a petition for
judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara
of dissolution of marriage with the RTC. However, the (Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved,
RTC denied the petition reasoning out that Corpuz cannot Marinay and Maekara got married in Quezon City.
institute the action for judicial recognition of the foreign Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay
divorce decree because he is a naturalized Canadian allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left
citizen. It was provided further that Sto. Tomas was the Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
proper party who can institute an action under the Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to re-
principle of Article 26 of the Family Code which establish their relationship. Fujiki then helped Marinay
capacitates a Filipino citizen to remarry in case obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan declaring
the alien spouse obtains a foreign divorce decree. Hence, her marriage in Maekara void on the ground of bigamy.
this petition.
Later, back in the Philippines, Fujiki filed a petition for a
ISSUE: Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment before the RTC.
Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family However, the trial court dismissed the petition
Code grants aliens like Corpuz the right to institute a maintaining that Fujiki lacks personality file the petition.
petition for judicial recognition of a foreign divorce ISSUE:
decree?
Whether or not a husband or wife of a prior marriage can
HELD: file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying
Petition GRANTED. RTC Decision REVERSED. the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and
a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
The Supreme Court qualifies the above conclusion – i.e.,
that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family RULING:
Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens -with the Yes, a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a
complementary statement that this conclusion is not petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the
sufficient basis to dismiss Gerbert’s petition before the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a
RTC. In other words, the unavailability of the foreign citizen.
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to
aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires
to petition the RTC for the recognition of his proof of fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special
foreign divorce decree. proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the
civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Section
The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and 1 of the said rule provides for who may file such petition,
conformity with the alien’s national law have been duly to wit:
proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a
presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, Sec. 1: Who may file petition. — Any person interested in
pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status
which provides for the effect of foreign judgments. A of persons which has been recorded in the civil register,
remand, at the same time, will allow other interested may file a verified petition for the cancellation or
parties to oppose the foreign judgment and overcome a correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional
Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil The RTC ruled that while the divorce documents
registry is located. presented by Doreen were successfully proven to be
public or official records of Japan, she nonetheless fell
In this case, there is no doubt that the prior spouse,
short of proving the national law of her husband,
Fujiki, has a personal and material interest in maintaining
particularly the existence of the law on divorce. The RTC
the integrity of the marriage he contracted and the
observed that the "The Civil Code of Japan 2000" and
property relations arising from it. Thus, he has the legal
"The Civil Code of Japan 2009," presented were not duly
personality to file the petition. PETITION GRANTED.
authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan... adding
DOREEN GRACE PARILLA MEDINA v. too that the testimony of Doreen relative to the
MICHIYUKI KOIKE, GR No. 215723, 2016-07-27 applicable provisions found therein and its effect on the
matrimonial relations was insufficient since she was not
Facts:
presented as a qualified expert witness nor was shown to
Petitioner Doreen Grace Parilla (Doreen), a Filipino have, at the very least, a working knowledge of the laws
citizen, and respondent Michiyuki Koike (Michiyuki), a of Japan, particularly those on family relations and
Japanese national, were married on June 14, 2005 in divorce.
Quezon City, Philippines.[4] Their union bore two
since no expert witness on the subject matter was
children, Masato Koike, who was born on January 23,
presented and considering further that Philippine courts
2006, and Fuka Koike who was born on April 4, 2007.[5]
cannot take judicial notice of foreign judgments and law.
On June 14, 2012, Doreen and Michiyuki, pursuant to the [23]
laws of Japan, filed for divorce[6] before the Mayor of
Doreen's motion for reconsideration[24] was denied in a
Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. They were
Resolution[25] dated November 28, 2014
divorced on even date as appearing in the Divorce
Certificate[7] and the same was duly recorded in the Issues:
Official Family Register of Michiyuki Koike.[8]
The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not
Seeking to have the said Divorce Certificate annotated on the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial
her Certificate of Marriage[9] on file with the Local Civil recognition of foreign divorce.
Registrar of Quezon City, Doreen filed on February 7,
Ruling:
2013 a petition[10] for judicial recognition of foreign
divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry pursuant At the outset, it bears stressing that Philippine law does
to the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts
Code[11] before the RTC cannot grant it. However, Article 26 of the Family Code -
which addresses foreign marriages or mixed marriages
At the hearing, no one appeared to oppose the petition.
involving a Filipino and a foreigner - allows a Filipino
[12] On the other hand, Doreen presented several foreign
spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the
documents, namely, "Certificate of Receiving/Certificate
divorce is validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse
of Acceptance of Divorce"[13] and "Family Register of
capacitating him or her to remarry. The provision reads:...
Michiyuki Koike"[14] both issued by the Mayor of
the law confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend
Ichinomiya City and duly authenticated by the Consul of
the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse
the Republic of the Philippines for Osaka, Japan. She also
without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the
presented a certified machine copy of a document
dissolution of the marriage.[26]
entitled "Divorce Certificate" issued by the Consul for the
Ambassador of Japan in Manila that was authenticated by This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity
the Department of the Foreign Affairs, as well as a must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence,
Certification[15] issued by the City Civil Registry Office in together with the alien's applicable national law to show
Manila that the original of said divorce certificate was the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.
filed and recorded in the said Office. In addition,
photocopies of the Civil Code of Japan and their Both the divorce decree and the governing personal law
corresponding English translation, as well as two (2) of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be
books entitled "The Civil Code of Japan 2000"[16] and proven.[30] Since our courts do not take judicial notice of
"The Civil Code of Japan 2009"[17] were likewise foreign laws and judgment, our law on evidence requires
submitted as proof of the existence of Japan's law on that both the divorce decree and the national law of the
divorce.[18] alien must be alleged and proven like any other fact.[31]

In a Decision[19] dated July 31, 2014, the RTC denied Considering that the validity of the divorce decree
Doreen's petition, ruling that in an action for recognition between Doreen and Michiyuki, as well as the existence
of foreign divorce decree pursuant to Article 26 of the of pertinent laws of Japan on the matter are essentially
Family Code, the foreign divorce decree and" the national factual that calls for a re-evaluation of the evidence
law of the alien recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a presented before the RTC, the issue raised in the instant
divorce must be proven appeal is obviously a question of fact that is beyond the
ambit of a Rule 45 petition for review. Supreme Court, the wording of Article 26, paragraph 2 of
the Family Code requires only that there be a valid
The resolution of factual issues is the function of the
divorce obtained abroad and does not discriminate as to
lower courts, whose findings on these matters are
who should file the divorce, i.e., whether it is the Filipino
received with respect and are in fact binding subject to
spouse or the foreign spouse. Also, even if assuming
certain exceptions.[32] In this regard, it is settled that
arguendo that the provision should be interpreted that
appeals taken from judgments or final orders rendered by
the divorce proceeding should be initiated by the foreign
RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction raising
spouse, the Court will not follow such interpretation since
questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law
doing so would be contrary to the legislative intent of the
should be brought to the Court of Appeals (CA)
law.
It bears to stress that procedural rules were intended to
In the issue of the application of Article 15 of the Civil
ensure proper administration of law and justice. The rules
Code in this case, the Court ruled that even if Manalo
of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
should be bound by the nationality principle, blind
technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not
adherence to it should not be allowed if it will cause
override, substantial justice. A deviation from its rigid
unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of
enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime
individuals whose rights are equally protected by the law.
objective, for after all, the dispensation of justice is the
core reason for the existence of the courts.[35] The Court also ruled that Article 26 of the Family Code is
in violation of the equal protection clause. They said that
WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and
the limitation provided by Article 26 is based on a
substantial justice, the case is hereby REFERRED to the
superficial, arbitrary, and whimsical classification. The
Court of Appeals for appropriate action including the
violation of the equal protection clause in this case is
reception of evidence to DETERMINE and RESOLVE the
shown by the discrimination against Filipino spouses who
pertinent factual issues in accordance with this Decision.
initiated a foreign divorce proceeding and Filipinos who
Principles: obtained a divorce decree because the foreign spouse
had initiated the divorce proceedings. Their
Republic v. Manalo circumstances are alike, and making a distinction
G.R. No. 221029 April 24, 2018 between them as regards to the validity of the divorce
decree obtained would give one undue favor and unjustly
Facts: discriminate against the other.
Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married to a Japanese
national, Yoshino Minoro. Manalo filed a case for divorce The Court also said that it is the State’s duty not only to
in Japan and after due proceedings, a divorce decree strengthen the solidarity of the Filipino family but also to
dated December 6, 2011, was granted. Manalo now defend, among others, the right of children to special
wants to cancel the entry of marriage between her and protection from all forms of neglect abuse, cruelty, and
Minoro from the Civil Registry and to be allowed to reuse other conditions prejudicial to their development. The
her maiden surname, Manalo. State cannot do this if the application of paragraph 2 of
Article 26 of the Family Code is limited to only those
According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, foreign divorces initiated by the foreign spouse.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter 2. The Court cannot determine due to insufficient
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse incapacitating evidence.
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise
It has been ruled that foreign laws must be proven. There
have capacity to remarry under Philippine law
are two basic types of divorces: (1) absolute divorce or a
Issues: vinculo matrimonii, which terminates the marriage, and
1. Under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, can (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro, which suspends
the Filipino spouse initiate the divorce instead of the it and leaves the bond in full force.
foreign spouse?
The presentation solely of the divorce decree will not
2. Was the divorce obtained by Marelyn Manalo from suffice to lead the Court to believe that the decree is valid
Japan valid here in the Philippines? or constitutes absolute divorce. The fact of divorce must
still be proven. Therefore, the Japanese law on divorce
Ruling: must still be proved.
1. Yes. The Court ruled that in interpreting the law, the
intent should be taken into consideration. According to In this case, the Court remanded the case to the court of
Justice Alicia Sempio-Dy, a member of the Civil Code origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence
Revision Committee, the aim of the amendment is to as to the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
avoid the absurd situation of having the Filipino deemed
still married to a foreign spouse even though the latter is
no longer married to the former. According to the