Provided, That The Ground Mentioned in B, e and F Existed Either at The Time of The Marriage or
Provided, That The Ground Mentioned in B, e and F Existed Either at The Time of The Marriage or
The consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards with full
knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other husband and
wife;
d. consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the
same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife;
e. Either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other and
such incapacity continues or appears to be incurable; and
f. Either part was afflicted with the sexually transmissible infection found to be serious or
appears to be incurable.
Provided, That the ground mentioned in b, e and f existed either at the time of the marriage or
supervening after the marriage.
1. When the spouses have been separated in fact for at least five (5) years at the time the petition for
absolute divorce is filed, and the reconciliation is highly improbable;
2. Psychological incapacity of either spouse as provided for in Article 36 of the Family Code, whether
or not the incapacity was present at the time of the celebration of the marriage or later;
3. When one of the spouses undergoes a gender reassignment surgery or transition from one sex to
another, the other spouse is entitled to petition for absolute divorce with the transgender or
transsexual as respondent, or vice-versa;
4. Irreconcilable marital differences and conflicts which have resulted in the total breakdown of the
marriage beyond repair, despite earnest and repeated efforts at reconciliation.
To be sure, a good number of Filipinos led by the Roman Catholic Church react adversely to any
attempt to enact a law on absolute divorce, viewing it as contrary to our customs, morals, and
traditions that has looked upon marriage and family as an institution and their nature of permanence,
In the same breath that the establishment clause restricts what the government can do with religion,
it also limits what religious sects can or cannot do. They can neither cause the government to adopt
their particular doctrines as policy for everyone, nor can they cause the government to restrict other
groups. To do so, in simple terms, would cause the State to adhere to a particular religion and, thus
establish a state religion.76
The Roman Catholic Church can neither impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of
the citizenry nor can it demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it is sincerely believes that
they are good for country. 77 While marriage is considered a sacrament, it has civil and legal
consequences which are governed by the Family Code. 78 It is in this aspect, bereft of any ecclesiastical
overtone, that the State has a legitimate right and interest to regulate.
The declared State policy that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is a foundation of the family
and shall be protected by the State, should not be read in total isolation but must be harmonized with
other constitutional provision. Aside from strengthening the solidarity of the Filipino family, the State
is equally mandated to actively promote its total development. 79 It is also obligated to defend, among
others, the right of children to special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation,
and other conditions prejudicial to their development. 80 To Our mind, the State cannot effectively
enforce these obligation s if We limit the application of Paragraph 2 or Article 26 only those foreign
divorce initiated by the alien spouse. It is not amiss to point that the women and children are almost
always the helpless victims of all forms of domestic abuse and violence. In fact, among the notable
legislation passed in order to minimize, if not eradicate, the menace are R.A. No. 9262 ("Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004") R.A. No. 9710 ("The Magna Carta of Women"), R.A.
No 10354 ("The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012") and R.A. No
9208 ("Anti-Trafficking in Person Act of 2003"), as amended by R.A. No. 10364 ("ExpandedAnti-
Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012"). Moreover, in protecting and strengthening the Filipino family as a
basic autonomous social institution, the Court must not lose sight of the constitutional mandate to
value the dignity of every human person, guarantee full respect for human rights, and ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men. 81
A prohibitive view of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would do more harm than good. If We disallow a
Filipino citizen who initiated and obtained a foreign divorce from the coverage of Paragraph 2 Article
26 and still require him or her to first avail of the existing "mechanisms" under the Family Code, any
subsequent relationship that he or she would enter in the meantime shall be considered as illicit in the
eyes of the Philippine law. Worse, any child born out such "extra-marital" affair has to suffer the
stigma of being branded as illegitimate. Surely, these are just but a few of the adverse consequences,
not only to the parent but also to the child, if We are to hold a restrictive interpretation of the subject
provision. The irony is that the principle of inviolability of marriage under Section 2, Article XV of the
Constitution is meant to be tilted in favor of marriage and against unions not formalized by marriage,
but without denying State protection and assistance to live-in arrangements or to families formed
according to indigenous customs.82
This Court should not turn a blind eye to the realities of the present time. With the advancement of
communication and information technology, as well as the improvement of the transportation system
that almost instantly connect people from all over the world, mixed marriages have become not too
uncommon. Likewise, it is recognized that not all marriages are made in heaven and that imperfect
humans more often than not create imperfect unions. 83 Living in a flawed world, the unfortunate
reality for some is that the attainment of the individual's full human potential and self fulfillment is not
found and achieved in the context of a marriage. Thus it is hypocritical to safeguard the quantity of
existing marriages and, at the same time, brush aside the truth that some of them are rotten quality.
Going back, we hold that marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two parties,
cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the
marital bond while the other remains bound to it. 84 In reiterating that the Filipino spouse should not be
discriminated against in his or her own country if the ends of justice are to be served, San Luis v. San
Luis85 quoted:
But as has also been aptly observed, we test a law by its results: and likewise, we may add, by its
purposes. It is a cardinal rule that, in seeking the meaning of the law, the first concern of the judge
should be to discover in its provisions the intent of the lawmaker. Unquestionably, the law should
never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never within the legislative intent.
An indispensable part of that intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the legislature, is
to render justice.
Thus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but in consonance with justice. Law and
justice are inseparable, and we must keep them so. To be sure, there are some laws that, while
generally valid, may seem arbitrary when applied in a particular case because only of our nature and
functions, to apply them just the same, in slavish obedience to their language. What we do instead is
find a balance between the sord and the will, that justice may be done even as the law is obeyed.
As judges, we are not automatons. We do not and must not unfeelingly apply the law as it worded,
yielding like robots to the literal command without regard to its cause and consequence. "Courts are
apt to err by sticking too closely to the words of law," so we are warned, by Justice Holmes agaian,
"where these words import a policy that goes beyond them."
xxxx