REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, V. MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, respndent.
G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018
Civil Law: Family Code, Article 26 (Mixed Marriages)
ISSUE: Does a Filipino citizen have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry? (answers are rulings of the Supreme Court) after the facts
FACTS: On January 10, 2012, Marelyn Tanedo Manalo filed a petition to cancel her marriage entry in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila. She based her petition on a divorce judgment issued by a Japanese court. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, specifically Branch 43, found the petition to be valid both in form and substance. The court scheduled an initial hearing on April 25, 2012, and published the petition and hearing notice in a newspaper for three consecutive weeks.
During the initial hearing, Manalo's counsel presented documentary evidence, including the court's order, an affidavit of publication, and newspaper issues from February and March 2012. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the Republic of the Philippines, and authorized the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dagupan to represent them. The OSG filed a motion challenging the title and caption of the petition, arguing that it should be a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.
In response to this challenge, Manalo requested to amend her petition. The court granted her motion to admit an amended petition.
In the Amended Petition, which now included a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, the following allegations were made:
Manalo was previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese national named Yoshino Minoru, as evidenced by their Marriage Contract.
Manalo filed for divorce in Japan, and after due proceedings, a divorce decree was issued by the Japanese Court on December 6, 2011.
As a result of the divorce decree, Manalo and her former Japanese husband no longer live together, and she and her daughter are now residing separately from him.
It is necessary to cancel the entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, where Manalo's marriage to her Japanese husband was registered. This cancellation is sought to avoid any implication that Manalo is still married to him, especially if she decides to remarry in the future.
The petition is primarily filed to request the cancellation of the marriage entry, in accordance with Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, since the marriage has already been dissolved by the divorce decree.
Manalo also prays for the restoration and use of her maiden surname, Manalo, along with the cancellation of the marriage entry.
Due to Manalo's scheduled departure to Japan for employment reasons, she was allowed to testify in advance.
During the proceedings, several documents were presented and admitted as evidence. These documents include:
Court Order dated January 25, 2012, which confirmed that the petition and its attachments were sufficient in both form and substance.
Affidavit of Publication, which served as proof that the petition and the notice of the initial hearing were published in a newspaper of general circulation.
Issues of the Northern Journal dated February 21-27, 2012, February 28 - March 5, 2012, and March 6-12, 2012, which were published to fulfill the requirement of publication.
Certificate of Marriage between Manalo and her former Japanese husband, validating their previous marriage.
Divorce Decree issued by the Japanese court, officially dissolving the marriage.
Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan, confirming the notification of divorce.
Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce, indicating that the divorce was recognized and accepted.
It is worth noting that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) did not present any evidence contradicting or challenging the allegations made by Manalo.
On October 15, 2012, the trial court issued a ruling denying the petition of Manalo for lack of merit. The court's decision was based on its interpretation of Article 15 of the New Civil Code. According to the court, Philippine law does not grant Filipinos the right to file for divorce, regardless of whether they are residing in the Philippines or abroad, and regardless of whether they are married to Filipinos or foreigners or where the marriage took place. The court also emphasized that unless Filipinos acquire citizenship in another country, Philippine laws maintain authority over matters related to family rights and obligations, as well as the determination of their legal status and capacity to enter into contracts and civil relationships, including marriages.
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The CA ruled that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines is applicable in Manalo's case, even though she was the one who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband. The CA based its decision on the understanding that the divorce decree obtained by Manalo rendered her former husband no longer married to her, thus enabling him to enter into a new marriage.
In line with the ruling in Navarro, et al. v. Exec. Secretary Ermita, et al., which emphasizes determining the intent of lawmakers, the CA concluded that considering Manalo as still married to her Japanese ex-husband would be unjust, especially when he is no longer married to her. The fact that Manalo initiated the divorce case was deemed inconsequential by the appellate court. The CA cited the case of Van Dorn v. Judge Romillo, Jr., which involved the dissolution of a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner through a divorce filed by the Filipino spouse abroad, as a similar precedent.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied, leading to the filing of this petition.
ANSWER (SUPREME COURT RULING): YES!!!!
The interpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code focuses on its plain and clear language, which states that the provision applies to a divorce validly obtained abroad, without specifying whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The purpose of this provision is to avoid the situation where a Filipino spouse remains married to an alien spouse who is no longer married to them due to a foreign divorce decree.
There is no substantial difference between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding and a Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the initiative of their alien spouse. Both scenarios involve Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by the operation of the latter's national law. Both individuals are considered Filipinos with the same rights and obligations in a foreign jurisdiction.
A restrictive interpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would have negative consequences. It would require Filipinos who initiated and obtained a foreign divorce to first avail of the existing mechanisms under the Family Code, leading to issues of illegitimacy for any subsequent relationships they enter into. This would harm both the parent and any children born out of such relationships.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that a Filipino can initiate divorce against a foreign spouse. However, in Marelyn's case, the court remanded it to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to allow her to present evidence on the relevant Japanese law regarding divorce.
