REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, RESPONDENT.

Republic of the Philippines versus Manalo

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, against Marelyn Tanedo Manalo. Manalo had asked the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to cancel the entry of her marriage in the civil registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, on the strength of a divorce decree rendered by a Japanese court. The Republic opposed the petition, insisting that a Filipino spouse who herself initiates the divorce abroad cannot invoke the protective second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. The case matters because the Supreme Court settles who may benefit from that provision, and it does so by reading the text of the law plainly and by honoring the intent behind it.

Procedural History

Manalo filed her petition for cancellation of entry of marriage before Branch 43 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, entered its appearance and questioned the caption, arguing that the proper action was a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. Manalo then moved to admit an amended petition, which the trial court granted. After hearing, the trial court denied the petition for lack of merit, holding that under the nationality principle Philippine law does not afford Filipinos the right to divorce, whether at home or abroad.

Manalo appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed and set aside the trial court, holding that Article 26 of the Family Code applies even though it was Manalo who filed the divorce, because the decree left her Japanese husband free to remarry. The Republic moved for reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it. The Republic then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

Manalo was previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese national named Yoshino Minoro, and their marriage was registered in the civil registry of San Juan, Metro Manila. A divorce case was later filed in Japan, and on December 6, 2011, a Japanese court rendered a divorce decree. By virtue of that decree, Manalo and her former husband were no longer living together, and she and her daughter lived separately from him.

On January 10, 2012, Manalo filed a petition for cancellation of the entry of marriage in the civil registry, invoking the Japanese divorce decree. The trial court found the petition sufficient in form and substance and set it for initial hearing. The petition and notice were published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. The Office of the Solicitor General appeared for the Republic and authorized the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dagupan to appear on its behalf.

Because the Republic questioned the caption, Manalo filed an amended petition that also sought recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment. She asked that the entry of marriage be cancelled so that it would no longer appear that she was still married to a man who was no longer her husband, that she be allowed to remarry without disturbance, and that she be permitted to return to and use her maiden surname. She testified in advance because she was scheduled to leave for Japan for work. The documentary evidence, including the marriage contract, the divorce decree, and the authentication issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan, was admitted. The Republic presented no controverting evidence.

Issues

• Whether or not a Filipino citizen who initiated a divorce proceeding abroad and obtained a favorable judgment against an alien spouse capacitated to remarry may be recognized as having the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
• Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code requires that the alien spouse be the one who obtained the divorce abroad.

Applicable Provisions

Article 26 of the Family Code provides:

Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. 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 second paragraph is the provision the Court construes, because it fixes the consequence of a valid foreign divorce on the Filipino spouse's capacity to remarry.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that a foreign divorce decree initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse may be recognized and given legal effects in the Philippines. The Court recalled that both Dacasin versus Dacasin and Van Dorn versus Judge Romillo already recognized a foreign divorce decree obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its effects on child custody and property relations. It reasoned that having gone that far, it should not stop short of acknowledging that one of the usual and necessary consequences of absolute divorce is the right to remarry. When the marriage tie is severed, the civil status and domestic relation of the former spouses change, and both are freed from the marital bond.

On the second issue, the Court held that the provision does not require the alien spouse to be the one who obtained the divorce. It read the text plainly:

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of a divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

The Court stressed that the letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse initiate the proceeding, and it does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent. It invoked the maxim that from the words of a statute there should be no departure. Even assuming the word obtained meant the alien spouse must initiate the case, the Court said it would not follow the letter of the statute when doing so would depart from the true intent of the legislature. The purpose of the provision is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to an alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage and capacitating the alien spouse to remarry produces the same result: the Filipino spouse is effectively without a husband or wife.

Doctrine

A valid foreign divorce decree obtained by the alien spouse capacitating the alien to remarry gives the Filipino spouse capacity to remarry under Philippine law. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time the valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. The twin elements for applying the second paragraph of Article 26 are a valid marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, and a valid divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The provision does not require that the alien spouse be the one who initiated the divorce proceeding; it is enough that a divorce was validly obtained abroad. The nationality principle does not bar recognition, because the provision is a corrective measure meant to prevent the absurdity of a Filipino remaining bound to a marriage that no longer binds the alien spouse.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and partially affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, recognizing the foreign divorce decree and Manalo's capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

Remember This

Memorize this line: under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, it does not matter who initiated the foreign divorce, so long as a valid divorce was obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the alien to remarry. Examiners use this case to test the capacity of a Filipino spouse to remarry after a foreign divorce, and to test whether the nationality principle bars recognition of a divorce the Filipino spouse herself sought.