Who can file and obtain Foreign Divorce
Case Facts
Nullada v. Civil  Marlyn Monton Nullada (Marlyn) got
Registrar of Manila, married with Japanese national Akira
G.R. No. 224548 Ito (Akira) in Tokyo, Japan
 Obtained a divorce decree by mutual
agreement in 2009 in Japan
 Marlyn sought recognition of the
divorce decree in the Philippines
 RTC denied the petition. The fact that
Marlyn also agreed to the divorce and
jointly filed for it with Akira barred the
application of the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code.
San Luis v. San Luis,  Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo)
G.R. No. 133743 contracted 3 marraiges
 First, with Virginia Sulit, born six
children, Virginia predeceased
Felicisimo
 Second, with Merry Lee Corwin, an
American citizen, born a son -> filed a
complaint for divorce before the State
of Hawaii
 Third, Felicisimo married Felicidad San
Luis in Los Angeles, California
 Felicidad prayed that the conjugal
partnership assets be liquidated and
that letters of administration be issued
to her
 Rodolfo San Luis, one of Felicisimo’s
sons, alleged that she has no legal
personality and she is only a mistress
Application of Law
SC cites proper application of Article 26 of the Family Code in the Republic v. Manalo
ruling:
 that Article 26 of the Family Code should apply even if it was Manalo who filed for
divorce. The decree made the Japanese spouse no longer married to Manalo; he
then had the capacity to remarry. It would be unjust to still deem Manalo married
to the Japanese who, in turn, was no longer married to her. The fact that it was
Manalo who filed the divorce was inconsequential
 The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one
who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted
Japanese Law on divorce must still be sufficiently proven.
 Marlyn failed to satisfy the foregoing requirements. The records only include a
photocopy of excerpts of The Civil Code of Japan, merely stamped LIBRARY
 The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings and
reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
Effects
The divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the
standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
 "the severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former
spouses from each other, hence the actuations of one would not affect or cast
obloquy on the other."
Van Dorn
 The ruling has long been interpreted as severing marital ties between parties in a
mixed marriage and capacitating the Filipino spouse to remarry as a necessary
consequence of upholding the validity of a divorce obtained abroad by the alien
spouse. In his treatise, Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino cited Van Dorn stating that "if the
foreigner obtains a valid foreign divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to
remarry under Philippine law."
Legislative Intent
 intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a
member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation
where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after
obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
 Action for recognition or proof
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas,  Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino Only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
G.R. No. 186571 citizen who acquired Canadian
citizenship through naturalization.
 Gerbert married Daisylyn T. Sto.
Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City.
 Gerbert left for Canada to work
 Upon his return, he was surprised to
find that his wife was having an affair
with another man
 Gerbert returned to Canada to file a
divorce. Divorce decree took effect.
 Gerbert found another Filipina to
marry
 Gerbert filed a petition for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce
 RTC denied because Gerbert was not
the proper party to institute the action
for judicial recognition of the foreign
divorce decree as he is a naturalized
Canadian citizen. It ruled that only the
Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy,
under the second paragraph of Article
26 of the Family Code
Garcia-Recio v. Recio,  Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was
G.R. No. 138322 married to Editha Samson, an
Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal
 A decree of divorce, purportedly
dissolving the marriage, was issued by
an Australian family court
 Rederick became an Australian citizen
 He married Grace Garcia, a Filipina. In
their marriage license, Rederick
declared that he was “single” and
“Filipino”
Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.
 The unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to
aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for
the recognition of his foreign divorce decree.
 Direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to
clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before our courts
for the recognition of the foreign judgment.
Divorce obtained from a foreign country must be proven
 Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court comes into play. This Section requires
proof, either by (1) official publications or (2) copies attested by the officer having
legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the
Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his
office.
Procedural requirements
 Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that "no entry in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected, without judicial order."
 Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and procedural
requirements that must be complied with before a judgment, authorizing the
cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry.
 The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108
proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings
Divorce is a question of fact
 Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.
 Rederick argues that the Australian divorce decree is a public document – a
written official act of an Australian family court. Therefore, it requires no further
proof of its authenticity and due execution.
 The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an
authentic one issued by an Australian family court. However, appearance is not
sufficient; compliance with the rules on evidence must be demonstrated.
 Sec. 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
Compliance with the quoted Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code is not necessary
  They separated and conjugal assets
were divided
 Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of
bigamy – he allegedly had a prior
subsisting marriage at the time he
married her on January 12, 1994. She
claimed that she learned of
respondent's marriage to Editha
Samson only in November 1997.
Medina v. Michiyuki  Doreen Grace Parilla (Doreen), a
Koike, G.R. No. 215723 Filipino citizen, and Michiyuki Koike
(Michiyuki), a Japanese national, were
married
 filed for divorce before the Mayor of
Ichinomiya City
 Doreen filed a petition for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce and
declaration of capacity to remarry
Republic v. Cote, G.R.  Rhomel Gagarin Cote (Rhomel) and
No. 212860 Florie Grace Manongdo-Cote (Florie),
both Filipinos, were married in Quezon
City.
 Rhomel became naturalized in Hawaii,
USA
 Rhomel filed petition for divorce,
granted
 Seven years later, Florie commenced a
petition for recognition of foreign
judgment granting the divorce.
 Rendrick was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired
Australian citizenship in 1992.
 Naturalization is the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the
political and civil rights belonging to a citizen.
 By becoming an Australian, respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines
and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal laws.
Legal Capacity to Remarry
 Under some other jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited by statute; thus, the
guilty party in a divorce which was granted on the ground of adultery may be
prohibited from remarrying again.
 It is our contention that the divorce obtained by respondent may have been
restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to
his national law.
We REMAND the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which
conclusively show respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner
The foreign laws must be proven as facts
 RTC denied Doreen's petition, ruling that the foreign divorce decree and the
national law of the alien recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce must
be proven in accordance with Sections 2420 and 2521 of Rule 132 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence. She nonetheless fell short of proving the national law of her
husband, particularly the existence of the law on divorce.
 The "The Civil Code of Japan 2000" and "The Civil Code of Japan 2009," presented
were not duly authenticated by the Philippine Consul in Japan
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not cover cases involving recognition of foreign divorce
because the wording of Section 1 thereof clearly states that it shall only apply to
petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of
voidable marriages, viz.:
 Section 1. Scope - This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute
nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family
Code of the Philippines.
The CA is correct when it ruled that the trial court misapplied Section 20 of A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC.
 RTC granted the petition and declared
Florie to be capacitated to remarry
after the RTC's decision attained
finality and a decree of absolute nullity
has been issued
 Republic, thru OSG, filed petition for
appeal
 RTC denied the appeal applying the
procedural rules for nullity of marriage
proceedings under A.M. NO. 02-11-10-
SC
 A decree of absolute divorce procured abroad is different from annulment as
defined by our family laws. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC only covers void and voidable
marriages that are specifically cited and enumerated in the Family Code of the
Philippines.
 Void and voidable marriages contemplate a situation wherein the basis for the
judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists before
or at the time of the marriage. It treats the marriage as if it never existed.
 Divorce, on the other hand, ends a legally valid marriage and is usually due to
circumstances arising after the marriage.