STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

CASTILLO, E.G.

GR NO. 226013, JUL 2 2018

PETITIONER: LUZVIMINDA DELA CRUZ MORISONO

RESPONDENT: RYOJI MORISONO
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

I. FACTS
Luzviminda married Ryoji in Quezon City, Philippines on December 8, 2009. Thereafter, they went to live in
Japan for more than 1 year but was not blessed with a child. Their marriage life was marred with quarrel due
to Ryoji’s philandering. This led the couple to obtain a divorce decree in Nagoya, Japan.

Luzviminda then filed a petition for for recognition of foreign divorce decree before the RTC to cancel the
surname of her ex-husband in her passport and for her to be able to marry again. Her petition was not met
with any objection in the trial court. RTC then denied her petition on grounds that it was her that obtained
the divorce decree and would not fall under Art 26(2) of the Family Code.
II. ISSUE
 Whether or not the trial court is correct in denying Luzviminda’s petition of recognition of the foreign divorce
decree obtained by her and Ryoji.
III. RULING -
 No. The doctrine laid down in Manalo, such ground relied upon by the RTC had been rendered nugatory.
Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the
marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino
spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in
the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated
proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as
a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their
alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter's national law.