G.R. No. 221029 , April 24, 2018
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner vs. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, Respondent

FACTS

The respondent, Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, married a Japanese national in the Philippines. She subsequently obtained a divorce decree from a Japanese court, which she filed for and was granted. Manalo then filed a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, seeking the cancellation of the entry of her marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, and to revert to her maiden surname. The RTC denied the petition, ruling that Philippine law, specifically Article 15 of the Civil Code, governs her legal capacity and does not afford Filipinos the right to divorce, regardless of the nationality of the spouse or where the divorce is obtained.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision. It applied the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, which states that a Filipino married to a foreigner who obtains a divorce abroad capacitating the alien spouse to remarry also capacitates the Filipino spouse to remarry. The CA held the provision applicable even though it was Manalo, the Filipino citizen, who initiated the divorce proceeding, as the decree rendered her alien spouse no longer married to her and thus capacitated to remarry. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a Filipino citizen who initiates and obtains a foreign divorce decree against an alien spouse is entitled to have that divorce recognized under Philippine law, pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Peralta, denied the Republic’s petition and affirmed the CA’s ruling. The Court held that Article 26(2) of the Family Code applies regardless of which spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding. The legal logic centers on the purpose and intent of the law, which is to avoid the absurd situation where a Filipino remains married to an alien spouse who is no longer married to the Filipino due to a foreign divorce decree recognized in the alien’s national law. The provision aims to remedy an inequitable situation and is grounded in considerations of justice.
The Court clarified that the reckoning point is the effect of the foreign divorce decree under the national law of the alien spouse. If the decree is valid and effectively terminates the marriage under that foreign law, thereby capacitating the alien spouse to remarry, then the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated. The nationality of the initiating party is immaterial. The Court emphasized that the rule is one of reciprocity and justice, preventing a Filipino from being shackled to a marital bond that no longer exists under the laws governing the alien spouse. Consequently, Manalo was entitled to have the Japanese divorce decree recognized for the purpose of cancelling her marriage entry in the civil registry.