GR 186571; (August, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 186571 ; August 11, 2010
GERBERT R. CORPUZ, Petitioner, vs. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and The SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz, a naturalized Canadian citizen, married respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City in 2005. After discovering his wife’s infidelity, Gerbert returned to Canada and obtained a divorce decree from a Canadian court in December 2005. Subsequently, desiring to remarry in the Philippines, Gerbert sought to register the foreign divorce decree with the civil registry. He was informed by the National Statistics Office that for the divorce to be effective under Philippine law, it required judicial recognition by a competent Philippine court.
Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Daisylyn, although summoned, did not formally oppose the petition and even expressed in a notarized manifestation her lack of opposition and similar desire to have the marriage dissolved. The RTC, however, denied Gerbert’s petition. It ruled that under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, only the Filipino spouse has the standing to institute such an action to be capacitated to remarry. The RTC concluded that Gerbert, as the alien spouse, was not the proper party.
ISSUE
Whether the alien spouse can petition a Philippine court for the judicial recognition of a foreign divorce decree under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on a strict interpretation of Article 26 of the Family Code and its legislative intent. The second paragraph was enacted as a curative measure to address the specific predicament of the Filipino spouse left married under Philippine law after the alien spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad and is capacitated to remarry. The provision creates a substantive right exclusively in favor of the Filipino spouse to remarry, thereby removing the absurd situation of being bound to a marriage that no longer exists in the eyes of the foreign spouse’s law.
The alien spouse, having initiated and validly obtained the divorce under his or her national law, is already capacitated to remarry by virtue of that foreign decree. Philippine law does not confer upon the alien any parallel substantive right under Article 26. The recognition of the foreign divorce in the Philippines is only necessary as a prerequisite for the Filipino spouse’s remarriage. Therefore, the alien spouse lacks the legal interest or standing to initiate a judicial action for recognition in Philippine courts. The proper remedy for the alien spouse seeking to clarify his or her marital status for purposes of remarriage in the Philippines is an adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for the cancellation of the entry of marriage in the civil registry, not a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce under Article 26.