G.R. No. 218008, June 26, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR THE JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF A DIVORCE DECREE OBTAINED IN THE STATE OF NEVADA, U.S.A., MARIA JOSEPHINE PRAXEDES OCTAVIANO, PETITIONER, VS. KARL HEINZ RUTHE AND LISA GRACE S. BERNALES, CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria Josephine Praxedes Octaviano, a Filipino citizen, and respondent Karl Heinz Ruthe, a German national, were married in Germany on August 13, 1990. On June 9, 2006, petitioner sought and obtained a divorce decree dissolving the marriage from the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, U.S.A. Petitioner then filed a petition for the judicial recognition of this foreign divorce decree before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mambajao, Camiguin. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, a Philippine court could only extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse if the decree was obtained abroad by the alien spouse, not by the Filipino spouse herself. The RTC noted that the petitioner admitted she was the plaintiff in the foreign divorce case. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether a divorce decree dissolving a marriage between a Filipino spouse and a foreign national, which was obtained by the Filipino spouse, can be judicially recognized in the Philippines under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC orders, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court ruled that Article 26(2) of the Family Code does not require that the alien spouse be the one to initiate the foreign divorce proceeding. The provision only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent. The purpose of Article 26(2) is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to an alien spouse who is no longer married under the laws of his or her country. This corrective measure applies whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, as the result is the same: the marital bond is severed, leaving the Filipino spouse effectively without a spouse. The Court, citing Republic v. Manalo and Galapon v. Republic, held that Article 26(2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is: (i) obtained by the foreign spouse; (ii) obtained jointly; or (iii) obtained solely by the Filipino spouse. The contention that this violates the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code is erroneous, as Article 26(2) itself is an exception to that principle, and blind adherence to it would cause unjust discrimination.