GR 224548; (January, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 224548 , January 23, 2019
MARLYN MONTON NULLADA, Petitioner, vs. THE HON. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, AKIRA ITO, SHIN ITO AND ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE OR CLAIM ANY INTEREST, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Marlyn Monton Nullada, a Filipino citizen, married Japanese national Akira Ito in Tokyo, Japan, in 1997. Their marriage was registered in the Philippines. The relationship later soured, and in 2009, they mutually obtained a divorce decree in Japan. Marlyn subsequently filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for the recognition and registration of this foreign divorce decree under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Article 26 of the Family Code. She sought the cancellation of her marriage entry in the civil registry and a declaration of her capacity to remarry.
The RTC denied the petition. It ruled that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, which allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if the alien spouse validly obtains a divorce, does not apply when the Filipino spouse actively participated in procuring the divorce. Since Marlyn and Akira had obtained a divorce by mutual agreement, the RTC held she could not invoke the beneficial provision of Article 26.
ISSUE
Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies only when the alien spouse is the sole initiator of the divorce, thereby barring its application to a Filipino spouse who was a mutual participant in obtaining the foreign divorce decree.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the RTC and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court clarified that the nationality or active participation of the Filipino spouse in the foreign divorce proceeding is immaterial for the application of Article 26(2). The legal logic is anchored on the provision’s purpose to address the problem of “mixed marriages” and avoid the absurd situation where the foreign spouse is free to remarry while the Filipino spouse remains married. The provision is a curative measure intended to benefit the Filipino spouse by granting the capacity to remarry, provided the divorce is validly obtained by the alien spouse under his or her national law. The focus is solely on the fact of a valid foreign divorce decree obtained by the alien spouse, not on who initiated the proceeding.
However, the Court found that Marlyn failed to prove the pertinent Japanese law on divorce as required under the rules on evidence. The submitted document—photocopied excerpts of the Japanese Civil Code stamped by a library—did not constitute an official publication or a duly authenticated copy. Consequently, the Court granted the petition but remanded the case to the RTC for the sole purpose of receiving competent evidence on the relevant Japanese divorce law to establish the validity of the divorce decree under Akira Ito’s national law.