G.R. No. 234457, May 12, 2021
RAEMARK S. ABEL, PETITIONER, VS. MINDY P. RULE, OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRY GENERAL-PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY, AND THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRY OFFICE OF MANILA, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS HAVING OR CLAIMING ANY INTEREST, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Raemark S. Abel, a U.S. citizen, and respondent Mindy P. Rule, a Filipino citizen, were married in Los Angeles, California, on December 18, 2005. On November 18, 2008, they jointly filed a petition for summary dissolution of their marriage before the Los Angeles Superior Court. The marriage was dissolved by the Superior Court of California on July 31, 2009. Abel reacquired his Filipino citizenship on December 3, 2008, becoming a dual citizen of the Philippines and the U.S., while Rule became a U.S. citizen on September 21, 2012. An authenticated copy of the California judgment was recorded with the City Civil Registry Office of Manila on January 10, 2017. Abel filed a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and correction of civil entry before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition, arguing that the divorce was not obtained solely by the alien spouse as required by Article 26(2) of the Family Code, since it was jointly filed, and that such joint filing was tantamount to collusion against State policy. The RTC dismissed the petition, holding that the joint filing contravened Article 26(2) as it did not allow a Filipino spouse to jointly obtain a divorce. Abel’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether a divorce decree jointly obtained by a Filipino and their alien spouse can be judicially recognized in the Philippines under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the RTC Orders. The Court ruled that in a foreign divorce between a Filipino and an alien, it is immaterial which spouse initiated the divorce proceedings abroad. Once a divorce decree is validly issued by a competent foreign court, the alien spouse is deemed to have obtained the divorce as required under Article 26(2) of the Family Code. The Court emphasized that a literal reading of Article 26(2) does not require that the alien spouse be the sole initiating party; it only requires a divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The joint filing by Abel and Rule did not negate the fact that the divorce was validly obtained and that Abel, as the alien spouse at the time, obtained it. The Court also found that the divorce was not vitiated by collusion, as the ground was irreconcilable differences causing an irremediable breakdown of the marriage, and there was no agreement to fabricate evidence or suppress defenses. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that denying recognition based on which spouse initiated the proceeding would violate the fundamental equality of women and men before the law. Thus, the foreign divorce decree is recognizable in the Philippines, and the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry.