G.R. No. 247297. August 17, 2022.
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Helen Bayog-Saito, The Local Civil Registry of Pasay City and The National Statistics Office, Respondents.

FACTS

Helen Bayog-Saito, a Filipino citizen, married Toru Saito, a Japanese national, in Pasay City in 1999. The marriage eventually broke down due to cultural differences. Toru initiated divorce proceedings in Japan, presenting divorce notification papers for Helen to sign, which she did. The Mayor of Minami-ku, Yokohama City, accepted the divorce notification on October 16, 2012. This fact was recorded in Toru’s family register. Subsequently, the Japanese Vice-Consul in the Philippines issued a Divorce Certificate, which was duly authenticated by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs.
Helen filed a Petition for judicial recognition of this foreign divorce decree before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City. She sought a declaration that she was legally capacitated to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. The RTC granted her petition, recognizing the divorce and her capacity to remarry. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing that the divorce decree should not be recognized as it is against Philippine public policy and that Helen failed to prove the relevant Japanese law on divorce. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, prompting the Republic to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the foreign divorce decree obtained by Helen Bayog-Saito and her Japanese spouse is judicially recognizable in the Philippines, thereby capacitating her to remarry under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The foreign divorce decree is recognizable, and Helen is legally capacitated to remarry. The legal logic proceeds from the application of Article 26 of the Family Code, as interpreted in settled jurisprudence. Under the nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code, the Philippine state adheres to a policy of indissolubility of marriage for its citizens. However, Article 26, paragraph 2 creates an exception: where a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
The Court found that all requisites were satisfied. First, the marriage between Helen (Filipino) and Toru (Japanese) was validly celebrated. Second, a divorce was validly obtained. The Court, citing Republic v. Manalo, clarified that the provision does not require that the divorce decree be initiated or obtained by the alien spouse alone; it is sufficient that the divorce is valid under the alien’s national law and capacitates the alien spouse to remarry. The evidence, including the authenticated Divorce Certificate, Notification of Divorce, and Toru’s family register, sufficiently proved the fact of divorce under Japanese law. Third, the divorce capacitated Toru, the Japanese spouse, to remarry. The authenticated provisions of the Civil Code of Japan presented by Helen established that the divorce by mutual agreement, as recorded in the family register, effectively dissolves the marriage and restores both parties to single status. Consequently, to deny Helen the same capacity would result in the absurd situation where Toru is free to remarry while she remains married—an injustice Article 26 seeks to prevent. The Court thus upheld the recognition of the foreign divorce decree.