SC recognizes divorce obtained by Filipino against foreign wife

April 24, 2018

The Supreme Court, voting 10-3 with one abstention, has recognized the divorce decree secured by a Filipino against foreign spouse. “The Court . . . ruled that a foreign divorce secured by a Filipino against a foreign spouse is also considered valid in the Philippines, even if it is the Filipino spouse who files for divorce abroad,” SC spokesperson Theodore Te said in a media briefing in Baguio City on Tuesday. The ruling came after upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal recognizing the divorce decree granted by a Japanese court on December 6, 2011 to Marelyn Tanedo Manalo against her husband Minoru Yoshino. Manalo filed a petition before the Dagupan court seeking recognition of the judgment in a foreign court in the Philippines. The lower court denied her plea and she went to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals in 2014 reversed the lower court’s decision. The SC sided with the ruling of the appellate court. The SC remanded Manalo’s case back to the lower court for reception of evidence as part of a proceeding to legally recognize the divorce of marriage obtained abroad. "The Court affirmed in part the September 8, 2014 decision and the October 12, 2015 resolution (of the Court of Appeals) and remanded the case to the trial court for further reception of evidence as to the relevant laws of Japan on divorce," the SC ruling stated. The high court cited Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, which provides: “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 . . . .” “Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen 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 SC ruled, citing pertinent portion of the Family Code. Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa dissented, while Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza inhibited. DMS