Republic v. Manalo (2018): Divorce Filed by the Filipino Spouse

Marelyn Manalo, a Filipina, was married to a Japanese national. She filed for divorce in Japan, and a Japanese court granted it. Back in the Philippines, she asked a trial court in Dagupan City to cancel the record of her marriage in the civil registry and to let her use her maiden surname again. She later amended her petition to ask also for recognition of the Japanese divorce.

The trial court denied her petition. It said Philippine law does not let Filipinos divorce, wherever they live. The Court of Appeals reversed, saying Article 26 applies even though Manalo was the one who filed. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed.

Can a Filipino who obtained a divorce abroad against a foreign spouse have it recognized in the Philippines under the second paragraph of Article 26?

Yes, in principle. The Supreme Court denied the Republic's petition and partly affirmed the Court of Appeals.

The Court read the words of the law: "The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted." Article 26 does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse was the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign case.

The Court also restated the existing rules: Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce, so Philippine courts cannot grant one; the marriage of two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad; and in a mixed marriage, the Filipino may remarry if a divorce is validly obtained abroad.

But the Court did not end the case. The divorce decree had been proven, but the Japanese law on divorce had not. Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. The Court sent the case back to the trial court to receive evidence of the relevant Japanese law.

The decision was not unanimous. Justice Caguioa wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Del Castillo and Perlas-Bernabe, arguing that Manalo, as a Filipino, stayed bound by Philippine law, which does not allow divorce.

The second paragraph of Article 26 applies to a valid divorce obtained abroad in a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner, whichever spouse filed for it; before it is recognized, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and the foreign law allowing it.

In a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner, the Filipino is sometimes the one who files for divorce abroad. In this very case, the trial court refused recognition for that reason. Manalo makes clear that who filed does not matter.

Manalo is not a divorce law for Filipinos. It does not help two Filipino citizens who divorce abroad. And the foreign divorce still has to be recognized in a Philippine court, with proof of both the divorce and the foreign law.

For the text of the rule, see Article 26 of the Family Code. Manalo is read together with Republic v. Orbecido and Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas; the full picture is in is a foreign divorce valid in the Philippines. For help with a real case, see where to find legal help.