The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of Article 26(2) of the Family Code, allowing Filipino citizens who initiate divorce proceedings abroad against their foreign spouses to remarry in the Philippines, provided the divorce is validly obtained and the foreign spouse is capacitated to remarry. This decision eliminates the previous restriction that only recognized foreign divorces obtained by the alien spouse. The ruling aims to prevent the unfair situation where a Filipino remains married while their foreign spouse is free to remarry under their national law, ensuring equal rights and recognition for Filipinos in international marriages.

Beyond Borders: Can a Filipino Initiate Divorce and Remarry at Home?

Luzviminda Dela Cruz Morisono, a Filipino citizen, married Ryoji Morisono, a Japanese national, in the Philippines. Due to marital issues, they obtained a “Divorce by Agreement” in Japan. Luzviminda sought to have the divorce recognized in the Philippines to change her passport and remarry. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied her petition, citing that Philippine law does not allow Filipinos to benefit from divorces they initiate, invoking Article 15 of the Civil Code and Article 26(2) of the Family Code. The central legal question is whether a Filipino citizen can have a foreign divorce decree they initiated recognized in the Philippines, allowing them to remarry.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue by examining the interplay between Philippine law and international marital relationships. Philippine law does not permit absolute divorce for Filipino citizens married to each other. However, Article 26(2) of the Family Code provides an exception for mixed marriages, stating:

Article 26. x x x

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.

Previously, this provision was interpreted to mean that only divorces initiated by the foreign spouse could be recognized in the Philippines. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court, in Republic v. Manalo, expanded the application of Article 26(2). The Court emphasized that the law’s intent is to prevent the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains bound to a marriage while the foreign spouse is free to remarry.

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of “a divorce x x x validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.” Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. 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. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding.

The Court reasoned that the critical factor is the dissolution of the marriage and the foreign spouse’s capacity to remarry, regardless of who initiated the divorce proceedings. A Filipino who initiates a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same position as one on the receiving end of such a proceeding. To deny recognition based solely on who initiated the divorce would be unfair and discriminatory. The Supreme Court stated:

Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction.

The Court acknowledged the realities of modern global interactions, noting the increasing prevalence of mixed marriages and the complexities that arise when marriages fail. The decision seeks to harmonize the constitutional protection of marriage with the State’s obligation to promote the total development of Filipino families. Restricting the application of Article 26(2) would lead to adverse consequences, such as children born out of subsequent relationships being stigmatized as illegitimate.

The Supreme Court also stated:

marriage, being mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the marital bond while the other remains bound to it.

However, the Court clarified that the party seeking recognition of the foreign divorce decree must prove the fact of the divorce and its conformity with the foreign law allowing it. The case was remanded to the lower court to determine whether Luzviminda’s “Divorce by Agreement” in Nagoya City, Japan, complied with Japanese divorce laws. This decision does not automatically grant recognition but requires the Filipino spouse to present evidence of the divorce and its validity under foreign law. Therefore, the facts are important. The party must present in evidence the divorce decree and prove its conformity with Japanese laws on divorce.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether a Filipino citizen can have a foreign divorce decree they initiated recognized in the Philippines, allowing them to remarry.
What is Article 26(2) of the Family Code?	It states that a Filipino spouse can remarry if their alien spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad, capacitating the alien spouse to remarry.
Did the Supreme Court change how Article 26(2) is interpreted?	Yes, it expanded the interpretation to include divorces initiated by the Filipino spouse, not just those initiated by the alien spouse.
What must a Filipino spouse prove to have a foreign divorce recognized?	They must prove the fact of the divorce and that it conforms to the laws of the foreign country where it was obtained.
Does this decision mean all foreign divorces obtained by Filipinos are automatically valid in the Philippines?	No, each case must be reviewed to ensure the divorce was validly obtained under the foreign country’s laws.
Why did the Supreme Court change its interpretation of Article 26(2)?	To prevent the unfair situation where a Filipino remains married while their foreign spouse is free to remarry, ensuring equal rights.
What happens if a Filipino remarries after a foreign divorce that is later deemed invalid in the Philippines?	The subsequent marriage could be considered bigamous, leading to legal complications and potential annulment.
Is this ruling applicable to Filipinos who are now naturalized citizens of another country?	No, This ruling does not cover situations where both parties were originally Filipino citizens but later one acquired foreign citizenship and initiated a divorce proceeding.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Morisono v. Morisono represents a significant step towards recognizing the realities of international marriages and ensuring fairness for Filipino citizens. By expanding the scope of Article 26(2) of the Family Code, the Court has removed a discriminatory barrier and allowed Filipinos who initiate foreign divorce proceedings to move forward with their lives with equal legal standing.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Luzviminda Dela Cruz Morisono v. Ryoji Morisono, G.R. No. 226013, July 02, 2018