The Supreme Court ruled that a Filipino citizen divorced by a foreign spouse abroad is capacitated to remarry in the Philippines, regardless of who initiated the divorce proceedings. This decision reinforces the principle of gender equality and recognizes the residual effect of foreign divorce decrees on Filipinos. The ruling ensures that Filipino spouses are not unfairly disadvantaged when a foreign divorce is validly obtained.

From Manila to Saitama: When Can a Filipino Remarry After a Japanese Divorce?

Rhodora Racho, a Filipina, married Seiichi Tanaka in the Philippines. They lived in Japan, where Tanaka later filed for divorce, which was granted. Racho sought judicial recognition of the divorce in the Philippines to remarry, but the trial court initially denied her petition, questioning the evidence of the divorce decree. The Supreme Court eventually reversed this decision, focusing on whether the divorce was validly obtained under Japanese law and if Racho was capacitated to remarry.

The legal framework hinges on Article 26 of the Family Code, which addresses marriages between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. This provision states that if a marriage is validly celebrated and a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall also have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. This seeks to prevent the inequitable situation where the Filipino spouse remains bound by a marriage while the foreign spouse is free to remarry under their national laws. The Supreme Court has emphasized that Philippine courts do not automatically recognize foreign judgments and laws; they must be pleaded and proven as facts.

In Garcia v. Recio, the Supreme Court set the precedent that a foreign divorce decree needs a separate action for recognition in the Philippines. The divorce decree and the national law of the foreign spouse must be presented as evidence. Building on this principle, the Court in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas reiterated that foreign judgments and their authenticity must be proven according to Philippine rules of evidence. This includes showing the effect of the judgment on the alien spouse based on their national law.

Racho presented the English version of the Civil Code of Japan, which states, “The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce.” Additionally, she provided a Divorce Certificate. The trial court noted that Japanese law recognizes both judicial divorce and divorce by agreement. However, the initial Divorce Certificate was deemed insufficient as it merely certified the existence of the divorce decree, not the decree itself.

Upon appeal, Racho submitted a Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, authenticated by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo. Under Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court, official records kept in a foreign country must be accompanied by a certificate from a Philippine foreign service officer stationed in that country. The Supreme Court found that this certificate, along with the authenticated document, was admissible as evidence of the divorce.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that Article 26 of the Family Code contemplates divorce initiated solely by the foreign spouse. The Supreme Court, however, refuted this narrow interpretation. Drawing on empirical data showing that Filipino women are more likely to enter into mixed marriages, the Court emphasized the constitutional guarantee of gender equality under Article II, Section 14, stating, “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.” The Court highlighted the Philippines’ commitment to eliminating discrimination against women, as evidenced by its ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the enactment of the Magna Carta for Women.

The Supreme Court cited the landmark case of Republic v. Manalo, which established that Article 26 only requires a divorce validly obtained abroad, regardless of who initiated the proceedings. In Republic v. Manalo, the Court held that the purpose of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where a Filipino spouse remains married while the foreign spouse is free to remarry. As such, whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, the effect is the same: the Filipino spouse is without a husband or wife. Recent jurisprudence, therefore, supports the recognition of a foreign divorce in the Philippines as long as it is validly obtained.

Addressing the OSG’s concern that Racho failed to show a specific provision in the Japanese Civil Code allowing remarriage after a divorce by agreement, the Court pointed to Article 728, which states that the matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce. This provision contains no restrictions on remarriage. Contrasting with Garcia v. Recio, where the foreign law imposed conditions on the divorce becoming absolute, the Court found no such limitations in this case. The effect of the absolute dissolution of the marital tie is to grant both parties the legal capacity to remarry.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court granted Racho’s petition, declaring her capacitated to remarry based on Article 26 of the Family Code and the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce. This decision underscores the Philippines’ commitment to gender equality and the recognition of foreign divorce decrees that validly terminate marital ties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a Filipino citizen could be recognized as capacitated to remarry in the Philippines after a divorce obtained in Japan, and whether it mattered who initiated the divorce proceedings.
What is Article 26 of the Family Code about?	Article 26 of the Family Code addresses marriages between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, stating that if a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, the Filipino spouse shall also have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
What evidence is needed to recognize a foreign divorce in the Philippines?	To recognize a foreign divorce, the divorce decree and the national law of the foreign spouse must be presented as evidence, and proven as facts before the court.
What did the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce prove?	The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, authenticated by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, served as admissible evidence of the fact of divorce between Racho and Tanaka.
Did it matter who initiated the divorce proceedings in this case?	No, the Supreme Court clarified that it is irrelevant who initiated the divorce proceedings, as long as the divorce was validly obtained abroad.
How did the Court interpret the term “validly obtained” in Article 26?	The Court interpreted “validly obtained” to mean that once a divorce decree is issued, it becomes valid, regardless of whether the Filipino or foreign spouse initiated the proceedings.
What does Japanese law say about the effect of divorce?	Article 728 of the Civil Code of Japan states that the matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce, with no restrictions on remarriage.
What is the significance of gender equality in this case?	The Court emphasized that a narrow interpretation of Article 26 would discriminate against Filipino women and contravene the constitutional guarantee of gender equality.

This landmark ruling provides clarity and support for Filipino citizens seeking to remarry after a foreign divorce. By emphasizing gender equality and the recognition of valid foreign judgments, the Supreme Court ensures that Filipino spouses are not unfairly disadvantaged. The decision aligns with international norms and promotes fairness in transnational marital relationships.

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: RHODORA ILUMIN RACHO vs. SEIICHI TANAKA, G.R. No. 199515, June 25, 2018