The Supreme Court has affirmed that a foreign divorce decree obtained jointly by a Filipino citizen and their foreign spouse can be recognized in the Philippines. This decision clarifies that even if a Filipino participates in obtaining a divorce abroad, they can be legally capacitated to remarry under Philippine law, provided the divorce is valid in the foreign country. The ruling eliminates the previous requirement that only divorces initiated solely by the foreign spouse could be recognized, ensuring equal treatment for Filipinos in mixed marriages.

From Separation to Second Chance: Can a Filipino Remarry After a Joint Foreign Divorce?

Helen Bayog-Saito, a Filipino citizen, married Toru Saito, a Japanese national, in the Philippines. Due to cultural and personal differences, their marriage eventually dissolved. They jointly filed for divorce in Japan, which was granted and recorded in Toru’s family registry. Helen then sought judicial recognition of the foreign divorce in the Philippines to gain the legal capacity to remarry. The Republic of the Philippines opposed, arguing that since the divorce was jointly obtained, it should not be recognized under Article 26 of the Family Code. This article generally prohibits Filipinos from obtaining divorces, except when a foreign spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad. The central legal question was whether a divorce jointly obtained by a Filipino and a foreign national could be recognized in the Philippines, allowing the Filipino spouse to remarry.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue by examining the intent and scope of Article 26 of the Family Code. Article 26 states:

Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Article 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

The Court referenced the landmark case of Republic of the Philippines v. Manalo, which broadened the interpretation of Article 26 to include divorces obtained solely by the Filipino spouse. The Court emphasized that the provision’s primary goal is to prevent the inequitable situation where the Filipino spouse remains bound to a marriage while the foreign spouse is free to remarry under their national laws. This interpretation reflects a move toward protecting the rights and interests of Filipino citizens in transnational marriages.

Building on this principle, the Court also cited Galapon v. Republic, which further clarified that Article 26 applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is obtained: (1) by the foreign spouse; (2) jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and (3) solely by the Filipino spouse. Therefore, the act of jointly obtaining the divorce does not bar the Filipino spouse from seeking judicial recognition and the capacity to remarry.

The Court reasoned that prohibiting Filipinos from participating in divorce proceedings would not protect them, but rather disadvantage them by keeping them in a marriage that has already been legally dissolved in another jurisdiction. The pivotal point is that the foreign spouse is capacitated to remarry under their national law, which severs the marital tie regardless of who initiated the divorce. The Supreme Court held that it does not matter whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding, as the law does not distinguish based on who initiated the divorce.

Furthermore, the Court underscored the importance of proving the divorce and its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. To recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage, a copy of the foreign judgment must be admitted in evidence under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Revised Rules of Court. In this case, Helen presented sufficient evidence, including the Divorce Certificate, Notification of Divorce, acceptance thereof, record of Toru’s family register, and authenticated pertinent laws of Japan, proving that the divorce was validly obtained under Japanese law.

Moreover, the Court acknowledged that Helen had adequately proven the Japanese law on divorce through the submission of the English version of the Civil Code of Japan, translated under the authorization of the Ministry of Justice and the Codes of Translation Committee. This evidence was critical in establishing the legal basis for the divorce in Japan, aligning with the requirements for judicial recognition in the Philippines. The submission of duly authenticated documents ensures that the foreign legal process is properly understood and validated within the Philippine legal system.

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals (CA) was correct in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) grant of the petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree. The Court emphasized that the dissolution of Helen and Toru’s marriage under Japanese law had capacitated Toru to remarry, and he had, in fact, already remarried. Consequently, the Court found no basis to deny Helen the legal capacity to remarry under Philippine law, affirming the CA’s decision and granting the petition for judicial recognition of the divorce.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a divorce decree jointly obtained by a Filipino citizen and their foreign spouse could be recognized in the Philippines, allowing the Filipino spouse to remarry.
What is Article 26 of the Family Code?	Article 26 of the Family Code states that when a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is validly obtained by the alien spouse, capacitating them to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall also have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Republic v. Manalo?	In Republic v. Manalo, the Supreme Court clarified that Article 26 also applies to divorces obtained solely by the Filipino spouse, ensuring they are not unfairly bound to a dissolved marriage.
Does it matter who initiated the divorce proceedings?	No, the Supreme Court has held that it does not matter whether the Filipino spouse or the foreign spouse initiated the divorce proceedings, as long as the divorce is validly obtained abroad.
What evidence is needed to recognize a foreign divorce in the Philippines?	To recognize a foreign divorce, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it, including presenting authenticated copies of the divorce decree and relevant foreign laws.
What documents did Helen Bayog-Saito present to the court?	Helen Bayog-Saito presented the Divorce Certificate, Notification of Divorce, acceptance thereof, record of Toru’s family register, and authenticated pertinent laws of Japan to prove the validity of the divorce.
Why was it important to prove Japanese law in this case?	Proving Japanese law was crucial to demonstrate that the divorce was legally valid in Japan, which is a requirement for its recognition in the Philippines under Article 26 of the Family Code.
What is the effect of this ruling on Filipinos married to foreigners?	This ruling provides clarity and protection for Filipinos married to foreigners, ensuring that they are not unfairly disadvantaged by being unable to remarry after a valid foreign divorce.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic v. Helen Bayog-Saito reinforces the principle of equality in transnational marriages, affirming that Filipinos can be legally capacitated to remarry following a jointly obtained foreign divorce, provided it is valid under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction. This ruling aligns Philippine law with the realities of international marriages and ensures fairness for Filipino citizens in a globalized world.

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: Republic of the Philippines v. Helen Bayog-Saito, G.R. No. 247297, August 17, 2022