View full case

RHODORA ILUMIN RACHO v. SEIICHI TANAKA

FACTS:

Rhodora Ilumin Racho (Racho) and Seiichi Tanaka (Tanaka) were married on April 20, 2001 in Las Piñas City, Metro Manila. They lived together for nine (9) years in Saitama Prefecture, Japan and did not have any children.

Racho alleged that on December 16, 2009, Tanaka filed for divorce and the divorce was granted. She secured a Divorce Certificate issued by Consul Kenichiro Takayama (Consul Takayama) of the Japanese Consulate in the Philippines and had it authenticated by an authentication officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

She filed the Divorce Certificate with the Philippine Consulate General in Tokyo, Japan, where she was informed that she needed to return to the Philippines to report the documents for registration and to file the appropriate case for judicial recognition of divorce. She then attempted to register the Divorce Certificate with the Civil Registry of Manila but was refused due to the absence of a court order recognizing the divorce. Moreover, she was also informed by the National Statistics Office that her divorce could only be annotated in the Certificate of Marriage if there was a court order allowing her to remarry.

Racho filed a Petition for Judicial Determination and Declaration of Capacity to Marry with the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City. However, the court denied her petition on the ground that the Divorce Certificate, issued by the Japanese Embassy, was insufficient to prove the existence of a divorce decree.

Racho filed a Motion for Reconsideration and argued that under Japanese law, a divorce by agreement becomes effective through oral notification or a document signed by both parties and two or more witnesses. However, the trial court denied her motion, stating that Racho failed to present the notification of divorce and its acceptance.

Racho filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. She argued that the Divorce Certificate was sufficient evidence of divorce under Japanese law. She also submitted a duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce to comply with the Supreme Court's directive.

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the Certificate of Divorce had no probative value since it was not properly authenticated. However, they had no objection to the admission of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce submitted by Racho.

The Supreme Court recognized that the probative value of the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is a question of fact. The Court also mentioned previous cases where similar issues were remanded to the lower courts for the reception of evidence. However, in this case, the court records were deemed sufficient to resolve the factual issues. The Court concluded that the divorce between Racho and Tanaka was validly obtained according to Japanese law, which was established to be divorce by agreement. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that this type of divorce is not the one contemplated in Article 26 of the Family Code, but the Court did not elaborate on this issue in the facts section.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the divorce by agreement obtained by the Filipina spouse in Japan is recognized under Article 26 of the Family Code.

  2. Whether the interpretation of Article 26 by the Office of the Solicitor General is constitutional.

  3. Whether the narrow interpretation of Article 26 disproportionately affects Filipino women and violates the principle of gender equality.

  4. Whether or not the interpretation of the Solicitor General, that only the foreign spouse can initiate divorce proceedings, is valid.

  5. Whether or not the Filipino spouse should be allowed to remarry upon the divorce of the foreign spouse.

  6. Whether the divorce obtained by the petitioner and respondent was valid.

  7. Whether the petitioner and respondent have the capacity to remarry.

  8. Whether the Filipino spouse is still married to the foreign spouse who obtained a divorce abroad.

  9. Whether the Filipino spouse should be allowed to remarry.

RULING:

  1. The divorce by agreement obtained by the Filipina spouse in Japan is recognized under Article 26 of the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court found that according to the national law of Japan, a divorce by agreement "becomes effective by notification." The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce, duly authenticated, is admissible as evidence of the fact of divorce between the parties.

  2. The interpretation of Article 26 by the Office of the Solicitor General is not supported. Article 26 states that a divorce must be "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse." It does not specify that only the foreign spouse may initiate divorce proceedings. The narrow interpretation of the Office of the Solicitor General is contrary to the plain language of the provision.

  3. The narrow interpretation of Article 26 disproportionately affects Filipino women and violates the principle of gender equality. Empirical data shows that Filipino women are more likely to enter into mixed marriages, and under Philippine laws relating to mixed marriages, Filipino women are twice marginalized. The interpretation of Article 26 should be expanded to include the Filipino spouse, in accordance with the Constitution's recognition of the role of women in nation-building and the State's commitment to gender equality under international treaties.

  4. The Court held that the interpretation of the Solicitor General is not valid. The provision of Article 26 of the Family Code does not require that the foreign spouse must be the one who initiated the divorce proceedings. A divorce obtained abroad, regardless of who started the process, can be recognized in the Philippines as long as it is validly obtained.

  5. The Court ruled that the Filipino spouse should be allowed to remarry upon the divorce of the foreign spouse. The purpose of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the foreign spouse who is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The provision is intended to address this anomaly and allow the Filipino spouse to also be free to remarry. The provision does not make a distinction between who initiated the divorce proceedings. It is extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter's national law.

  6. The divorce obtained by the petitioner and respondent was valid. The national law of Japan, specifically Article 728 of the Civil Code of Japan, provides that the matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce without any qualifications that could limit either spouse's capacity to remarry.

  7. Both the petitioner and respondent have the capacity to remarry. The absolute dissolution of the marital tie grants both parties the legal capacity to remarry, as provided under Article 40 of the Family Code. The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce does not include any restrictions on the remarriage of either party.

  8. No, the Filipino spouse is no longer married to the foreign spouse who obtained a divorce abroad. The divorce obtained in a foreign jurisdiction dissolves the marriage under the standards of the foreign law, and as such, the foreign spouse would have no standing to sue in the Philippines as the petitioner's husband entitled to control over conjugal assets. The foreign spouse is estopped from asserting rights over the alleged conjugal property.

  9. Yes, the Filipino spouse should be allowed to remarry. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code should be interpreted to include cases where at the time of marriage, both parties were Filipino citizens but one of them later becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. The Filipino spouse should be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the marriage.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Rule 132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court provides that a public record of a sovereign foreign country shall be evidence of its existence, authenticity, and the facts stated therein when it is either (a) attested by the officer having legal custody of the record, or (b) accompanied by a certificate issued by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

  • Article 26 of the Family Code recognizes marriages solemnized outside the Philippines and valid in the country where they were solemnized as valid in the Philippines, except those prohibited under specific provisions of the Family Code. It provides that 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 have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

  • The Constitution recognizes the role of women in nation-building and ensures fundamental equality before the law of women and men, as provided in Article II, Section 14.

  • The Philippines is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which requires the country to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs, and practices which constitute discrimination against women.

  • Republic Act No. 9710 or the Magna Carta for Women provides that the State shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations.

  • The interpretation of laws should be in accordance with their clear and plain meaning.

  • The spirit and intent of the law should prevail over its literal interpretation.

  • Laws should be interpreted in a way that carries out their intended purpose and avoids absurd or unjust results.

  • The purpose of Article 26 of the Family Code is to allow recognition of foreign divorces in the Philippines, regardless of who initiated the proceedings, to avoid the situation where the Filipino spouse remains married while the foreign spouse is free to remarry.

  • Recent jurisprudence recognizes that a foreign divorce may be recognized in the Philippines as long as it is validly obtained, regardless of who initiated the proceedings.

  • The divorce obtained by a foreign spouse may be recognized in the Philippines if it allows the divorced Filipino citizen to remarry (Republic v. Orbecido III).

  • The national law of the foreign spouse must be proven and examined to determine if it allows for absolute divorce and remarriage (Republic v. Orbecido III).

  • The effect of the absolute dissolution of the marital tie is to grant both parties the legal capacity to remarry (Article 40, Family Code).

  • The divorce obtained by a foreign spouse in a foreign jurisdiction that is valid according to their national law may be recognized in the Philippines.

  • Filipino citizens who later become naturalized as foreign citizens may validly obtain a divorce from their Filipino spouses.

  • The interpretation of a statute should be according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law, especially when the literal interpretation would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature.