View full case

MARLYN MONTON NULLADA v. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA

FACTS:

Marlyn Nullada and Akira Ito, a Japanese national, were married in Japan in 1997. In 2009, they obtained a divorce by mutual agreement. Marlyn subsequently filed a petition for recognition of the divorce decree in the Philippines in order to dissolve their marriage and allow her to remarry under Philippine law. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition, citing the policy of non-recognition of divorce and the fact that Marlyn was an active participant in procuring the divorce. Marlyn filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. She then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that Article 26 of the Family Code should apply even in cases where the divorce was mutually agreed upon by the spouses.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not a divorce decree obtained abroad by a Filipino citizen, regardless of who initiated the proceeding, should be recognized in the Philippines.

  2. Whether the divorce decree obtained by the parties in Japan is valid in the Philippines.

  3. Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies to cases where the foreign divorce proceeding was initiated by the Filipino spouse.

  4. Whether the divorce decree obtained in a foreign country must be proven according to the rules on proof of foreign laws.

RULING:

  1. Yes, a divorce decree obtained abroad by a Filipino citizen should be recognized in the Philippines. The Court ruled in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo that Article 26 of the Family Code allows for the recognition of marriages solemnized outside the Philippines and validly obtained divorces abroad. The provision does not require that the alien spouse be the one who initiated the divorce proceeding. The purpose of the provision is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married while the foreign spouse is free to remarry. Therefore, the fact that it was the Filipino spouse who filed for divorce is inconsequential to the recognition of the divorce decree.

  2. The divorce decree obtained by the parties in Japan is valid in the Philippines. Following the ruling in the Manalo case, the Court affirmed that Article 26 of the Family Code applies even if the divorce was jointly initiated by the spouses. The decree made the Japanese spouse no longer married to the Filipino spouse, thus, the Filipino spouse also has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

  3. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies regardless of who initiated the foreign divorce proceeding. It recognizes 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. Therefore, the distinction based on which spouse initiated the divorce proceeding should not be made.

  4. The divorce decree obtained in a foreign country must be proven according to the rules on proof of foreign laws. Both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven like any other fact. Failure to comply with the requirements for proving the foreign law on divorce may result in the dismissal of the petition unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant a remand of the case for further proceedings and reception of evidence on the laws of the foreign jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Article 26 of the Family Code allows for the recognition of marriages solemnized outside the Philippines and divorces obtained abroad.

  • The recognition of a divorce decree obtained by a Filipino citizen is not dependent on who initiated the divorce proceeding. The focus is on whether the divorce was validly obtained abroad.

  • The purpose of recognizing foreign divorce decrees is to avoid the situation where the Filipino spouse remains married while the foreign spouse is free to remarry.

  • The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is an exception to the general rule and applies to both Filipino spouses who initiated the foreign divorce proceeding and those who are at the receiving end of an alien-initiated proceeding.

  • The principle of nationality as an absolute and unbending rule can be set aside in certain situations.

  • Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments, and proof of foreign laws must be presented in accordance with the rules on evidence.