View full case

RAEMARK S. ABEL v. MINDY P. RULE

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree between Raemark Abel, an American citizen, and Mindy Rule, a Filipino citizen. They got married in the United States in 2005 and filed for summary dissolution of their marriage in 2008. The divorce was granted in 2009 by the California Superior Court, and Abel received a copy of the judgment. Abel reacquired his Filipino citizenship while Rule became a U.S. citizen. In 2017, the California judgment was recorded in Manila, and Abel filed a petition for recognition of the foreign divorce before the Regional Trial Court. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that the joint filing of the divorce violated Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which only grants the alien spouse the right to obtain a divorce. The Regional Trial Court agreed with the opposition, dismissing the petition, claiming that Article 26(2) does not allow a Filipino spouse to jointly obtain a divorce with a foreign spouse. Abel filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. In response, he filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, asserting that the California judgment should be recognized and enforced in the Philippines. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that the Philippines maintains its policy against the recognition of absolute divorce and that a jointly obtained divorce by a Filipino and an alien cannot be recognized as it contradicts existing public policy.

ISSUES:

  1. The sole issue in this case is whether a divorce decree jointly obtained by a Filipino and their alien spouse can be judicially recognized in the Philippines.

  2. Whether or not the divorce decree obtained jointly by the foreign spouse and the Filipino spouse can be recognized in the Philippines.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that a divorce decree jointly obtained by a Filipino and their alien spouse can be judicially recognized in the Philippines. The Court cited previous cases, particularly Republic v. Manalo, where it was held that it is irrelevant who between the spouses initiated the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court emphasized that Article 26(2) of the Family Code only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse. The Court stated that the letter of the law does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The purpose of Article 26(2) is to address the anomaly where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree, is no longer married. Thus, the Court ruled that whether the Filipino spouse initiated the divorce proceeding or not, as long as a divorce decree is validly obtained abroad, it can be recognized in the Philippines.

  2. The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree obtained jointly by the foreign spouse and the Filipino spouse can be recognized in the Philippines. The court interpreted Article 26(2) of the Family Code to mean that as long as the divorce was validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, the Filipino spouse will also have the capacity to remarry. The provision does not require the divorce to have been solely obtained by the alien spouse. The court emphasized that the purpose of the provision is to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed. The court also considered the constitutional fiat to ensure fundamental equality before the law of women and men, as well as the provisions of the Magna Carta of Women, which ensures substantive equality between men and women in matters related to marriage and family relations. Therefore, the joint filing of a divorce decree is valid and can be recognized in the Philippines.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The recognition of a divorce decree obtained abroad by an alien spouse does not depend on who initiated the foreign divorce proceeding, but on whether the divorce was validly obtained.

  • Article 26(2) of the Family Code aims to address the situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse despite the divorce obtained by the latter, and seeks to ensure that the Filipino spouse is not left tied to a marriage that no longer exists in the eyes of the foreign legal system.

  • Laws should be interpreted and harmonized with other laws and jurisprudence.

  • The constitutional fiat guarantees fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

  • The Magna Carta of Women ensures substantive equality between men and women, particularly in matters related to marriage and family relations.

  • Article 26(2) of the Family Code allows the recognition of divorce decrees obtained abroad by the alien spouse, regardless of whether the divorce was solely or jointly obtained.