Foreign divorce of mixed couples valid here
In several decisions, our Supreme Court has liberally interpreted the Family Code by recognizing divorce decrees obtained abroad by foreign nationals married to Filipinos from judicial or non-judicial bodies, for any cause or reason, and regardless of which spouse initiated the proceedings, provided the divorce is valid in the place where it was obtained.
THE SUPREME COURT’S LATEST DECISION, Republic v. Bayog-Saito (Aug. 17, 2022) penned by J Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, recognized the divorce granted by the mayor of Minami-ku, Yokohama City, Japan, based merely on a “divorce notification” filed by the Japanese husband, Toru Saito, with the written acquiescence of his Filipino wife, Helen Bayog. This uncontested divorce was recorded in the Official Family Registry of Minami-ku.
Divorce, under Japanese law, is easy to obtain; the Saito couple did not have to go to a Japanese court or to any other office to obtain the divorce. And now, per this decision of our highest court, Helen can remarry in the same way that Toru, under Japanese law, could remarry.
Note, however, that to obtain a judicial judgment recognizing the Japanese divorce and allowing her to remarry, Helen had to submit the following documents to the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City (which were later reviewed on appeal by the Court of Appeals and, finally, by the Supreme Court): “(1) Certificate of Marriage [on Aug. 30, 1999 celebrated in Pasay City]; (2) Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce Notification (Notification of Divorce) dated Oct. 16, 2012, issued by Mayor Takashi [Yamaguchi], and duly authenticated by the DFA; (3) Duly authenticated Family Register (Certificate pertaining to all Facts) of Toru, issued by Mayor Takashi, and duly authenticated by the DFA showing that the parties were divorced on Oct. 16, 2012; (4) Divorce Certificate of Helen and Toru issued by Vice Consul Kengo [Fukasawa of the Japanese Embassy in the Philippines] and duly authenticated by the DFA; and (5) pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of Japan [and its English translation duly authenticated by the DFA].”
DIVORCE BETWEEN FILIPINO COUPLES wherever obtained and for whatever cause or reason is not valid here and cannot be recognized by our courts. (Muslim Filipinos are separately treated under a separate law.) The rule for Filipinos is: Once married, forever married.
(Parenthetically, annulments due to “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of the Family Code had also been liberalized by the Supreme Court. These annulments may now be obtained much more easily than during my term in the Court. But that is another topic that deserves a full column.)
To stress, though Article 26 of the Family Code does not allow absolute divorce to Filipinos, a “divorce … validly obtained by the alien spouse” in a mixed marriage—subject to certain exceptions —may nonetheless be recognized here provided such decree is valid per the national law of the foreign spouse. Why?
Answer: To avoid the “anomaly that results … from a Filipino spouse being tied to the marriage while the foreigner spouse is free to remarry.” Thus, the second paragraph of said article provides that the “Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry…”
REPUBLIC V. MANALO (April 24, 2018), written by J, later CJ, Diosdado M. Peralta (with three dissents) justified the liberal interpretation of Article 26 in this wise, “The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is bound by the words of the statute; neither can we put words in the mouths of the lawmakers. The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.”
Further, the Court explained, “Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the word “obtained” should be interpreted to mean that the divorce proceeding must be actually initiated by the alien spouse, still, the Court will not follow the letter of the statute when to do so would depart from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Laws have ends to achieve, and statutes should be so construed as not to defeat but to carry out such ends and purposes.”
To sum up, in Republic v. Galapon (Jan. 22, 2020, authored by J Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa who dissented from—but had to obey—the ruling in Republic v. Manalo), the Court held that the Filipino spouse may remarry “where the divorce degree (was): (i) obtained by the foreign spouse; (ii) obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and (iii) obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.”
Comments to [email protected]
