Court says divorce obtained abroad valid
THE Supreme Court ruled that divorces obtained abroad, whether through legal or administrative process or by mutual agreement, were valid under Philippine laws. The ruling stemmed from a case filed by a Filipino woman who married a Japanese in Quezon City in 2004 and later moved to Japan. After their relationship fell apart, the couple secured a "divorce decree by mutual agreement" in Japan, evidenced by a divorce certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines. The woman filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and for the declaration of her capacity to remarry, which the RTC granted. However, the Office of the Solicitor General challenged the RTC decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that only foreign divorce decrees issued by a court can be recognized in the Philippines, noting the foreign divorce involved was by mere agreement. The Court ruled in favor of the Filipino woman, saying Filipinos previously married to foreigners can seek judicial recognition of their foreign divorce under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The Court held that the type of divorce, whether administrative or judicial, did not matter. As long as the divorce is valid under the foreign spouse's national law, it will be recognized in the Philippines for the Filipino spouse. The Court emphasized that Article 26(2) aims to prevent a situation where a foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse remains bound by the marriage. In the case of the Filipino woman, she claimed the national law of Japan recognizes divorce either by agreement or judicial action. However, the Court said she failed to submit to the RTC an authenticated copy of the relevant Japanese law on divorce. Under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents of foreign countries must be proved either by official publication or copies attested by the legal custodian of the documents. The Court clarified that under Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular 157-2022-A, the OCA's compilation of foreign divorce laws serves only as a preliminary reference for courts but does not dispense with the requirements under the Revised Rules on Evidence. The Supreme Court thus remanded the case to the RTC to allow the Filipino to present evidence proving the existence of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
Tomas Kauer - Moderator 
THE Supreme Court ruled that divorces obtained abroad, whether through legal or administrative process or by mutual agreement, were valid under Philippine laws.
The ruling stemmed from a case filed by a Filipino woman who married a Japanese in Quezon City in 2004 and later moved to Japan.
After their relationship fell apart, the couple secured a "divorce decree by mutual agreement" in Japan, evidenced by a divorce certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines.
The woman filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and for the declaration of her capacity to remarry, which the RTC granted.
However, the Office of the Solicitor General challenged the RTC decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that only foreign divorce decrees issued by a court can be recognized in the Philippines, noting the foreign divorce involved was by mere agreement.
The Court ruled in favor of the Filipino woman, saying Filipinos previously married to foreigners can seek judicial recognition of their foreign divorce under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.
The Court held that the type of divorce, whether administrative or judicial, did not matter. As long as the divorce is valid under the foreign spouse's national law, it will be recognized in the Philippines for the Filipino spouse.
The Court emphasized that Article 26(2) aims to prevent a situation where a foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse remains bound by the marriage.
In the case of the Filipino woman, she claimed the national law of Japan recognizes divorce either by agreement or judicial action.
However, the Court said she failed to submit to the RTC an authenticated copy of the relevant Japanese law on divorce. Under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents of foreign countries must be proved either by official publication or copies attested by the legal custodian of the documents.
The Court clarified that under Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular 157-2022-A, the OCA's compilation of foreign divorce laws serves only as a preliminary reference for courts but does not dispense with the requirements under the Revised Rules on Evidence.
The Supreme Court thus remanded the case to the RTC to allow the Filipino to present evidence proving the existence of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
