CONFLICT OF LAWS

Assignment No. 2

1. Read the following cases and note the doctrines therein.

REPUBLIC V. ORBECIDO, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005

➢ Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent
of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino
spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no
longer married to the Filipino spouse.

➢ Taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason,
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties
who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later
on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce
decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other
party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule
otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.

➢ The twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:

1) There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner; and
2) A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarry.

➢ The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.

CORPUZ V. STO. TOMAS, G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010

➢ Given the rationale and intent behind the enactment, and the purpose of the
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, only the Filipino spouse can
invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the alien spouse
can claim no right under this provision.

➢ The legislative intent of paragraph 2 Article 26 is for the benefit of the Filipino
spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the
divorce decree.

➢ Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provided the
Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her marriage to the alien spouse

Page 1 of 7
 considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry. Without the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the judicial recognition of the foreign
decree of divorce, whether in a proceeding instituted precisely for that purpose or
as a related issue in another proceeding, would be of no significance to the Filipino
spouse since our laws do not recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital
bond.

➢ Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute divorces
cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country. The inclusion
of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code provides the direct
exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the dissolution of the
marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.

➢ Additionally, an action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family

Code is not limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If the court
finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can
declare that the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another
marriage. No court in this jurisdiction, however, can make a similar declaration for
the alien spouse (other than that already established by the decree), whose status
and legal capacity are generally governed by his national law.

➢ Direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to

clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before our courts
for the recognition of the foreign judgment. In a divorce situation, we have
declared, no less, that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized
in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his or her national law.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, G.R. No.

221029, April 24, 2018

➢ Divorce, the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage,
are of two types: (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii, which terminates
the marriage, and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro, which suspends it and
leaves the bond in full force.

➢ In this jurisdiction, the following rules exist:

1) Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts
cannot grant it.
2) Consistent with Articles 15 and 17 of the New Civil Code, the marital bond
between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce
obtained abroad.
3) An absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may
be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their
respective national laws.

Page 2 of 7
 4) In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is
allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
5) When this Court recognized a foreign divorce decree that was initiated and
obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal effects on the issues
of child custody and property relation, it should not stop short in likewise
acknowledging that one of the usual and necessary consequences of
absolute divorce is the right to remarry. Indeed, there is no longer a mutual
obligation to live together and observe fidelity. When the marriage tie is
severed and ceased to exist, the civil status and the domestic relation of
the former spouses change as both of them are freed from the marital bond.

➢ Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of "a divorce x x x validly obtained abroad by the

alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry." Based on a clear and plain
reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained
abroad. 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 purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where

the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce
decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married
to the Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective measure to address an anomaly
where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free
to marry under the laws of his or her country.

➢ Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a
favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien
spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be
without a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is
in the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end
of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make
a distinction. In both instance, 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.

MARLYN MONTON NULLADA V. THE HON. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA,

G.R. No. 224548, January 23, 2019

➢ In determining whether a divorce decree obtained by a foreigner spouse should

be recognized in the Philippines, it is immaterial that the divorce is sought by the
Filipino national.

Page 3 of 7
➢ While opposition to the foregoing interpretation is commonly raised on the basis
of the nationality principle, such principle is not an absolute and unbending rule.
The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code should be deemed an
exception to the general rule.

JULIET RENDORA MORAÑA V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.

227605, December 5, 2019

➢ A foreign decree of divorce may be recognized in the Philippines although it was

the Filipino spouse who obtained the same.

➢ The Divorce Report is what the Government of Japan issued to petitioner and her
husband when they applied for divorce. There was no "divorce judgment" to speak
of because the divorce proceeding was not coursed through Japanese courts but
through the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.
In any event, since the Divorce Report was issued by the Office of the Mayor of
Fukuyama City, the same is deemed an act of an official body in Japan. By
whatever name it is called, the Divorce Report is clearly the equivalent of the
"Divorce Decree" in Japan, hence, the best evidence of the fact of divorce obtained
by petitioner and her former husband

RHODORA ILUMIN RACHO, a.k.a. "RHODORA RACHO TANAKA,"

petitioner V. SEIICHI TANAKA, G.R. No. 199515, June 25, 2018

➢ Judicial recognition of a foreign divorce requires that the national law of the foreign
spouse and the divorce decree be pleaded and proved as a fact before the Regional
Trial Court. The Filipino spouse may be granted the capacity to remarry once our
courts find that the foreign divorce was validly obtained by the foreign spouse
according to his or her national law, and that the foreign spouse's national law
considers the dissolution of the marital relationship to be absolute.

➢ Under Article 26 of the Family Code, a divorce between a foreigner and a Filipino
may be recognized in the Philippines as long as it was validly obtained according
to the foreign spouse's national law. The second paragraph was included to avoid
an absurd situation where a Filipino spouse remains married to the foreign spouse
even after a validly obtained divorce abroad. The addition of the second paragraph
gives the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have the marriage considered as
dissolved, and ultimately, to grant him or her the capacity to remarry.

➢ Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable only in issues on the validity of

remarriage. It cannot be the basis for any other liability, whether civil or criminal,
that the Filipino spouse may incur due to remarriage.

Page 4 of 7
➢ Article 26 should be interpreted to mean that it is irrelevant for courts to determine
if it is the foreign spouse that procures the divorce abroad. Once a divorce decree
is issued, the divorce becomes "validly obtained" and capacitates the foreign
spouse to marry. The same status should be given to the Filipino spouse.

➢ The national law of Japan does not prohibit the Filipino spouse from initiating or
participating in the divorce proceedings. It would be inherently unjust for a Filipino
woman to be prohibited by her own national laws from something that a foreign
law may allow. Parenthetically, the prohibition on Filipinos from participating in
divorce proceedings will not be protecting our own nationals.

➢ To rule that the foreign spouse may remarry, while the Filipino may not, only
contributes to the patriarchy. This interpretation encourages unequal partnerships
and perpetuates abuse in intimate relationships.

2. Note the procedure for recognition of foreign divorce before our courts,
the specific examples on how to prove a divorce decree and foreign law.

All the cases are uniform in saying that our courts do not take judicial notice
of foreign law. Hence, the presentation of the divorce decree before our courts will
not suffice, as it is still necessary that the fact of divorce is proved and conformity
to the foreign law allowing it is demonstrated.

To illustrate, in Republic v. Orbecido, the SC ruled that for the respondent’s

plea to prosper, he must:
a) Prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American
citizen.
b) Prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the
foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law must also be proved as our
courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact,
such laws must be alleged and proved.
c) Show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as
specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no
evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into
another marriage
Moreover, in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, the SC said that in this case, since both the
foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity
to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court comes into play. This Section requires proof, either by
(1) official publications or (2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of
the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these
must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular

Page 5 of 7
officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. The same provision was
also mentioned in Nullada v. Civil Registry of Manila.
In addition, in Republic v. Manalo, the SC ruled that before a foreign judgment is
given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and
admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself.
Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports
to be a written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign
country. In the said case, it is undisputed that the divorce decree was proven by
Manalo. What was lacking, however, was her failure to prove Japanese Law on
Divorce. The SC said that it was Manalo who had the burden of proving the Japanese
law on divorce and her former husband’s capacity to remarry. The burden of proof
lies with the "party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the
prosecution or defense of an action." In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of
proving the material allegations of the complaint when those are denied by the
answer; and defendants have the burden of proving the material allegations in their
answer when they introduce new matters. Nonetheless, the SC was lenient in the
Manalo case so it allowed the remand of the case to the court of origin for the
reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
Likewise, in Morana vs Republic, the fact of divorce was duly proven by virtue of
the Divorce Report issued by the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City, which
according the Supreme Court, is deemed an act of an official body in Japan and is
clearly the equivalent of the "Divorce Decree" in Japan, hence, the best evidence of
the fact of divorce obtained by petitioner and her former husband. However, in the
same case, the SC said that only the fact of divorce was duly proven by the petitioner.
The latter failed to prove the divorce law of Japan. What the petitioner offered in
evidence were mere printouts of pertinent portions of the Japanese law on divorce
and its English translation. There was no proof at all that these printouts reflected the
existing law on divorce in Japan and its correct English translation. According to the
SC, our rules require more than a printout from a website to prove a foreign law. But
considering that the fact of divorce was duly proved in this case, the higher interest
of substantial justice compels that petitioner be afforded the chance to properly prove
the Japanese law on divorce, with the end view that petitioner may be eventually
freed from a marriage in which she is the only remaining party.
3. What is the collective effect of these decisions on the nationality
principle pertaining to marriage?

The common denominator of foregoing decisions of the Supreme Court all

bear the same result: a more liberal and expanded interpretation of paragraph 2,

Page 6 of 7
Article 26 of the Family Code. All these decisions advance the idea that giving a
restrictive interpretation of the said provision would do harm the good. As it would
be unjust for the Filipino/a spouse who is put at a disadvantage when his/her
former alien spouse is already released from their marital bond while he/she
remains therein.

However, while these decisions give a relaxed and less stringent application
of our law, it is undeniable that the said interpretation would also affect our
Nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code. The collective effect of these
decisions on the nationality principle is that by allowing a Filipino/a spouse to prove
the fact of divorce and the foreign law for that matter, it would now open the flood
gates of evading the prohibition against divorce in the Philippines by simply
invoking foreign law at a whim. Worse, it gives these Filipinos in mixed marriages
preference in their favor at the expense of their fellowmen who also happen to be
married to their fellow Filipinos, but who, unfortunately, are victims of failed and
distraught marriages, but cannot free themselves from the same as divorce is not
one of the options available to them.

Page 7 of 7