If only the Philippines has its law on absolute divorce, there would be no more sufferings for a husband whose wife left him in 2011 for Canada where her divorce petition was granted in 2018, and has been living with another man since then.
The husband’s petition for recognition of a foreign divorce was granted by the regional trial court (RTC) on July 26, 2022.
However, on June 11, 2024, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the ruling of the trial court as it granted the petition for review filed by the government through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The RTC ruled that based on the copy of the certificate of authentication by the Embassy of Canada in the Philippines, the Order of Divorce from the Superior Court of Justice Family Branch of Toronto, Canada, and an authenticated copy of the laws on divorce in Canada allowing such divorce, “there is preponderance of evidence supporting the recognition and enforcement of the divorce decree issued by the Canadian court.”
Thus, the RTC ordered the judicial recognition and enforcement of the divorce between the husband and wife, and the Civil Registrar General and the Local Civil Registrar were ordered to “annotate the divorce in their marriage certificate.”
(Manila Bulletin decided not to publish the names of the husband and the wife to protect their private lives and those of their immediate families. The CA case is docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 120258.)
When the appeal of the government, through the OSG was denied by the RTC, a petition for review was filed by government lawyers before the CA.
The OSG told the CA that the husband failed to prove that her wife was a Canadian citizen when she filed for divorce.
It pointed out that “domicile does not prove citizenship” and since the wife’s citizenship was not established “the presumption is that she is still a Filipino citizen.”
It also told the CA that “the principle of processual presumption was erroneously applied by the court a quo (RTC) as it applies only to the failure to plead a foreign law and not to factual circumstances such as citizenship.”
The Doctrine of Processual Presumption is the presumption that the law of a foreign country on a particular matter is the same as Philippine law.
In opposing the OSG’s petition, the husband told the CA that the RTC correctly applied the principle of processual presumption in determining her wife’s citizenship at the time of the divorce.
He said that that “the Canadian law allows one to be citizen when one is a permanent resident and has spent a total of three of the last five years in Canada prior to the application for citizenship.”
He also said that by the time his wife applied for divorce, she had already spent four years in Canada.”
Case records showed that the husband met her wife through the wife of his friend. Both wives were domestic helpers in Hong Kong.
They became text mates in 2003. In 2004 they got married and the wife went back to Hong Kong. In 2011, the wife returned to the Philippines again.
In 2011, the wife told the husband her papers going to Canada had been approved. At first, the husband opposed her plan to migrate to Canada but thereafter relented after she assured that he would be immediately petitioned for residency.
To his surprise, the husband received a copy of a petition for divorce from her wife in 2014. In 2016, he got a letter referring the petition for hearing, and in 2018, he received a copy of the divorce order that declared the dissolution of their marriage.
Since he found that his wife has been living with another man in Canada, he petitioned for the recognition of the foreign divorce. His plea was granted by the RTC but was reversed by the CA.
In resolving the OSG’s petition, the CA – in a decision written by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato Jr. and Jennifer Joy C. Ong – said:
“Foremost is the fact that laws in this jurisdiction do not provide for absolute divorce, the same being contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. Resultantly, courts are enjoined from issuing a judgment granting the dissolution of marital bonds through divorce; in fact, a marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, pursuant to Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code.
“Such principle, however, does not foreclose the recognition of divorce decrees procured abroad, either by spouses who are both aliens, or by an alien spouse who is married to a Filipino citizen (citing a 2021 Supreme Court decision).
“In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. Failure to prove the foreign law activates the doctrine of processual presumption, whereby the foreign law is deemed to be the same as Philippine law.
“Otherwise stated, the doctrine of processual presumption applies when a party fails to prove the foreign law which he or she invokes. Once applicable, it creates a presumption that the foreign law is the same as Philippine law.
“In the case at bench, the applicable foreign law, which is the divorce law of Canada, was properly pleaded and proved, thus, processual presumption is inapplicable.
“The court a quo's ruling that the absence of proof regarding the citizenship requirement in the grant of divorce under Canadian law results in the application of processual presumption, and consequently, the wife’s Canadian citizenship, is erroneous as there is no law granting divorce in the Philippines, and processual presumption cannot be used to invoke a presumption of fact other than the similarity between the foreign law being invoked and Philippine law.
“As such, the court a quo's basis for its conclusion that the wife was not a Filipino citizen is wrong.
“The case records fail to show any other evidence that proves the wife’s alleged foreign citizenship. A review of the Canadian law on divorce which appellee (husband) submitted in evidence shows that a divorce decree may be granted to a resident and not exclusively to a citizen. As correctly raised by the Republic, residency and citizenship are different concepts.
“Without proof of the wife’s alleged foreign citizenship, this Court finds that the wife is still a Filipino citizen, thus, appellee's petition for recognition of foreign judgment must fail.
“While the Court commiserates with appellee's unfortunate situation, it is bound to give effect and apply the applicable law.
“Premises considered, the appeal filed by the Republic of the Philippines, is granted. The March 22, 2022 Decision and the July 26, 2022 Order of the Regional Trial Court … Branch 65 are reversed and set aside.
“Accordingly, the Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgment filed by the husband is denied. So ordered.”
Before the adjournment of the Philippine Congress’ second regular session, the House of Representatives approved the divorce bill under House Bill 9349 with 126 of its members voting in favor of the measure and with 109 members voting against.
Later on, the House leadership clarified that 131 of its members actually voted in favor of the divorce bill, and only 126 did not vote on the measure.
If HB 9349 becomes a law, it would institute absolute divorce as an alternative mode of dissolving an irreparably broken or dysfunctional marriage.