The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that foreign divorce obtain by a Filipino and a foreign spouse, whether through legal or administrative process or by mutual agreement between the spouses, is cognizable in the Philippines provided such mode of obtaining divorce is valid in the foreign spouse’s national law.
Thus, the SC stressed that foreign divorce decrees do not require judicial proceedings abroad to be recognized in the Philippines.
What the Philippines’ Family Code aims to prevent is a situation where a foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse remains bound by the marriage, the SC said.
The SC’s full court decision was written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao. Reiterating previous rulings, the SC said:
“Incipiently, it bears accentuating that Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it.
“Nevertheless, jurisdiction is conferred on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.
"Article 26 of the Family Code – which addresses foreign marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner -- allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
“The text of Article 26(2) of the Family Code does not support a construction to limit recognition of foreign divorce decrees to those issued in judicial proceedings only. It is a basic principle in statutory construction that where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, they must be given their literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.
“A plain reading of Article 26(2) of the Family Code reveals that it only requires that the divorce be ‘validly obtained abroad.’ To insist that the divorce be obtained through judicial proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction is to insert a condition not provided in the law.
“Indeed, the law does not distinguish between divorces obtained through judicial proceedings and administrative proceedings; or between those where one spouse files for divorce and the other contests it, and those where the divorce is a product of mutual agreement.
“The plain meaning rule prohibits this Court from imposing its own distinctions and qualifications on the clear and unambiguous language of Article 26(2). To do so would be tantamount to judicial legislation, an unwarranted overstepping of the Court's judicial functions.
“After all, it is also an elementary rule in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish.”
The case settled by the SC was the petition filed by the government, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). which challenged the rulings issued by the regional trial court (RTC) in favor of Ruby Cuevas Ng, also known as Ruby Ng Sono.
A summary of the case issued by the SC’s Public Information Office (SC-PIO) stated that in 2004, Ruby and Japanese national Akihiro Sono were married in Quezon City.
The couple moved to Japan. When their relationship fell apart, they secured a “divorce decree by mutual agreement.”
Ruby filed before the RTC a petition for the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and for the declaration of her capacity to remarry.
She submitted to the trial court a Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines and a copy of the Family Registry of Japan bearing the official stamp of the mayor of Nakano-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, and supported by its corresponding English translation.
She also told the RTC that the national law of Japan recognizes divorce either by agreement or judicial action. However, she failed to submit to the RTC an authenticated copy of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
On Jan. 3, 2019, the RTC ruled in favor of Ruby. It directed the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and the Philippine Statistics Authority “to correct, change name or annotate the record of Ruby Cuevas Ng as regards her civil status to reflect that her marriage with Akihiro Sono has already been dissolved by way of foreign judgment and to declare the person of Ruby Cuevas Ng as single and free to remarry.”
When the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, the OSG filed before the SC a petition challenging the trial court’s orders. The OSG argued that only foreign divorce decrees issued by a court can be recognized in the Philippines.
The SC-PIO said the High Court ruled: “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.”
However, the SC said that while Ruby claimed that the national law of Japan recognizes divorce either by agreement or judicial action, she failed to submit to the RTC an authenticated copy of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
The SC said that 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.
It clarified that under Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 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.
While granting the OSG’s petition, the SC remanded the case to the RTC to allow Ruby to present evidence proving the existence of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
“In obeisance to these previous pronouncements, and considering that Ng (Ruby) was able to present certified documents establishing the fact of divorce and that relaxation of the rules will not prejudice the State, a remand of the instant case to the trial court for further proceedings and reception of evidence of the Japanese law on divorce is in order,’ the SC ruled.