A.

SUMMARY - CHAPTER VIII: MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

What are the conflict of laws pertaining to marriage?

● Marriage celebrated abroad
● Marriage bet two citizens from different states and their capacity to contract is governed by their
national laws

What do we mean by full faith and credit?

● Marriage celebrated abroad is given full faith and credit
● So long as they do not violate our public policy or contravene our prohibitive laws
● Why? Because as a matter of comity with other nations, since all societies value marriage as a
social institution
● Societies would disintegrate if marriages were only valid in the place of execution

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling

US v. - Esther and Ben Jarvison -
Jarvison Navajo tribe and married
(2005) accdg to Navajo rites in
1953
- Ben was accused for
sexual molestation of their
granddaughter
- US Govt compels Esther to
testify against Ben
- Esther refused and
invoked spousal
testimonial privilege
Cook v. - Alan and Peggy - first
Cook cousins who married each
(2005) other in Virginia (legal
didto)
- They moved to Arizona -
at that time, marriages bet
first cousins are void
except if marriage is valid
in the place of celebration
then it is also valid in
Arizona (legal pa ila
marriage)
- Arizona code was
amended - marriages valid
in place of execution is
also valid in Arizona except
if they are void and
prohibited by Arizona laws
(na-illegal na nuon)
Whether the - Navajo Nation retains
Jarvisons’ marriage sovereign authority to
in traditional Navajo regulate regular domestic
relations law then Navajo
ceremony was valid
law is dispositive as to
and that full faith validity of marriage in
and credit be the case at bar
accorded to such. - Jarvisons’ failure to
license or validate their
YES 1953 trad marriage is not
fatal
- Navajo Nation Code does
not require marriage
license for validity
Whether the Cooks’ - Follow Virginia law =
marriage is legal valid marriage
under Arizona law. - Follow Arizona law =
confronted with consti
issues
YES - Under conflict-of-law
analysis, even if Virginia
has the most significant
relationship to the
parties at the time of
marriage, we still follow
Arizona law to provide
alternate construction
that would avoid consti
difficulty
- Since the Cooks’
marriage prior to the
1996 amendment of
Arizona code was still
valid, it was already a
vested right that the law
recognized at that time
 - The amendment cannot
retroact and impair their
vested right. Legislature
has to expressly nullify
existing marriages (like
this one) but they did not

What are marriages not subject of recognition?

1. Incestuous Marriages under Art 37, Chap 3, Title 1 of Family Code
a. Between ascendants and descendants of any degree
b. Between brothers and sisters, whether full or half blood
2. Void Marriages by reason of public policy under Art 38, Chap 3, Title 1 of Family Code
a. Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate up to the fourth civil
degree
b. Between step-parents and step-children
c. Between adopting parent and adopted child
d. Between surviving spouse of adopting parent and the adopted child
e. Between surviving spouse of adopted child and the adopter
f. Between adopted child and legitimate child of adopter
g. Between adopted children of same adopter
h. Between parties where one, with intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s
spouse, or his or her own spouse
3. Polygamous or Bigamous Marriages under Art 35, Chap 3, Title 1 of Family Code

4. Same-sex marriages (in violation of the requisite that one male and one female under Art 2, Chap
1, Title 1 of Family Code)

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling

Obergefell - Same-sex couples in the
v. Hodges US filed suit in their district
(2015) courts against state
officials responsible for
enforcing state laws that
define marriage between
one man and one woman
in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
- They argue that such laws
deny them of their right to
marry or to have their
marriages, lawfully
performed in another
state, and given full
recognition.
1. Whether 14th 1. Same sex couples are
Amendment requires denied all the benefits
a state to license a afforded to opposite sex
marriage between couples and are barred from
two people of the exercising a fundamental
same sex. YES right.
2. Whether 14th 2. There is no lawful basis for
Amendment requires a state to refuse recognition
a state to recognize of a lawful same sex
a same sex marriage marriage performed in
licensed and another state.
performed in a state
which grants that
right. YES

What about civil unions?

● These unions are created by statute where rights and obligations of parties are governed by law
creating the relationship.
● It is different from a traditional marriage relationship.
 ● Same sex couples cannot rely on the rights of married couples if they governed by a civil union
Title Facts
Langan v. - Conrad and Langan - same
St. sex couples in a civil union
Vincent’s - Conrad died and Langan
sued hospital for wrongful
Hospital of
death
New York - St Vincent Hosp sought to
(US CASE dismiss complaint on the
2005) ground that Langan had
no standing as a surviving
spouse to institute present
action
How about divorce and public policy?
● PH values sanctity of marriage more than anything else
● Our courts are not mandated to recognize foreign judgments that run counter to our public policy
● Phil citizens = under obligation to follow Art 15 of Civil Code even if abroad (i.e prohibitive laws)
Title Facts
Tenchavez - Tenchaves and Escano -
v. Escano Pinoy and married in Cebu
(1965) - Escano went to Nevada
and filed for divorce which
was granted
- Escano married Moran -
American
- Escano became an
American herself
- Tenchavez filed for legal
separation and damages
against Escano in CFI
Cebu
- Escano showed decree of
divorce by Nevada court
Van Dorn v. - Van Dorn and Upton -
Romillo married in Hong Kong and
(1985) divorced in Nevada
Upton filed for accounting
of Van Dorn’s business
Issue/s Ruling
Does Langan have - An action alleging
standing as surviving wrongful death requires
spouse to sue? strict adherence to the
law which created it
- Special law requires that
NO it must be a “decedent
who is survived by
distributees” who may
maintain an action to
recover damages for a
wrongful act
- The theory of full faith
and credit is inapplicable
- Obergefell case did not
even invalidate this early
case because it involves
different relationships
(same sex unions vis-a-
vis same sex marriages)
Issue/s Ruling
Can the divorce - Tenchavez and Escano
decree by Nevada foreva!
court be recognized - Their marriage remains
in PH? subsisting and
undissolved under Phil
NO law
- At the time Escano
obtained divorce, she
was still Filipino
- Escano can be liable for
damages for refusal to
perform her wifely
duties, denial of
consortium, and
desertion of her husband
Whether the divorce - The Nevada divorce was
decree should be arrived on the ground of
recognized in our incompatibility in the
jurisdiction. understanding that there
 alleging it to be conjugal
property
- Van Dorn moved to
dismiss on the ground that
divorce proceedings in
Nevada bars the present
case by previous judgment
- RTC denied MTD on the
ground that divorce is not
recognized here
San Luis v. - Ex-Gov of Laguna
San Luis Felicisimo San Luis died
(2007) and left heirs:
○ Children from first
wife Virginia
○ Children from
second wife Merry
Lee (obtained
divorce in Hawaii)
○ Third wife
Felicidad
- Third wife filed for letters
of admin in RTC Makati.
- Children of first wife
opposed on the ground
that Laguna is the place of
residence at the time of
death of Gov San Luis and
that Felicidad was just a
mistress, kerida,
kerengkeng since Gov San
Luis was still legally
married to Merry Lee at
that time.
Pilapil v. - Pilapil - Filipina
Ibay- - Geiling - German
Somera - Married in Germany and
(1989) obtained divorce in
Germany
- Geiling filed for adultery
against Pilapil in RTC
Manila
was neither comm prop
YES nor comm obli
- A divorced American
husband may not go
against the Filipina wife
for accounting of
conjugal prop once the
divorce decree is issued
- In view of nationality
principle: they are
divorced
Whether the divorce - In view of the ruling in
obtained by Merry Van Dorn, the Filipino
Lee in Hawaii can be spouse should not be
discriminated against
recognized here.
his/her own country if
the ends of justice are to
YES be served
- Divorce decree allegedly
obtained by Merry Lee
absolutely allowed Gov
San Luis to remarry and
thus Felicidad is vested
with legal personality to
file present petition as
the surviving spouse
- However, case is
remanded to trial court
to prove validity of
divorce decree obtained
in Hawaii.
Can a divorced - Art 344 of RPC provides
husband file for that adultery cannot be
adultery against his prosecuted except upon
a sworn written
divorced wife? NO
complaint filed by
offended spouse
- Geiling is no longer an
offended spouse by
virtue of divorce decree
in Germany that is
recognized in PH in view
of nationality principle.
 Roehr v. - Roehr - German
Rodriguez - Rodriguez - Filipina
(2003) - Married in Germany but
Rodriguez filed pet for
declaration of nullity of
marriage before RTC
Makati
- Roehr filed MTD but was
denied
- Roehr obtained divorce
decree in CFI Hamburg-
Blankanese which included
award of custody of
children to Roehr
- Roehr filed another MTD
on the ground that trial
court no longer has
jurisdiction bec he already
obtained divorce and the
marriage was already
dissolved
- Rodriguez then moved for
the case to proceed on
determining issues of
custody and distribution of
prop
- Roehr opposed on the
ground that the divorce
decree already adjudicated
on the custody matter
Whether the case - Gen rule: Divorce decree
was correctly obtained abroad by
reopened to litigate foreigners are recognized
here
the issues of custody
- Xpn: Legal effects
and distribution of thereof (e.g custody,
assets despite care and support of
divorce. children) must still be
determined by our courts
YES - Rodriguez was not given
opportunity to challenge
German decree which
was done summarily
- Rodriguez was not
represented by counsel
in Germany
- Therefore, German
judgment was not res
judicata with regard to
custody rights

What does the law say about the right to re-marry after divorce?
● Phil citizens whose foreign spouses have obtained divorce abroad are capacitated to remarry
under Phil laws
● Filipinos are now allowed to remarry once their foreign spouses obtain a divorce decree. (Par. 2
art. 26 of the Family Code)
● Important: Divorce be (1) judicially recognized first in Phil courts and (2) annotated in the local
civil registry before Phil national can rely on the effects of divorce

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling

Republic v. - Orbecido married
Orbecido Villanueva in Ph
(2005) - Villanueva migrated to the
US, got naturalized as
American and obtained a
divorce decree
- Cipriano filed petition for
authority to remarry in
RTC Zamboanga
Whether Cipriano - Par. 2 of article 26
can remarry under should be interpreted to
Art. 26 of the Family include cases involving
parties, who at the time
Code.
of the celebration of the
marriage were Filipino
Yes citizens, but later on, one
of them becomes
naturalized as a foreign
 citizen and obtains a
divorce decree.
- The reckoning point is
not the citizenship of the
parties at the time of
celebration of marriage,
but their citizenship at
the time a valid divorce
is obtained abroad by the
alien spouce capacitating
the latter to remarry.

Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Correction of Entry

- To give effect- file a petition for correction of entry in the civil registry
- Special proceeding under Rule 108
- Recognition of divorce now only require one proceeding, which is a special proceeding for correction
of entry in the civil registry.

Title Facts Issue/s Ruling

Corpuz v. - Gerbert Corpuz, Canadian
Sto. Tomas citizen married Daisylyn T.
(2010) Sto. Tomas, Filipina in
Pasig City. He discovered
that Daisylyn was having
an affair. He returned to
Canada and obtained a
decree of divorce there.
He filed a petition for
judicial recognition of
foreign divorce decree
(FDD) as dissolved with
the RTC. RTC denied the
petition : “only a Filipino
spouse can avail of the
remedy provided by the
Article 26(2) of the FC”.
Whether a foreigner - Alien spouse’s status and
may invoke the legal capacity are
benefit of Article(2) generally governed by
his national law.
of the FC. NO
However, the said
provision does not
necessarily strip Gerbert
of legal interest to
petition the RTC for
recognition of his FDD.
The FDD itself, after its
authenticity and
conformity with the
alien’s national law have
been duly proven
according to our rules of
evidence, serves as a
presumptive evidence of
right in favor of Gerbert.
In this case, copy of the
FDD was attached but
failed to include copy of
Canadian law on divorce.
Case remanded to RTC
for further determination
of records.

Nature of Recognition of Foreign Divorce Proceedings

- Party applying for recognition must present proof of the appropriate laws as well as the authenticity
of the documents obtained from foreign courts and offices.
- Phil. Courts are not allowed to relitigate the issues already settled by a foreign court (res judicata
principle). Exception: patently violate public policy or prohibitive laws.
Title Facts
Fujiki v. - Fujiki, Japanase married
Marinay Marinay, Filipina. They
(2013) separated. Marinay met
another Japanese,
Maekara. She suffered
physical abuse from
Maekara. Marinay would
like to get back to Fujiki.
She obtained a judgment
from Japanese court
declaring her marriage
with Maekara as void on
the ground that it was a
bigamous marriage.
- Fujiki, the ex, filed a
PFROFJ with RTC. RTC
dismissed the petition :
only the husband or wife
can file the said petition
under A.M. 02-11-10-SC
(Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages.
Issue/s Ruling
1. Whether A.M. 02- Ruling #1
11-10-SC is - It does not apply where
applicable to a one of the parties is a
citizen of a foreign
foreign judgment of
country. Moreover, it
nullity. NO
does not also apply if the
reason behind the
2. Whether a petition is bigamy.
husband or wife of a - A petition to recognize a
prior marriage can FJ declaring a marriage
file a PFROFJ void does not require
relitigation under a Phil.
nullifying the
Court if the case as if it
subsequent marriage
were a new petition for
between his/her declaration of nullity of
spouse and a foreign marriage.
citizen on the ground - Thus, Fujiki can prove
of bigamy. YES the existence of the
Japanese FC judgment in
accordance with Rule
3. Whether the RTC
132 Secs. 24 and 25 in
can recognize the FJ
relation to Rule 39
in a proceeding for Sec48(b) of the ROC.
cancellation or Ruling #2
correction of entries - Prior spouse has a
in the Civil Registry personal and material
under Rule 108 of interest in maintaining
the ROC. YES the integrity of the
marriage he contracted
and then property
relations arising from it
(Substantive right).
- Bigamy, under our law, is
a public crime. Thus,
anyone can initiate
prosecution.
Ruling #3
- Since the recognition of a
FJ only requires proof of
fact of the judgment.
- A recognition of FJ is not
an action to nullify a
marriage.
- Art. 26 of the FC confers
jurisdiction on Phil.
Courts to extend the
effect of a FDD to a Fil.
Spouse w/o undergoing
 trial to determine the
validity of the dissolution
of the marriage.
- Philippine courts will
only determine (1) W the
FJ is inconsistent with an
overriding public policy in
the Phil. And () W any
alleging party is able to
prove an extrinsic ground
to repel the FJ i.e. want
of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact.

B. DIGEST

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MANALO

G.R. No. 221029 Apr 24, 2018

FACTS:
Respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the
Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by the Japanese court.
Manalo was allowed to testify. Among the documents that were offered and admitted were: (1) Court Order
finding the petition and its attachments to be sufficient in form and in substance; (2) Affidavit of Publication;
(3) Certificate of Marriage between Manalo and her former Japanese husband; (4) Divorce Decree of the
Japanese court; (5) Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan
of the Notification of Divorce; and (6) Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce.

The Office of the Solicitor’s General, as it appeared for the petitioner Republic of the Philippines, did not
present any controverting evidence to rebut the allegations of Manalo.

The trial court denied the petition for lack of merit. It opined that, based on Article of Article 15 of the
New Civil Code, the Philippine law “does not afford Filipinos the
right to file for a divorce, whether they are in the country or living abroad, if they are married to Filipinos
or to foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or in another country.

On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines
is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree
they obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former capacitating him to remarry.

ISSUE:
Whether a Filipino citizen, who initiated a divorce proceeding abroad and obtained a favorable judgment
against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry, has the capacity to remarry pursuant to
Article 26 (2) of the Family Code.
HELD:
Yes. Article 26 of the Family Code which reads:

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country,
except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by Executive Order 227)

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on the 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. It authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce decree precisely because
the Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on the merits because it is
tantamount to trying a divorce case. Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid
divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign nationality, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care,
and support of the children or property relations of the spouses, must still be determined by our court. The
Court state 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 capacitation 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.

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 is
rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective measure to address the
anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to remarry 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 a 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.
Moreover, invoking the nationality principle is erroneous. Such principle, found under Article 15 of the Civil
Code, is not an absolute and unbending rule. In fact, the mere existence of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is a
testament that the State may provide for an exception thereto. Also, blind adherence to the nationality
principle must be disallowed if it would cause unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of
individuals whose rights are equally protected by law.

There is no real and substantial difference between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding
and a Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of his or her alien spouse. In the eyes of
the Philippine and foreign laws, both are considered Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations in
an alien land. The circumstances surrounding them are alike. Were it not for Paragraph 2 of Article 26,
both are still married to their foreigner spouses who are no longer their wives/husbands. Hence, to make
a distinction between them are based merely on superficial difference of whether they initiated the divorce
proceedings or not is utterly unfair. Indeed, the treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly
discriminate against the other. Thus, a Filipino citizen, who initiated a divorce proceeding abroad and
obtained a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry, has the
capacity to remarry pursuant to Article 26 (2) of the Family Code.

The Court, however, asserts that it cannot yet write finis to this controversy by granting Manalo’s petition
to recognize and enforce the divorce decree rendered by the Japanese Court. Before a foreign divorce
decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The September 18, 2014 Decision and
October 12, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100076, are AFFIRMED IN PART.
The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence as to the
relevant Japanese law on divorce.