Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Morisono Vs Morison, G.R. No. 226013 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Philans57CFD
    The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the regional trial court to determine if a divorce decree obtained in Japan by a Filipino citizen, Luzviminda, and her Japanese husband Ryoji should be recognized under Philippine law. While Filipinos cannot obtain divorces abroad, mixed nationality marriages allow the non-Filipino spouse to remarry if a valid foreign divorce is obtained. The regional trial court originally denied recognizing the divorce solely because Luzviminda initiated it, but the Supreme Court clarified this is allowed. On remand, Luzviminda must prove the divorce complied with Japanese law before it can be recognized in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Morisono Vs Morison, G.R. No. 226013 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Philans57CFD
    29 views1 page
    The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the regional trial court to determine if a divorce decree obtained in Japan by a Filipino citizen, Luzviminda, and her Japanese husband Ryoji should be recognized under Philippine law. While Filipinos cannot obtain divorces abroad, mixed nationality marriages allow the non-Filipino spouse to remarry if a valid foreign divorce is obtained. The regional trial court originally denied recognizing the divorce solely because Luzviminda initiated it, but the Supreme Court clarified this is allowed. On remand, Luzviminda must prove the divorce complied with Japanese law before it can be recognized in the Philippines.

    Original Description:

    Morisono vs Morison, G.R. No. 226013

    Original Title

    Morisono vs Morison, G.R. No. 226013 Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the regional trial court to determine if a divorce decree obtained in Japan by a Filipino citizen, Luzviminda, and her Japanese husband Ryoji should be recognized under Philippine law. While Filipinos cannot obtain divorces abroad, mixed nationality marriages allow the non-Filipino spouse to remarry if a valid foreign divorce is obtained. The regional trial court originally denied recognizing the divorce solely because Luzviminda initiated it, but the Supreme Court clarified this is allowed. On remand, Luzviminda must prove the divorce complied with Japanese law before it can be recognized in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    Morisono Vs Morison, G.R. No. 226013 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Philans57CFD
    The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the regional trial court to determine if a divorce decree obtained in Japan by a Filipino citizen, Luzviminda, and her Japanese husband Ryoji should be recognized under Philippine law. While Filipinos cannot obtain divorces abroad, mixed nationality marriages allow the non-Filipino spouse to remarry if a valid foreign divorce is obtained. The regional trial court originally denied recognizing the divorce solely because Luzviminda initiated it, but the Supreme Court clarified this is allowed. On remand, Luzviminda must prove the divorce complied with Japanese law before it can be recognized in the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Morisono vs Morison,

    G.R. No. 226013


    Facts:
    Luzviminda was married to private respondent Ryoji Morisono in Quezon City. They lived
    together in Japan for one (1) year and three (3) months but were not blessed with a child. Luzviminda
    and Ryoji submitted a "Divorce by Agreement" before the City Hall of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan,
    which was eventually approved on January 17, 2012. Luzviminda filed a petition for recognition of the
    foreign divorce decree obtained by her and Ryoji before the RTC so that she could cancel the surname of
    her former husband in her passport and for her to be able to marry again.
    RTC denied Luzviminda's petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the RTC correctly denied Luzviminda's petition for recognition of the foreign
    divorce decree she procured with Ryoji.

    Held:
    YES. The rules on divorce prevailing in this jurisdiction can be summed up as follows:
     first, Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce, and hence, the courts cannot
    grant the same;
     second, consistent with Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code, the marital bond between
    two (2) Filipino citizens cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained
    abroad;
     third, 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; and
     fourth, 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.

    In this case, a plain reading of the RTC ruling shows that the denial of Luzviminda's petition to have her
    foreign divorce decree recognized in this jurisdiction was anchored on the sole ground that she
    admittedly initiated the divorce proceedings which she, as a Filipino citizen, was not allowed to do. In
    light of the doctrine laid down in Manalo, such ground relied upon by the RTC had been rendered
    nugatory. However, the Court cannot just order the grant of Luzviminda's petition for recognition of the
    foreign divorce decree, as Luzviminda has yet to prove the fact of her. "Divorce by Agreement"
    obtained, in Nagoya City, Japan and its conformity with prevailing Japanese laws on divorce. Notably,
    the RTC did not rule on such issues. Since these are questions which require an examination of various
    factual matters, a remand to the court a quo is warranted.

    You might also like