G.R. No.

221029
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner
vs
MARELYN TANEDO
MANALO, Respondent
April 24, 2018
• On January 10, 2012, 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 on Japanese court she filed and was granted upon.
• Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and in substance, Branch 43 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City set the case for initial hearing on April
25, 2012
• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance for petitioner
Republic of the Philippines authorizing the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dagupan to
appear on its behalf. Likewise, a Manifestation and Motion was filed questioning the
title and/or caption of the petition considering that, based on the allegations therein, the
proper action should be a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign
judgment
• On October 15, 2012, the trial court denied the petition for lack of merit. In ruling
that the divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be recognized, it opined
that, based on 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" and that unless Filipinos "are
naturalized as citizens of another country, Philippine laws shall have control over
issues related to Filipinos' family rights and duties, together with the determination
of their condition and legal capacity to enter into contracts and civil relations,
inclusing marriages."6
• On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article 26 of the Family
Code of the Philippines (Family Code) is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed
for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree may obtained makes the
latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry. 
• The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied; hence, this
petition.
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court (Rules) seeks to reverse and set aside the September 18, 2014
Decision1 and October 12, 2015 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 100076. The dispositive portion of the
Decision states:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated
15 October 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, First
Judicial Region, Branch 43, in SPEC. PROC. NO. 2012-0005
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
 ISSUE:
• WHETHER OR NOT FILIPINO CITIZEN HAS THE CAPACITY TO
REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW AFTER INITIATING A
DIVORCE PROCEEDING ABROAD AND OBTAINING A
FAVORABLE JUDGEMENT AGAINST HIS/HER ALIEN SPOUSE
WHO IS CAPACITATED TO REMARRY.
 HELD
• Yes, a Filipino may remarry under Philippine Law after obtaining a
divorce decree proceeding abroad under Article 26 of EO 209 as amended
by Executive Order 227, HOWEVER, the burden of proving such foreign
law(divorce law) needs to be validated first.
 The RTC cited its decision In relation to
Article 15
•  Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
• Nationality Principle:
• Art 15 refers to;
• A. Family rights and duties
• B. Status (marriage)
• C. Condition
• D. Legal Capacity
 Under Article 15 Manalo’s Divorce Decree
cannot be recognized
• 1. Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it.
• 2. Consistent with Article 15  of the New Civil Code, the marital bond between two Filipinos
cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad.
• 3. as the RTC cited 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" and
that unless Filipinos "are naturalized as citizens of another country, Philippine laws shall have
control over issues related to Filipinos' family rights and duties, together with the
determination of their condition and legal capacity to enter into contracts and civil relations,
including marriages.“”
 But, however, SC AFFIREMED IN PART
CA’s decision
• Conveniently 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.
Moreover, 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. The courts have the duty to enforce the laws of divorce as written by the Legislature
only if they are constitutional.(Barretto Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 58 Phil. 67, 72 (1933), as cited in Tenchavez v. Escaño, et al., supranote 13, at
762.)
• On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the
Philippines, which took effect on August 3, 1988. Shortly thereafter , E.O. No. 227 was issued on July 17, 1987. Aside from amending Articles 36
and 39 of the Family Code, a second paragraph was added to Article 26. This provision was originally deleted by the Civil Code Revision
Committee (Committee),but it was presented and approved at a Cabinet meeting after Pres. Aquino signed E.O. No. 209. As modified, Article 26
now states:
• Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the where 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 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(Medina v. Koike, supra note 10 and Fujiki v.
Marinay 712 Phil. 524, 555 (2013).).20 It authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a
foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce.
• According to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Committee(Civil Code Revision
Committee ), the idea of the amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as
still being married to his or her alien spouse, although the latter is no longer married to the
former because he or she had obtained a divorce abroad that is recognized by his or
national law.(Supra note 19, at 27. See also Republic of the Phils. v. Orbecido
III, supra note 16, at 114, as cited in Fujiki v. Marinay, supra note 20, at 555 and San Luis
v. San Luis, supra note 16, at 292. ).24 The aim was that it would solved the problem of
many Filipino women who, under the New Civil Code, are still considered married to
their alien husbands even after the latter have already validly divorced them under their
(the husbands') national laws and perhaps have already married again.
• SC Cited: We cannot yet write finis to this controversy by granting Manalo's petition
to recognize and enforce the divorce decree rendered by the Japanese court and to
cancel the entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila.
• Jurisprudence has set guidelines before the Philippine courts recognize a foreign
judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of
foreign country. Presentation solely of the divorce decree will not suffice(Garcia v.
Recio, supra note 9, at 731, as cited in Vda. de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee, supra note
23, at 501.).89 The fact of divorce must still first be proven(Fujiki v. Marinay,
supra note 20, at 544 and Vda. de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee, supra note 23, at 499.).90
 Before a 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(Garcia v. Recio, supra note 9, at 731, as cited in Medina v.
Koike, supra note 10 and Republic of the Phils. v. Orbecido III, supra note 16, at
116. See also Bayot v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. 591 Phil. 45, 470 (2008).).91
• Nonetheless, the Japanese law on divorce must still be proved.
• x x x 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, defendants have the burden of
proving the material allegations in their answer when they introduce new matters. x x x
• It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they
must alleged and proved. x x x The power of judicial notice must be exercise d with caution, and every reasonable
doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative.(Garcia v. Recio, supra note 9, at 735. (Citations omitted).
See also Vda. de Catalan v. Catalan- Lee, supra note 23, at 500-501; San Luis v. San Luis, supra note 16, at
295; Republic of the Phils. v. Orbecido III, supra note 16, at 116; and Llorente v. Court of Appeals, supra note 13, at
354.)

• Since the divorce was raised by Manalo, the burden of proving the pertinent Japanese law validating it, as well as her
former husband's capacity to remarry, fall squarely upon her. Japanese laws on persons and family relations are not
among those matters that Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function.

• WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The September 18, 2014 Decision and October 12,
2015 Resolution if 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.