CA upholds ‘divorce by agreement’ between Filipino and foreign spouse
The Court of Appeals has ruled that the “divorce by agreement” issued to a Filipino and his or her foreign spouse is valid in the Philippines for as long as such mode of obtaining divorce is recognized in the country of the foreign spouse.
The CA made the ruling even as it dismissed the petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General assailing the 2016 judgment rendered by Binan, Laguna Regional Trial Court in favor of Fave Ebron Mora.
The RTC granted Mora’s petition for recognition of her foreign divorce. It declared valid and confirmed the foreign divorce between Mora and her husband, Toshiyuki Montawa, and subsequently declared Mora to be “capacitated to remarry, pursuant to Article 26 (paragraph 2) of the Family Code.”
Citing jurisprudence, the appellate court ruled that “a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction provided the decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.”
In its decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, the CA dismissed the OSG’s narrow interpretation of Article 26 as it disregards any agency on the part of the Filipino spouse who it presumes to be incapable of agreeing to the dissolution of the marital bond.
“Japanese laws allow for a divorce by agreement which does not involve any judgment from the Japanese courts. In the same manner that a divorce obtained by the Filipino spouse was deemed within the ambit of Article 26 of the Family Code based on the considerations of the equal protection clause, a divorce by agreement should be considered within the ambit of the same provision because it has no substantial distinction from judicial divorce,” the CA ruled.
“Both types of divorce (judicial divorce and divorce by agreement) are considered valid under the Japanese Law. It is the height of unfairness if only judicial divorces are allowed to be recognized in our jurisdiction and not those amicable divorces. It would also run counter to the spirit of the law behind Article 26,” it said.
Article 26 of the Family Code provides that “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.
It also provides in its second paragraph that “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.”
The CA pointed out that “the second paragraph was included to avoid an absurd situation where a Filipino spouse remains married to the foreign spouse even after a validly obtained divorce abroad.”
“It gives the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have the marriage considered as dissolved, and ultimately, to grant him or her the capacity to remarry. It 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,” the appellate court stressed.
Likewise, the CA said the second paragraph of Article 26 “authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce.”
Court records showed that Mora and Montawa were married in Tochigi-Ken, Japan on Feb. 20, 2008. Their marriage was registered at the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo and duly authenticated by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila.
Due to recurring arguments for failure of Mora to bear a child, Montawa filed a petition for divorce which was approved and granted on April 30, 2015 in accordance with the Japanese laws and regulations.
The divorce was duly annotated and registered, and certified by the Mayor of Niiza City, Saytama, Japan. Montawa’s certificate householder and divorce certificate in Japanese language with English translation was duly authenticated by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo.
In its opposition to the RTC’s ruling, the OSG claimed that the divorce by agreement obtained by Mora and her alien spouse is contrary to law and public policy.
The OSG also asserted that Philippine recognition of foreign judgments apply only to judgments issued by tribunals or courts and that “Article 26 of the Family Code aims to protect Filipinos who did not simply agree to the divorce obtained by their alien spouse.”
“Not all divorce proceedings are protracted litigations fraught with bitterness and drama. Some marriages can end amicably, without the parties harboring any ill will against each other. The parties could forgo costly court proceedings and opt for, if the national law of the foreign spouse allows it, a more convenient out-of-court divorce process. This ensures amity between the former spouses, a friendly atmosphere for the children and extended families, and less financial burden for the family,” the appellate court ruled.
“The national law of Japan does not prohibit the Filipino spouse from initiating or participating in the divorce proceedings. It would be inherently unjust for a Filipino woman to be prohibited by her own national laws from something that a foreign law may allow,” the CA said.
In April last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino against a foreign spouse is considered valid in the Philippines even if it is the Filipino spouse who sued for divorce.
The SC’s ruling affirmed the CA’s 2014 decision in favor of Marelyn Tanedo Manalo.
It declared that “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 likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
