filed before the RTC Medina v. Divorce jointly obtained Filipina wife sought to [19] Koike (Medina) in Japan by Filipina wife enforce the divorce in and Japanese husband the Philippines through a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Declaration of Capacity to Remarry before the RTC is in line with the Philippines' public policy, which characterizes bigamous marriages as void ab initio. The case was remanded to the CA to allow Filipina wife to prove that the divorce obtained abroad by her and her Japanese husband is valid according to the latter's national law. The factual circumstances in the foregoing cases illustrate and confirm the legislative intent behind Article 26(2), that is, primarily, to recognize foreign divorce decrees secured by foreign nationals insofar as they affect Filipinos who would otherwise be precluded from invoking such decrees in our jurisdiction, and, as well, to recognize those foreign divorce decrees obtained by Filipinos insofar as they affect their foreign spouses whose national laws allow divorce. For emphasis, I quote the relevant portion of the deliberations: Prof. Bautista remarked that it is a matter of equity, justice and fairness that Article [26(2)] should be retained, x x x Dean Carale added that if two Filipinos are married anywhere, they are both covered by the Philippine prohibitory laws because they are nationals of the Philippines. Justice Caguioa, however, pointed out that, in effect, there is preferential treatment in the case of Filipinos married to foreigners, since if the foreigner gets a divorce, the Filipino spouse also automatically gets a divorce. Dean Carale remarked that Article [26(2)] will in effect encourage Filipinos to marry foreigners. Prof. Bautista disagreed since it is the foreigner and not the Filipino, who will seek divorce. xxxx Justice Reyes remarked that this article is an implicit recognition of foreign divorce, with which Justice Caguioa concurred. Prof. Bautista and Prof. Romero pointed out that the article will only cover exceptional cases and special situations and that there is a reasonable and substantial basis for making it an exception.[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Consistent with the foregoing, the Court held in Iyoy: As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the [parties in the marriage] is a foreigner who divorces his or her Filipino spouse. By its plain and literal interpretation, the said provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still, a Filipino citizen. x x x At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses. Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus.[21] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Article 26(2) of the Family Code merely recognizes the classification previously made pursuant to the nationality principle. The ponencia characterizes Article 26(2) of the Family Code as unconstitutional, as it proceeds from a "superficial [and] arbitrary" classification.[22] This position appears to be based on the premise that Article 26(2) creates new distinctions in itself. This premise, however, is simply erroneous. The classification under Article 26(2), (that is, between Filipinos in mixed marriages and Filipinos married to fellow Filipinos) was created as a matter of necessity, in recognition of the classification between Filipinos and foreign nationals which had been created by Article 15 of the Civil Code decades prior. In his Separate Opinion in Pilapil, Justice Paras highlights the interplay between these two provisions, thus: