Previous 15 / 28 Next

CONCURRING OPINION LEONEN, J.: I concur with the ponencia of Justice Peralta, adding the following points. I The proposal of the Solicitor General is to give Article 26 [1] of our Family Code an interpretation which capacitates and empowers the Japanese husband the option to divorce and how such choice has effects in our country while, at the same time, disallowing the Filipina wife from being able to do the same simply because she is a Filipina. That interpretation may be unconstitutional. Article II, Section 14 of our Constitution provides: Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. This constitutional fiat advances the notion of gender equality from its passive formulation in Article III, Section 1 [2] to its more active orientation. Article III, Section 1 simply states that "nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." Traditionally, this means that the State has no duty to find ways and means to ensure equality. It is only a prescription that whatever legal burdens and benefits are given to men should likewise be given to women. It does not require the State, through any of its organs, to find affirmative ways and means to battle the patriarchy—that complex of political, cultural, and economic factors that ensure women's disempowerment. By enacting our Constitution and signing on to our political obligations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, we have legally committed to do better. We likewise note that the Family Code was followed by Republic Act No. 7192 or the Women in Development and Nation Building Act. Within this law are provisions which ensure equal treatment between men and women, thus: Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State recognizes the role of women in nation building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. The State shall provide women rights and opportunities equal to that of men. .... Section 5. Equality in Capacity to Act. - Women of legal age, regardless of civil status, shall have the capacity to act and enter into contracts which shall in every respect be equal to that of men under similar circumstances. In all contractual obligations where married men have the capacity to act, married women shall have equal rights. To this end: (1) Women shall have the capacity to borrow and obtain loans and execute security and credit arrangements under the same conditions as men; (2) Women shall have equal access to all government and private sector programs granting agricultural credit, loans and non- material resources and shall enjoy equal treatment in agrarian reform and land resettlement programs; (3) Women shall have equal rights to act as incorporators and enter into insurance contracts; and (4) Married women shall have the rights equal to those of married men in applying for passports, secure visas and other travel documents, without need to secure the consent of their spouses. In all other similar contractual relations, women shall enjoy equal rights and shall have the capacity to act which shall in every respect be equal to those of men under similar circumstances. (Underscoring supplied)

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

People v. Manalo

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 221029

Date of decision: Apr 24, 2018

Year of decision: 2018

GBV Case Type

Divorce
Foreign Law
Judicial Recognition of a Foreign Divorce
Petition for Cancellation of Entry of Marriage

Nature of the case: Manalo pleads for the recognition and enforcement of the divorce decree rendered by the Japanese court and for the cancellation of the entry of marriage in the local civil registry in order that it would not appear anymore that she is still married to the Japanese national who is no longer her husband or is no longer married to her; and in the event that she decides to be remarried, she shall not be bothered and disturbed by said entry of marriage, and to return and to use her maiden surname. The issue resolved by the Court is whether under Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines, a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry. The Court ruled in the affirmative, however, the petition filed by Manalo was denied for the reason that she failed to prove the Japanese law on divorce 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. The case was remanded to to the court of origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

Summary of outcome: Although the petitioner was able to submit the necessary documents, there is still a need to prove the Japanese Law in order to prove the validity of the divorce as well as her former husband's capacity to remarry. 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. Thus, the case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: PERALTA, J.

Long title: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, RESPONDENT.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 14.605189

Longitude: 121.030312

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

MANALO.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

People v. Manalo

Primary Documents

Notifications