Manalo was allowed to testify in advance as she was scheduled to leave for Japan for her employment. Among the
documents that were offered and admitted were:
1. Court Order dated January 25, 2012, finding the petition and its attachments to be sufficient in form and in
substance;
2. Affidavit of Publication;
3. Issues of the Northern Journal dated February 21-27, 2012, February 28 - March 5, 2012, and March 6-12, 2012;
4. Certificate of Marriage between Manalo and her former Japanese husband;
5. Divorce Decree of the Japanese court;
6. Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan of the Notification of
Divorce; and
7. Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce.[5]
The OSG did not present any controverting evidence to rebut the allegations of Manalo.
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, including 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
they obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry. Conformably
with Navarro, et al. v. Exec. Secretary Ermita, et al.[7] ruling that the meaning of the law should be based on the intent
of the lawmakers and in view of the legislative intent behind Article 26, it would be the height of injustice to consider
Manalo as still married to the Japanese national, who, in turn, is no longer married to her. For the appellate court, the
fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce case is inconsequential. Cited as similar to this case was Van Dorn v.
Judge Romillo, Jr.[8] where the marriage between a foreigner and a Filipino was dissolved through a divorce filed
abroad by the latter.
The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied; hence, this petition.
We deny the petition and partially affirm the CA decision.
Divorce, the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage, are of two types: (1) absolute
divorce or a vinculo matrimonii, which terminates the marriage, and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro, which
suspends it and leaves the bond in full force.[9] In this jurisdiction, the following rules exist:
1. Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. [10]
2. Consistent with Articles 15[11] and 17[12] of the New Civil Code, the marital bond between two Filipinos cannot be
dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad. [13]
3. 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.[14]
4. 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.[15]
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.[16] Shortly thereafter, E.O. No. 227 was
issued on July 17, 1987.[17] Aside from amending Articles 36 and 39 of the Family Code, a second paragraph was
added to Article 26.[18] 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. [19] As modified, Article 26
now states: