4/6/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Cynthia received the assailed Resolution through counsel on October 10, 2017.[25] On October 24, 2017, Cynthia filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review with Application for Authorization to Litigate as Indigent Party.[26] Therein, Cynthia moved for an additional period of thirty (30) days, or until November 24, 2017 to file her petition for review. In addition, Cynthia alleged that she remains in Korea "under questionable alien status," and is suffering from an illness which requires immediate medical attention. Because of these circumstances, Cynthia prayed that she be granted authorization to litigate as an indigent party, for while her counsel on record has agreed to continue handling her case pro bono, she has no sufficient means to pay the required filing fees.[27] Cynthia filed the present Petition on November 20, 2017. On January 31, 2018, the Court issued a Resolution[28] granting Cynthia's prayer for extension, and requiring Cynthia to submit proof of her indigency within five (5) days from notice. The Court also directed the OSG to file its comment on the Petition. Upon submission of the required proof, the Court granted Cynthia's application to litigate as an indigent party.[29] Meanwhile, the OSG filed its Comment[30] on the Petition on April 26, 2018. In turn, Cynthia filed her Reply[31] on September 25, 2018. In this Petition, Cynthia avers that this case calls for the exercise of the Philippine courts' power of "limited review" over a foreign judgment. Cynthia argues that by reversing the RTC Decision, the CA erroneously delved into the merits of the divorce decree in question, and substituted its judgment for the judgment of the Korean courts with respect to matters relating to the status, condition and legal capacity of Park who is a Korean national.[32] Further, Cynthia claims that the assailed Decision and Resolution would result in the unjust situation Article 26(2) is meant to prevent.[33] In her Reply, Cynthia further argues that all doubts as to the application of Article 26(2) to foreign divorce decrees obtained by mutual consent of the Filipino citizen and the alien spouse have been laid to rest in the recent case of Republic v. Manalo[34] (Manalo).[35] The Issue The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in denying the recognition of the divorce decree obtained by Cynthia and her foreign spouse, Park. The Court's Ruling The Petition is granted. The controversy is centered on the interpretation of Article 26(2) as applied to divorce decrees obtained jointly by the foreign spouse and Filipino citizen. Article 26 of the Family Code states: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65987 5/10