The deliberations show that Article 26(2) has the effect of (i) enforcing divorce decrees which are binding on foreign nationals under their national law; and (ii) recognizing the residual effect of such foreign divorce decrees on their Filipino spouses who are bound by the prohibition against absolute divorce under the Civil Code. [7] To be sure, Article 26(2) had not been crafted to dilute the Philippines' policy against absolute divorce. In fact, this perceived possible dilution is precisely what prompted the majority of the Committee members to vote for the deletion of Article 26(2) in the initial version of the Family Code found in EO 209. As the deliberations indicate, the exception provided in Article 26(2) is narrow, and intended only to address the unfair situation that results when a foreign national obtains a divorce decree against a Filipino citizen, leaving the latter stuck in a marriage without a spouse, thus: Justice Caguioa explained that the intention of the provision is to legalize foreign divorces for the Filipino so that in the case of a Filipina, who was married to an American, who in turn later secured a divorce, said Filipina will be allowed to remarry. Justice Puno and Judge Diy remarked that this is not clear in the provision [Article 26(2)]. Justice Puno, however, commented that it will open the gates to practically invalidating the Philippine laws by the simple expedient of marrying a foreigner, and that it will be an additional cause for the breakage of families, with which Justice Caguioa concurred. Judge Diy stated that, on the other hand, it is an absurdity for a Filipina to be married without a husband.[8] (Emphasis supplied) I believe that this view is consistent with the Court's rulings in Van Dorn, Orbecido, and Dacasin. In Van Dorn, a case decided prior to the enactment of the Family Code, an American citizen sought to compel his former Filipina wife to render an accounting of their alleged conjugal business in Manila. The American citizen argued that he retained the right to share in the proceeds of the disputed business, as the divorce decree issued by the Nevada District Court cannot be given effect in the Philippines. Ruling against the American citizen, the Court held that the divorce decree issued by a United States court is binding against him as an American citizen. [9] As a residual effect of such divorce, the American citizen no longer had standing to sue as the husband of his former Filipina wife.[10] Hence, in Van Dorn, the Court held: It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. x x x[11] (Emphasis supplied) In Orbecido, a Filipino citizen sought permission to remarry before the courts, claiming that his former Filipina wife had obtained a divorce decree against him from an American court after she had become a naturalized American citizen. The Court held that the effects of the divorce decree should be recognized in the Philippines since it was obtained by the former wife as an American citizen in accordance with her national law, and that as a consequence, the Filipino husband should be allowed to remarry pursuant to Article 26(2). In so ruling, the Court laid down elements for the application of Article 26(2), thus: In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. In this case, when [the Filipino spouse's] wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between [them]. As fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus x x x the "divorced" Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.[12] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Still, in Dacasin, a Filipino wife secured a divorce decree against her American husband from an Illinois court. The decree awarded sole custody over the parties' daughter in favor of the Filipino wife. While the parties subsequently executed a Joint Custody Agreement, the Filipino wife refused to honor the agreement, prompting the American husband to seek redress before the Philippine courts. The Court held that the Illinois divorce decree is binding on the American citizen, and that the latter cannot be permitted to evade the terms of the custodial award. Citing the nationality principle, the Court stressed that "a foreign divorce decree carries as much validity against the alien divorcee in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of the alien's nationality, irrespective of who obtained the divorce."[13] It bears stressing that the issue raised in Dacasin was the enforceability of the Joint Custody Agreement against the American husband, and not the validity of the foreign divorce decree as against the Filipino wife. Thus, rather than serving as bases for the blanket recognition of foreign divorce decrees in the Philippines, I believe that the Court's rulings in Van Dorn, Orbecido and Dacasin merely clarify the parameters for the application of the nationality principle found in Article 15 of the Civil Code, and the exception thereto found in Article 26(2) the Family Code. These parameters may be summarized as follows: