Filipino spouse is recognized if made in accordance with the national law of the foreigner. [28] (Emphasis supplied) As observed by the ponencia, the most important distinction between Filipinos in mixed marriages and those who are married to fellow Filipinos is their exposure to the absurdity for which Article 26(2) had been precisely crafted, as only Filipinos in mixed marriages may find themselves married without a spouse due to the effects of a foreign divorce decree. This distinction is "substantial" as to necessitate a difference in treatment before the law. To disregard these substantial distinctions for the sake of liberality would empower Filipinos in mixed marriages to obtain divorce decrees by invoking foreign law at whim, and effectively sanction a legal preference in their favor at the expense of those Filipinos who happen to be married to their fellow Filipinos. A liberal interpretation of Article 26(2) would, in Dean Carale's words, "encourage Filipinos to marry foreigners." [29] To stress, all Filipinos are bound by the prohibition against absolute divorce. The recognition afforded to foreign divorce under Article 26(2) is extended only as a means to recognize its residual effect on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter's national laws. The provision was not intended to grant any preferential right in favor of Filipinos in mixed marriages, but intended merely to recognize the operation of foreign divorce on foreigners whose national laws permit divorce. Equally apparent is the fundamental distinction between foreigners and Filipinos under the second classification, the former being subject to their respective national laws and the latter being bound by the laws of the Philippines regardless of their place of residence. Clearly, foreigners and Filipinos are not similarly situated. Hence, the determination of their legal status, among others, cannot be made subject to the same parameters. In any case, I emphasize, at the sake of being repetitious, that such classification had been created not by Article 26(2) of the Family Code, but rather, the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code: ART. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Finally, I find that Article 26(2) does not make any discernable distinction between men and women, as the exception therein may be invoked by both men and women with equal force to attain the same end, provided that the requirements for its application obtain. While I am certainly aware that the respondent in this case is one of the many Filipino women who find themselves in unsuccessful marriages with foreign nationals, I am equally aware that this unfortunate circumstance is similarly faced by Filipino men, who, like their female counterparts, are precluded from obtaining an absolute divorce under Philippine law. Respondent's case falls outside of the scope of Article 26(2) of the Family Code. In this case, it has been established that (i) the respondent is a Filipino citizen who married a Japanese national; (ii) it was the respondent who subsequently obtained a divorce decree against her Japanese husband from a Japanese court; and (iii) the respondent thereafter filed a Petition for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment[30] before the RTC.[31] It is clear that respondent is, and has always been, a Filipino citizen. Pursuant to the nationality principle, respondent's personal status is subject to Philippine law which, in turn, prohibits absolute divorce. Hence, the divorce decree which respondent obtained under Japanese law cannot be given effect, as she is, without dispute, a national not of Japan, but of the Philippines. Nevertheless, the verba legis application of Article 26(2) does not deprive the respondent of legal remedies, as she may pray for the severance of her marital ties before the RTC in accordance with the mechanisms now existing under the Family Code. The Constitution mandates the protection of the family as a basic autonomous social institution.[32] In this connection, the Family Code characterizes marriage as a special contract of permanent union, and regards the family as "an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law" and generally, not subject to stipulation.[33] Upon these fundamental principles rests the prohibition against absolute divorce, which had remained effective and unchanged since the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950. [34] Adherence to this prohibition is met with much reservation, as it purportedly forces Filipinos to play second-fiddle to their foreign spouses, and places said Filipinos at a disadvantage. Moreover, it had been argued in the deliberations of the Court that such adherence sanctions various forms of abuse that plague mixed marriages, and deprives Filipinos in such marriages of a way out. I find that these observations, pressing as they are, already delve into the wisdom of statutes governing marriage and personal status with which the Court cannot interfere. To note, Article 26(2) of the Family Code has remained unchanged since the issuance of EO 227. The blanket recognition of absolute divorce overturns the Court's unequivocal interpretation of the provision as laid down in the cases of Pilapil, Iyoy, Orbecido, Dacasin, Bayot, Fujiki and Medina, which span a period of nearly three decades.