Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.[36] (Emphasis supplied) The second paragraph was included to avoid an absurd situation where a Filipino spouse remains married to the foreign spouse even after a validly obtained divorce abroad.[37] The addition of the second paragraph gives the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have the marriage considered as dissolved, and ultimately, to grant him or her the capacity to remarry.[38] Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable only in issues on the validity of remarriage. It cannot be the basis for any other liability, whether civil or criminal, that the Filipino spouse may incur due to remarriage. Mere presentation of the divorce decree before a trial court is insufficient.[39] In Garcia v. Recio,[40] this Court established the principle that before a foreign divorce decree is recognized in this jurisdiction, a separate action must be instituted for that purpose. Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and foreign judgments; thus, our laws require that the divorce decree and the national law of the foreign spouse must be pleaded and proved like any other fact before trial courts.[41] Hence, in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas:[42] The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, "no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country." This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.[43] II Respondent's national law was duly admitted by the Regional Trial Court. Petitioner presented "a copy [of] the English Version of the Civil Code of Japan (Exh. "K") translated under the authorization of the Ministry of Justice and the Code of Translation Committee."[44] Article 728(1) of the Civil Code of Japan reads: Article 728. 1. The matrimonial relationship is terminated by divorce. [45] To prove the fact of divorce, petitioner presented the Divorce Certificate issued by Consul Takayama of Japan on January 18, 2010, which stated in part: This is to certify that the above statement has been made on the basis of the Acceptance Certification of Notification of Divorce issued by the Mayor of Fukaya City, Saitama Pref., Japan on December 16, 2009. [46] This Certificate only certified that the divorce decree, or the Acceptance Certification of Notification of Divorce, exists. It is not the divorce decree itself. The Regional Trial Court further clarified: [T]he Civil Law of Japan recognizes two (2) types of divorce, namely: (1) judicial divorce and (2) divorce by agreement. Under the same law, the divorce by agreement becomes effective by notification, orally or in a document signed by both parties and two or more witnesses of full age, in accordance with the provisions of Family Registration Law of Japan.[47] Thus, while respondent's national law was duly admitted, petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence before the Regional Trial Court that a divorce was validly obtained according to the national law of her foreign spouse. The Regional Trial Court would not have erred in dismissing her Petition. III