Republic of the Philippines

Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH

RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RECOGNITION

OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT FOR DECREE OF
DIVORCE OF

Civil Case No. BSP

Petitioner.
x= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =x

DECISION

A verified petition for recognition of foreign judgment for

divorce filed by petitioner against her husband, _________

Jurisdiction over the case having been acquired (Exhs. “A” to

“D” and their corresponding sub-markings), on August 14, 2014.
Nobody appeared to oppose the petition and accordingly, the case
was set for trial on the merits with the active participation of the
Public Prosecutor.

Petitioner testified and based on her Judicial Affidavit 1 bore the

fact that her husband was introduced to her by her uncle, Neil Martin
who resides in the US. At that time, she was looking for a way to go
to the US legally and to be with her family. She found Michael as a
good person whom she can learn to love, get married and be a family
and stay in the US permanently. It was a long distance relationship,
until Michael proposed for a marriage so that he could bring her to
the United States. Petitioner thought that it was the best way to go
to the US, she acceded to Michael's proposal. They got married in
Cavite City on April 7, 2003. 2 Michael stayed in the Philippines for
around three (3) weeks then, he went back to the US. She started
preparing her documents while waiting for spouse's visa. Sadly,
instead of filing for a petition to get her visa, Michael filed a divorce
proceeding with the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, USA.
She received a divorce paper and even made her a co-petitioner
without her permission. She left no choice but to sign the divorce
1 Exh. “E”
2 Exh. “C” - Certificate of Marriage

1
papers. After sending back the divorce papers to Michael, she
received a copy of the Decree of Divorce 3 issued by the District Court
of Clark County dated June 22, 2007, dissolving their marriage.

After a careful examination of both oral and documentary

evidences presented by the petitioner, this Court finds that there is
sufficient grounds to declare the marriage between the petitioner and
the respondent dissolves pursuant to the second paragraph of Article
26 of the Family Code.

Article 26 of the Family Code which provides:

Art. 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 .
(Emphasis supplied)

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 marry.

Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of paragraph 2 of

Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus, the petitioner, the
“divorced” Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry. The
rationale behind the second paragraph of the above-quoted provision
is to avoid the absurd and unjust situation of a Filipino citizen still
being married to his or her alien spouse, although the latter is no
longer married to the Filipino spouse because he or she has obtained
a divorce abroad. A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be
recognized under our country's jurisdiction provided that such decree
validly concurs with the national law of the foreigner. However,
before the decree can be recognized by the Philippine courts' law, the
imploring party essentially has to prove the fact of the divorce and
3 Exh. “D”

2
exhibit its conformity to the foreign law that allows it.

It is evident that the petitioner has satisfactorily complied with

the stringent requirements of law. This is a mixed marriage between
a foreigner and a Filipino and divorce decree was obtained by the
foreigner spouse. Japanese citizen was able to obtained a divorce
decree which cause the dissolution of the marital tie between
petitioner and___________dated June 22, 2007 as shown in the
Decree of Divorce. The implementation of Article 26 of the Family
Code, thereby endowing the petitioner with the capacity to remarry
under the Philippine law. The divorce obtained by an alien abroad
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid
according to his or her national law. The petitioner has proven the
required authenticity of the divorce acceptance as provided in Sec.
24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

In the case of Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, where the Court

specifically recognized the validity of a foreign divorce and its legal
effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is
concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the
status of persons (174 SCRA 653 (1989). In the same case, the
Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are
valid according to their national law.

WHEREFORE, premises consider, the petition is hereby

GRANTED declaring the marriage entered into by the petitioner
__________________ and _____________________ on April 7,
2003 in ________ as DISSOLVED. By virtue of the provision of the
second paragraph of Art. 26 of the Family Code and by reason of the
divorce obtained by __________against petitioner who is given the
capacity to remarry under the Philippine Law.
SO ORDERED.

Presiding Judge