The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign divorce decrees do not require judicial proceedings abroad to be recognized in the Philippines.
The Supreme Court En Banc, in a decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, ruled that Philippine courts can recognize divorces obtained abroad, whether through legal or administrative process or by mutual agreement.
Filipino citizen Ruby Cuevas Ng (Ng) married Japanese national Akihiro Sono (Sono) in Quezon City in 2004. They later moved to Japan. After their relationship fell apart, they secured a “divorce decree by mutual agreement” in Japan, evidenced by a Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines.
Ng filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and for the declaration of her capacity to remarry, which the RTC granted.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) challenged the RTC decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that only foreign divorce decrees issued by a court can be recognized in the Philippines. In this case, the foreign divorce was by mere agreement.
The Court ruled in favor of Ng. Filipinos previously married to foreigners can seek judicial recognition of their foreign divorce under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code. The Court held that the type of divorce, whether administrative or judicial, did not matter. As long as the divorce is valid under the foreign spouse’s national law, it will be recognized in the Philippines for the Filipino spouse.
The Court emphasized that Article 26(2) aims to prevent a situation where a foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse remains bound by the marriage.
In Ng’s case, she claims the national law of Japan recognizes divorce either by agreement or judicial action.
However, she failed to submit to the RTC an authenticated copy of the relevant Japanese law on divorce. Under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents of foreign countries must be proved either by official publication or copies attested by the legal custodian of the documents.
The Court clarified that under Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 157-2022-A, the OCA’s compilation of foreign divorce laws serves only as a preliminary reference for courts but does not dispense with the requirements under the Revised Rules on Evidence.
The Court thus remanded the case to the RTC to allow Ng to present evidence proving the existence of the relevant Japanese law on divorce. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
