Photo from Pexels | cottonbro studio
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Republic of the Philippines v. Ruby Cuevas Ng, promulgated by the Supreme Court on February 27, 2024, joins the line of jurisprudence which embody the rule that foreign divorce by mutual agreement may be judicially recognized in the Philippines.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the relevant law – Article 26 of the Family Code – only requires that the foreign divorce be “validly obtained abroad.” It does not distinguish between divorces obtained through judicial proceedings and administrative proceedings, or where the divorce is a product of mutual agreement.
However, Petitioners in petitions for recognition and enforcement of foreign divorce decrees are reminded to comply with the rules on proof of foreign laws, i.e., Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. Public documents of foreign countries – such as a foreign law allowing divorce – must be proved either by official publication or copies attested by the legal custodian of the documents.
On February 27, 2024, the Supreme Court promulgated its Decision in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Ruby Cuevas Ng, whereby the highest tribunal in the country ruled that foreign divorce decrees do not require judicial proceedings abroad to be recognized in the Philippines.
About the case:
In 2004, Filipino citizen Ruby Cuevas Ng (Ng) married Japanese national Akihiro Sono (Sono) in Quezon City. When their relationship soured, the two obtained a “divorce by mutual agreement” in Japan, as proven by a Divorce Certificate issued by the Embassy of Japan in the Philippines.
In 2018, Ng filed a Petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the Petition, and held that Ng was capacitated to remarry under Article 26, 2nd paragraph of the Family Code.
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that a divorce by mere “mutual agreement” between parties should not be recognized in the Philippines. According to the OSG, only foreign divorce decrees issued by a court can be recognized in the Philippines.
The main issues:
- Whether the Philippine courts may recognize a divorce decree that is obtained by mere agreement and without any proceedings before a foreign court.
- Whether Ng sufficiently proved the divorce decree and the Japanese law allowing the divorce.
The ruling of the Supreme Court:
Foreign divorce by mutual agreement may be recognized in the Philippines.
At the outset, the Supreme Court reminds that Philippine laws do not allow absolute divorce. Nevertheless, Article 26 of the Family Code – which addresses foreign or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner – allows a Filipino to contract a subsequent marriage in case a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the foreigner spouse, capacitating the said foreigner spouse to remarry.
In applying the provision to the case of Ng and Sono, the Supreme Court says:
A plain reading of Article 26(2) of the Family Code reveals that it only requires that the divorce be “validly obtained abroad.”
xxx Indeed, the law does not distinguish between divorces obtained through judicial proceedings and administrative proceedings; or between those where one spouse files for divorce and the other contests it, and those where the divorce is a product of mutual agreement.
Hence, a foreign divorce by mutual agreement – like that of Ng and Sono – is covered under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, and may be judicially recognized in the Philippines.
The Court further explains that the intention of Article 26 of the Family Code is to correct this situation where the foreign spouse is free to remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot. According to the Court:
[I]t would be unjust for a Filipino spouse to be prohibited by their own national laws from something that a foreign law may allow. Clearly, our laws should not be intended to put Filipinos at a disadvantage.
Ng must submit an authenticated copy of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.
While Ng proved the existence of her foreign divorce, she failed to prove the foreign law allowing the same.
The Supreme Court reminds petitioners in petitions for recognition and enforcement of foreign divorce decrees to comply with the rules on proof of foreign laws, i.e., Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. These rules essentially require that public documents of foreign countries – such as the Japanese law allowing Ng and Sono’s divorce – must be proved either by official publication or copies attested by the legal custodian of the documents.
Unfortunately, Ng submitted a mere unauthenticated photocopy of portions of the Japanese Civil Code on divorce, and their English translation. The case was thereafter remanded to the RTC to allow Ng to present the required evidence to prove the existence of the Japanese law allowing her divorce.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.