Photo from Canva free stock image
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:
In the case of Anido v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 253527, October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the foreign law that must be proven by a party who seeks the recognition of a divorce decree or judgment must be the law of the country or state that issued it. The applicant must prove the law of the foreign court, office, or tribunal to show that it had competence or jurisdiction to issue the foreign decree or judgment, and that the latter is valid and binding in the country or state from which it originates.
Petitioner Anido, a Filipino, and Respondent Enrique, a Peruvian citizen, met in 2010 while training in pediatrics. They married in New Jersey in 2012. Upon completing their training in 2013, they relocated to Kentucky. Subsequently, Enrique filed for divorce before the Kentucky Court. Anido alleged the marriage soured due to her inability to conceive.
In November 2015, the Kentucky Court granted Anido and Enrique a decree of absolute divorce. Thereafter, Anido filed a Petition for Enforcement with the Philippine RTC in February 2017 to recognize this divorce.
In March 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appeared and deputized the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office (OCP) to represent the State. At a January 2018 hearing, Anido testified and presented her oral offer of evidence. In February 2018, the RTC granted the Petition for Enforcement, recognizing the Kentucky divorce decree and dissolving the marriage.
However, the OSG sought reconsideration of the RTC Order, which was denied. Before the CA, the OSG did not contest Enrique’s divorce decree itself, but solely argued the insufficiency of Anido’s evidence proving the foreign law allowing Enrique to divorce and remarry.
In its ruling, the CA found Anido failed to prove the divorce’s validity under Kentucky law and Enrique’s capacity to remarry under Peruvian law. It cited unauthenticated law printouts and a dubious Peruvian law translation. The CA also noted Anido’s failure to present any specific Peruvian law provision or expert testimony on Enrique’s right to remarry.
Consequently, the CA dismissed the Petition for Enforcement for failure to prove the foreign law in the manner required by the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed Anido’s petition for failing to properly prove the foreign law allowing Enrique to obtain a divorce and remarry thereafter.
The Supreme Court’s decision:
Yes. The Supreme Court clarified that in recognition of foreign divorce cases, what matters is the law of the country that issued the divorce decree. Since the divorce was granted in Kentucky, only Kentucky law needed to be proven.
The Supreme Court explained that Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, is founded on the principle of comity of nations. Under the said principle, the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another union may be recognized in the Philippines, such that the judicial records of a foreign court would have the same force in our country as in the place where the judgment was obtained. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, and the foreign court that issued the judgment is presumed to have acted in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. The goal of the principle of the comity of nations is to produce friendly intercourse with the sovereignty that rendered the foreign decree or judgment.
Hence, the foreign law that must be proven by a party who seeks the recognition of a divorce decree or judgment must be the law of the country or state that issued it. The applicant must prove the law of foreign court, office, or tribunal to show that it had competence or jurisdiction to issue the foreign decree or judgment, and that the latter is valid and binding in the country or state from which it originates.
In this case, the CA ruled that Anido should have presented proof that under the laws of Peru, Enrique was allowed to remarry. However, by the wording of Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, it is the divorce decree validly obtained abroad that must capacitate the alien spouse to remarry. The provision recognizes that even when a foreign court dissolves a marriage by way of divorce, it may prohibit remarriage based on the pertinent foreign statute. Consequently, in a petition for the recognition of a divorce decree, the petitioner must prove that the divorce decree itself or the applicable foreign law which granted the divorce allows remarriage.
Philippine courts cannot decide on the family rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity of the alien who is a party to the foreign judgment; nor may they substitute their own interpretation of any provision of the law or rules of procedure of another country. Instead, the Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the Philippines and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment. If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations.
In view of the foregoing, insofar as the recognition of the subject divorce decree is concerned, the Peruvian citizenship of Enrique and the governing marriage laws of Peru are immaterial. Considering that Kentucky was Enrique’s legal residence or domicile, and the subject divorce decree was issued by the Kentucky Court, it is ultimately the Kentucky laws that are determinative of the question whether the divorce is effective in the country where it was rendered, and whether it must be recognized in the Philippines pursuant to the principle of comity. Otherwise said, to support her Petition for Enforcement and to prove that the divorce decree was validly obtained and capacitated Enrique to remarry, Anido need not to prove the marriage laws of Peru; instead, she only needs to prove the pertinent laws of Kentucky as the state that issued the divorce decree.
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.