ARTICLE 26 (2) - MARRIAGES BETWEEN A FILIPINO AND A FOREIGNER GERBERT R. CORPUZ vs.

DAISYLYN TIROL
STO. TOMAS and The SOLICITOR GENERAL.

1. November 29, 2000: Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through
naturalization

2. January 18, 2005: Gerbert married Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Due to work, Gerbert left for Canada
soon after the wedding.

3. April 2005: Gerbert returned to the Philippines sometime in to surprise Daisylyn, but was shocked to discover that
his wife was having an affair with another man.

4. December 8, 2005: Gerbert obtained a divorce decree from the Superior Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario,
Canada, and the divorce decree took effect a month later, on January 8, 2006.

5. 2007: 2 years after the divorce, Gerbert has moved on, and desirous of marrying his new Filipina fiancée in the Philippines,
Gerbert went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and
Daisylyn’s marriage certificate. Despite the registration of the divorce decree, an official of the National Statistics
Office (NSO) informed Gerbert that the marriage between him and Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law; to
be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court,
pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982.

6. Thus, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved
with the RTC. Although summoned, Daisylyn did not file any responsive pleading but submitted instead a notarized
letter/manifestation to the trial court. She offered no opposition to Gerbert’s petition and, in fact, alleged her desire
to file a similar case herself but was prevented by financial and personal circumstances. She, thus, requested that
she be considered as a party-in-interest with a similar prayer to Gerbert’s.

RTC: October 30, 2008 the RTC denied Gerbert’s petition. The RTC concluded that Gerbert was not the proper party to institute
the action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only the
Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, Art 26 states that:

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 likewise have capacity to remarry
under Philippine law.

WON Article 26 FC extends to aliens the right for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree? -

The alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it
establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse.

The resolution of the issue requires a review of the legislative history and intent behind the second paragraph of Article 26 FC.
The Family Code recognizes only two types of defective marriages – void and voidable marriages. In both cases, the basis for the
judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage. Divorce, on the other
hand, contemplates the dissolution of the lawful union for cause arising after the marriage. Our family laws do not recognize
absolute divorce between Filipino citizens. Recognizing the reality that divorce is a possibility in marriages between a
Filipino and an alien, President Corazon C. Aquino, in the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom
Constitution, enacted Executive Order No. (EO) 227, amending Article 26 of the Family Code, as follows:

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 likewise have capacity to remarry
under Philippine law.

Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, EO 227 effectively incorporated into the law this Court’s holding in
Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera. In both cases, the Court refused to acknowledge the alien spouse’s assertion of
marital rights after a foreign court’s divorce decree between the alien and the Filipino. The Court, thus, recognized that the foreign
divorce had already severed the marital bond between the spouses.

Van Dorn v. Romillo: To maintain that, under our laws, the Filipino spouse has to be considered still married to the alien spouse and
still subject to a wife's obligations cannot be just. The Filipino spouse should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect
and fidelity, and render support to the alien spouse. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to
conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.

The provision was included in the law "to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien
spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse." The legislative intent is for the benefit
of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree. Essentially,
the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her
marriage to the alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry. Without the second paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code, the judicial recognition of the foreign decree of divorce, whether in a proceeding
instituted precisely for that purpose or as a related issue in another proceeding, would be of no significance to the Filipino
spouse since our laws do not recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond; Article 17 of the Civil Code provides
that the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country.

Additionally, an action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is not limited to the recognition of
the foreign divorce decree. If the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can
declare that the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marriage. No court in this jurisdiction, however,
can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that already established by the decree), whose status and
legal capacity are generally governed by his national law.

Thus, the limit of the applicability of the provision is only for the benefit of the Filipino spouse. In other words, only the
Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right
under this provision.

The foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the party with legal interest to petition for its
recognition in this jurisdiction

The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens. In other words, the
unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal
interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its
authenticity and conformity with the alien’s national law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a
presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect
of foreign judgments.

SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.—The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign
country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title
of the thing; and

(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a
right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.

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. In Gerbert’s case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law
of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section
24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court should be followed. This Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2)
copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the
Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of
his office.

The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the required certificates
proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce. Thus, this case should be remanded to
the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law, given the Article 26 interests
that will be served and the Filipina wife’s (Daisylyn’s) obvious conformity with the petition.

In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of reciprocal recognition of foreign judgments between
nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves as the deeper basis for extending judicial
recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms. This same effect, will not obtain for the Filipino
spouse were it not for the substantive rule that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides.

Considerations beyond the recognition of the foreign divorce decree

Pasig City Civil Registry Office has already recorded the divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyn’s marriage certificate
based on the mere presentation of the decree, which is legally improper.

Article 407 of the Civil Code states that "scts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be
recorded in the civil register." The law requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal
consequences touching upon a person’s legal capacity and status, i.e., those affecting "all his personal qualities and
relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or
illegitimate, or his being married or not."35

A judgment of divorce is a judicial decree, although a foreign one, affecting a person’s legal capacity and status that must
be recorded.

In fact, Act No. 3753 or the Law on Registry of Civil Status specifically requires the registration of divorce decrees in the civil registry:
Sec. 1. Civil Register. – A civil register is established for recording the civil status of persons, in which shall be entered:

(a) births;

(b) deaths;

(c) marriages;

(d) annulments of marriages;

(e) divorces;

(f) legitimations;

(g) adoptions;

(h) acknowledgment of natural children;

(i) naturalization; and

(j) changes of name.

Sec. 4. Civil Register Books. — The local registrars shall keep and preserve in their offices the following books, in which they shall,
respectively make the proper entries concerning the civil status of persons:

(1) Birth and death register;

(2) Marriage register, in which shall be entered not only the marriages solemnized but also divorces and dissolved marriages.

(3) Legitimation, acknowledgment, adoption, change of name and naturalization register.

But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by
themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a
judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect. In the context of the present case , no judicial
order as yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree. Thus, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office acted totally out of turn and
without authority of law when it annotated the Canadian divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyn’s marriage certificate, on the
strength alone of the foreign decree presented by Gerbert.

Evidently, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office was aware of the requirement of a court recognition, as it cited NSO Circular No. 4,
series of 1982, and Department of Justice Opinion No. 181, series of 1982 – both of which required a final order from a
competent Philippine court before a foreign judgment, dissolving a marriage, can be registered in the civil registry, but it,
nonetheless, allowed the registration of the decree. For being contrary to law, the registration of the foreign divorce decree
without the requisite judicial recognition is patently void and cannot produce any legal effect.
Another point we wish to draw attention to is that the recognition that the RTC may extend to the Canadian divorce decree
does not, by itself, authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry . A petition for recognition of a foreign
judgment is not the proper proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation of entries in the civil
registry.

Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that "no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without judicial
order." The Rules of Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by
which entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the
jurisdictional and procedural requirements that must be complied with before a judgment, authorizing the cancellation or correction,
may be annotated in the civil registry. It also requires, among others, that the verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the
province where the corresponding civil registry is located; 38 that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest
must be made parties to the proceedings; 39 and that the time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general
circulation.40 As these basic jurisdictional requirements have not been met in the present case, we cannot consider the petition
Gerbert filed with the RTC as one filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should not be construed as requiring two separate proceedings for the registration
of a foreign divorce decree in the civil registry – one for recognition of the foreign decree and another specifically for cancellation of
the entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108
proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to
establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the
appropriate adversarial proceeding 41 by which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of
jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSE the October 30, 2008 decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Laoag City, Branch 11, as well as its February 17, 2009 order. We order the REMAND of the case to the trial court for
further proceedings in accordance with our ruling above. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Civil Registrar General. No
costs.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice