EN BANC Decision1 and October 12,

2015 Resolution2 of the Court

April 24, 2018
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
G.R. No. 221029 No. 100076. The dispositive
portion of the Decision states:
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner  WHEREFORE, the instant
vs appeal
MARELYN TANEDO is GRANTED. The Decision da
MANALO, Respondent ted 15 October 2012 of the
Regional Trial Court of
RESOLUTION Dagupan City, First Judicial
peralta, J.: Region, Branch 43, in SPEC.
PROC. NO. 2012-0005
This petition for review is REVERSED and SET
on certiorari under Rule 45 of ASIDE.
the Rules of Court (Rules)
seeks to reverse and set aside Let a copy of this Decision be
the September 18, 2014 served on the Local Civil
Registrar of San Juan, Metro Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila. Dagupan City set the case for
initial hearing on April 25,
SO ORDERED.3
2012. The petition and the
The facts are undisputed. notice of initial hearing were
published once a week for
On January 10, 2012, three consecutive weeks in
respondent Marelyn Tanedo newspaper of general
Manalo (Manalo) filed a circulation. During the initial
petition for cancellation of hearing, counsel for Manalo
Entry of marriage in the Civil marked the documentary
Registry of San Juan , Metro evidence (consisting of the trial
Manila, by virtueof a judgment courts Order dated January 25,
of divorce Japanese court. 2012, affidavit of publication,
and issues of the Northern
Finding the petition to be Journal dated February 21-27,
sufficient in form and in 2012, February 28 - March 5,
substance, Branch 43 of the 2012, and March 6-12, 2012)
for purposes of compliance recognition and enforcement of
with the jurisdictional a foreign judgment.
requirements.
As a result, Manalo moved to
The Office of the Solicitor admit an Amended Petition,
General (OSG) entered its which the court granted. The
appearance for petitioner Amended Petition, which
Republic of the Philippines captioned that if it is also a
authorizing the Office of the petition for recognition and
City Prosecutor of Dagupan to enforcement of foreign
appear on its behalf. Likewise, judgment alleged:
a Manifestation and Motion
2. That petitioner is previously
was filed questioning the title
married in the Philippines to a
and/or caption of the petition
Japanese national named
considering that based on the
YOSHINO MINORO as shown
allegations therein, the proper
by their Marriage Contract xxx;
action should be a petition for
3. That recently, a case for 5. That there is an imperative
divorce was filed by herein need to have the entry of
[petitioner] in Japan and after marriage in Civil Registry of
die proceedings, a divorce San Juan, Metro Manila
decree dated December 6, cancelled, where the petitioner
2011 was rendered by the and the former Japanese
Japanese Court x x x; husband's marriage was
previously registered, in order
4. That at present, by virtue of
that it would not appear
the said divorce decree,
anymore that petitioner is still
petitioner and her divorce
married to the said Japanese
Japanese husband are no
national who is no longer her
longer living together and in
husband or is no longer
fact, petitioner and her
married to her, she shall not be
daughter are living separately
bothered and disturbed by aid
from said Japanese former
entry of marriage;
husband;
6. That this petition is filed Manalo was allowed to testify
principally for the purpose of in advance as she was
causing the cancellation of scheduled to leave for Japan
entry of the marriage between for her employment. Among
the petitioner and the said the documents that were
Japanese national, pursuant to offered and admitted were:
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules
1. Court Order dated January
of Court, which marriage was
25, 2012, finding the petition
already dissolved by virtue of
and its attachments to be
the aforesaid divorce decree;
sufficient in form and in
[and]
substance;
7. That petitioner prays, among
2. Affidavit of Publication;
others, that together with the
cancellation of the said entry of 3. Issues of the Northern
her marriage, that she be Journal dated February 21-27,
allowed to return and use her 2012, February 28 - March 5,
maiden surname, MANALO.4 2012, and March 6-12, 2012;
4. Certificate of Marriage On October 15, 2012, the trial
between Manalo and her court denied the petition for
former Japanese husband; lack of merit. In ruling that the
divorce obtained by Manalo in
5. Divorce Decree of Japanese
Japan should not be
court;
recognized, it opined that,
6. Authentication/Certificate based on Article 15 of the New
issued by the Philippine Civil Code, the Philippine law
Consulate General in Osaka, "does not afford Filipinos the
Japan of the Notification of right to file for a divorce
Divorce; and whether they are in the country
or living abroad, if they are
7. Acceptance of Certificate of married to Filipinos or to
Divorce.5 foreigners, or if they celebrated
The OSG did not present any their marriage in the
controverting evidence to rebut Philippines or in another
the allegations of Manalo. country" and that unless
Filipinos "are naturalized as
citizens of another country, may obtained makes the latter
Philippine laws shall have no longer married to the
control over issues related to former, capacitating him to
Filipinos' family rights and remarry. Conformably
duties, together with the with Navarro, et al. V. Exec.
determination of their condition Secretary Ermita, et al.7 ruling
and legal capacity to enter into that the meaning of the law
contracts and civil relations, should be based on the intent
inclusing marriages."6 of the lawmakers and in view
of the legislative intent behind
On appeal, the CA overturned
Article 26, it would be height of
the RTC decision. It held that
injustice to consider Manalo as
Article 26 of the Family Code
still married to the Japanese
of the Philippines (Family
national, who, in turn, is no
Code) is applicable even if it
longer married to her. For the
was Manalo who filed for
appellate court, the fact that it
divorce against her Japanese
was Manalo who filed the
husband because the decree
divorce case is
inconsequential. Cited as divorce or a vinculo
similar to this case was Van matrimonii, which terminates
Dorn v. Judge Romilo, the marriage, and (2) limited
Jr.8 where the mariage divorce or a mensa et
between a foreigner an a thoro, which suspends it and
Filipino was dissolved filed leaves the bond in full force.9 In
abroad by the latter. this jurisdiction, the following
rules exist:
The OSG filed a motion for
reconsideration, but it was 1. Philippine law does
denied; hence, this petition. not provide for absolute
divorce; hence, our
We deny the petition and
courts cannot grant it.10
partially affirm the CA decision.
2. Consistent with
Divorce, the legal dissolution of
Articles 1511 and 1712 of
a lawful union for a cause
the New Civil Code, the
arising after the marriage, are
marital bond between
of two types: (1) absolute
two Filipinos cannot be
dissolved even by an case the absolute
absolute divorce divorce is validly
obtained abroad.13 obtained abroad by the
alien spouse
3. An absolute divorce
capacitating him or her
obtained abroad by a
to remarry.15
couple, who both
aliens, may be On July 6, 1987, then
recognized in the President Corazon C. Aquino
Philippines, provided it signed into law Executive
is consistent with their Order (E.O.) No. 209,
respective national otherwise known as the Family
laws.14 Code of the Philippines, which
took effect on August 3,
4. In mixed marriages
1988.16 Shortly thereafter ,
involving a Filipino and
E.O. No. 227 was issued on
a foreigner, the former
July 17, 1987.17 Aside from
is allowed to contract a
amending Articles 36 and 39 of
subsequent marriage in
the Family Code, a second such, shall also be valid in this
paragraph was added to Article country, except those
26.18 This provision was prohibited under Articles 35(1),
originally deleted by the Civil (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
Code Revision Committee
Where a marriage between
(Committee),but it was
Filipino citizen and a foreigner
presented and approved at a
is validly celebrated and a
Cabinet meeting after Pres.
divorce is thereafter validly
Aquino signed E.O. No.
obtained abroad by the alien
209.19 As modified, Article 26
spouse capacitating him her to
now states:
remarry under Philippine law.
Art. 26. All marriages
Paragraph 2 of Article 26
solemnized outside the
confers jurisdiction on
Philippines, in accordance with
Philippine courts to extend the
the laws in force in the where
effect of a foreign divorce
country where they were
decree to a Filipino spouse
solemnized, and valid there as
without undergoing trial to
determine the validity of the relations of the spouses, must
dissolution of the marriage.20 It still be determined by our
authorizes our courts to adopt courts.23
the effects of a foreign divorce
According to Judge Alicia
decree precisely because the
Sempio-Diy, a member of
Philippines does not allow
the Committee, the idea of the
divorce.21 Philippine courts
amendment is to avoid the
cannot try the case on the
absurd situation of a Filipino as
merits because it is tantamount
still being married to his or her
to trying a divorce
alien spouse, although the
case.22Under the principles of
latter is no longer married to
comity, our jurisdiction
the former because he or she
recognizes a valid divorce
had obtained a divorce abroad
obtained by the spouse of
that is recognized by his or
foreign nationality, but the legal
national law.24 The aim was
effects thereof, e.g., on
that it would solved the
custody, care and support of
problem of many Filipino
the children or property
women who, under the New and obtained a favorable
Civil Code, are still considered decree. We held in Republic of
married to their alien husbands the Phils. v. Orbecido III:26
even after the latter have
The jurisprudential answer lies
already validly divorced them
latent in the 1998 case
under their (the husbands')
of Quita v. Court of
national laws and perhaps
Appeals. In Quita, the parties
have already married again.25
were, as in this case, Filipino
In 2005, this Court concluded citizens when they got married.
that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 The wife became naturalized
applies to a case where, at the American citizen n 1954 and
time of the celebration of the obtained a divorce in the same
marriage, the parties were year. The court therein hinted,
Filipino citizens, but later on, by the way of obiter
one of them acquired foreign dictum, that a Filipino divorced
citizenship by naturalization, by his naturalized foreign
initiated a divorce proceeding, spouse is no longer married
under Philippine law and can foreigner at the time of the
thus remarry. solemnization of the marriage.
To rule otherwise would be to
Thus, taking into consideration
sanction absurdity and
the legislative intent and
injustice. x x x
applying the rule of reason, we
hold that Paragraph 2 of Article If we are to give meaning to
26 should be interpreted to the legislative intent to avoid
include cases involving parties the absurd situation where the
who, at the time of the Filipino spouse remains
celebration of the marriage married to the alien spouse
were Filipino citizens, but later who after obtaining a divorce is
on, one of them becomes no longer married to the
naturalized as foreign citizen Filipino spouse, then the
and obtains divorce decree. instant case must be deemed
The Filipino spouse should as coming within the
likewise be allowed to remarry contemplation of Paragraph 2
as if the other party were of Article 26.
In view of the foregoing, we citizenship at the time valid
state the twin elements for the divorced obtained abroad by
application of Paragraph 2 of the alien spouse capacitating
Article 26 as follows: the latter to remarry.
1. There is a valid marriage Now, the Court is tasked to
that has been celebrated resolve whether, under the
between a Filipino citizen and same provision, a Filipino
a foreigner; and citizen has the capacity to
remarry under Philippine law
2. A valid divorce is obtained
after initiating a divorce
abroad by the alien spouse
proceeding abroad and
capacitating him or her to
obtaining a favorable judgment
remarry.
against his or her alien spouse
The reckoning point is not the who is capacitated to remarry.
citizenship of the parties at the Specifically, Manalo pleads for
time of the celebration of the recognition of enforcement
marriage, but their of the divorced decree
rendered by the Japanese Dorn29 already recognized a
court and for the cancellation foreign divorce decree that was
of the entry of marriage in the initiated and obtained by the
local civil registry " in order that Filipino spouse and extended
it would not appear anymore its legal effects on the issues of
that she is still married to the child custody and property
said Japanese national who is relation,respectively.
no longer her husband or is no
In Dacasin, post-divorce, the
longer married to her; [and], in
former spouses executed an
the event that [she] decides to
Agreement for the joint custody
be remarried, she shall not be
of their minor daughter. Later
bothered and disturbed by said
on, the husband who is a US
entry of marriage," and to use
citizen, sued his Filipino wife
her maiden surname.
enforce the Agreement,
We rule in the affirmative. alleging that it was only the
latter who exercised sole
Both Dacasin v.
custody of their child. The trial
Dacasin28 and Van
court dismissed the action for invalidity - not because the
lack of jurisdiction, on the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction
ground, among others, that the or that the divorced decree
divorce decree is binding violated Illinois law,
following the "nationality rule" but because the divorce was
prevailing in this jurisdiction. obtained by his Filipino
The husband moved to spouse - to support the
reconsider, arguing that the Agreement's enforceability .
divorce decree obtained by his The argument that foreigners
former wife is void, but it was in this jurisdiction are not
denied. In ruling that the trial bound by foreign divorce
court has jurisdiction to decrees is hardly novel. Van
entertain the suit bu not to Dron v. Romillo settled the
enforce the Agreement, which matter by holding that an alien
is void, this Court said: spouse of a Filipino is bound
by a divorce decree obtained
Nor can petitioner rely on the
abroad. There, we dismissed
divorce decree's alleged
the alien divorcee's Philippine
suit for accounting of alleged Van Dorn moved to dismiss the
post-divorce conjugal property case on the ground that the
and rejected his submission cause of action was barred by
that the foreign divorce previous judgment in the
(obtained by the Filipino divorce proceedings that she
spouse) is not valid in this initiated, but the trial court
jurisdiction x x x.30 denied the motion. On his part,
her ex-husband averred that
Van Dorn was decided before
the divorce decree issued by
the Family Code took into
the Nevada court could not
effect. There, a complaint was
prevail over the prohibitive
filed by the ex-husband , who
laws of the Philippines and its
is a US citizen, against his
declared national policy; that
Filipino wife to render an
the acts and declaration of a
accounting of a business that
foreign court cannot, especially
was alleged to be a conjugal
if the same is contrary to public
property and to be declared
policy, divest Philippine courts
with right to manage the same.
of jurisdiction to entertain
matters within its jurisdiction . he is contending in this case is
In dismissing the case filed by that the divorce is not valid and
the alien spouse, the Court binding in this jurisdiction, the
discussed the effect of the same being contrary to local
foreign divorce on the parties law and public policy.
and their conjugal property in
Is it true that owing to the
the Philippines. Thus:
nationality principle embodied
There can be no question as to in Article 15 of the Civil Code,
the validity of that Nevada only Philippine nationals are
divorce in any of the States of covered by the policy and
the United States. The decree morality. However, aliens may
is binding on private obtain divorce abroad, which
respondent as an American may be recognized in the
citizen. For instance, private Philippines, provided they are
respondent cannot sue valid according to their national
petitioner, as her husband, in law. In this case, the divorce in
any State of the Union. What Nevada released private
respondent from the marriage stone party, ceases to bind
from standards of American either. A husband without a
law, under which divorce wife, or a wife without a
dissolves the marriage. As husband, is unknown to the
stated by the Federal Supreme law. When the law provides in
Court of the United States the nature of penalty, that the
in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. guilty party shall not marry
Ed. 794,799: again, that party, as well as the
other, is still absolutely feed
"The purpose and effect of a
from the bond of the former
decree of divorce from the
marriage."
bond of matrimony by a court
of competent jurisdiction are to Thus, pursuant to his national
change the existing status or law, private respondent is no
domestic relation of husband longer the husband of
and wife, and to free them both petitioner. He would have no
from the bond. The marriage standing to sue in the case
tie, when thus severed as below as petitioner's husband
entitled to exercise control over observe respect and fidelity,
conjugal assets. As he is and render support to private
estopped by his own respondent. The latter should
representation before said not continue to be one of her
court from asserting his right heirs with possible rights to
over the alleged conjugal conjugal property. She should
property. not be discriminated against in
her own country if the ends of
To maintain, as private
justice are to be served.31
respondent does, that under
our laws, petitioner has to be In addition, the fact that a
considered still married to validity obtained foreign
private respondent and still divorce initiated by the Filipino
subject to a wife's obligations spouse can be recognized and
under Article 109, et. seq. of given legal effects in the
the Civil Code cannot be just. Philippines is implied from Our
Petitioner should not be rulings in Fujiki v. Marinay, et
obliged to live together with, al.32 and Medina v. Koike.33
In Fujiki, the Filipino wife, with Fujiki has the personality to file
the help of her husband, who is a petition to recognize the
a Japanese national, was able Japanese Family Court
to obtain a judgment from judgment nullifying the
Japan's family court. Which marriage between Marinay and
declared the marriage between Maekara on the ground of
her and her second husband, bigamy because the judgment
who is a Japanese national, concerns his civil status as
void on the ground of bigamy. married to Marinay. For the
In resolving the issue of same reason he has the
whether a husband or wife of a personality to file a petition
prior marriage can file a under Rule 108 to cancel the
petition to recognize a foreign entry of marriage between
judgment nullifying the Marinay and Maekara in the
subsequent marriage between civil registry on the basis of the
his her spouse and a foreign decree of the Japanese Family
citizen on the ground of Court.
bigamy, We ruled:
There is no doubt that the prior property interests that arise by
spouse has a personal and operation of law the moment
material interest in maintaining he contracts marriage. These
the integrity of the marriage he property interests in marriage
contracted and the property included the right to be
relations arising from it. There supported "in keeping with the
is also no doubt that he is financial capacity of the family"
interested in the cancellation of and preserving the property
an entry of a bigamous regime of the marriage.
marriage in the civil registry,
Property rights are already
which compromises the public
substantive rights protected by
record of his marriage. The
the Constitution, but a
interest derives from the
spouse's right in a marriage
substantive right of the spouse
extends further to relational
not only to preserve (or
rights recognized under Title III
dissolve, in limited instances)
("Rights and Obligations
his most intimate human
relation, but also to protect his
between Husband and Wife") capacity to obtain a divorce
of the Family Code. x x x34 must be proven in accordance
with Sections 24 and 25 of
On the other hand, in Medina,
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules
the Filipino wife and her
on Evidence. This Court
Japanese husband jointly filed
agreed and ruled that,
for divorce, which was
consistent with Corpuz v. Sto.
granted.1âwphi1 Subsequently
Tomas, et al.35 and Garcia v.
, she filed a petition before the
Recio,36 the divorce decree
RTC for judicial recognition of
and the national law of the
foreign divorce and declaration
alien spouse must be proven.
of capacity to remarry pursuant
Instead of dismissing the case,
to Paragraph 2 of Article 26.
We referred it to the CA for
The RTC denied the petition on
appropriate action including the
the ground that the foreign
reception of evidence to
divorce decree and the
determine and resolve the
national law of the alien
pertinent factual issues.
spouse recognizing his
There is no compelling reason is severed and ceased to exist,
to deviate from the above- the civil status and the
mentioned rulings. When this domestic relation of the former
Court recognized a foreign spouses change as both of
divorce decree that was them are freed from the marital
initiated and obtained by the bond.
Filipino spouse and extended
The dissent is of the view that,
its legal effects on the issues of
under the nationality principle,
child custody and property
Manalo's personal status is
relation, it should not stop short
subject to Philippine law, which
in a likewise acknowledging
prohibits absolute divorce.
that one of the usual and
Hence, the divorce decree
necessary consequences of
which she obtained under
absolute divorce is the right to
Japanese law cannot be given
remarry. Indeed, there is no
effect, as she is, without
longer a mutual obligation to
dispute, a national not of
live together and observe
Japan, bit of the Philippines. It
fidelity. When the marriage tie
is said that that a contrary there be a divorce validly
ruling will subvert not only the obtained abroad. The letter of
intention of the framers of the the law does not demand that
law, but also that of the Filipino the alien spouse should be the
peopl, as expressed in the one who initiated the
Constitution. The Court is, proceeding wherein the divorce
therefore, bound to respect the decree was granted. It does
prohibition until the legislature not distinguish whether the
deems it fit to lift the same. Filipino spouse is the petitioner
or the respondent in the foreign
We beg to differ.
divorce proceeding. The Court
Paragraph 2 of Artilce 26 is bound by the words of the
speaksof "a divorce x x x statute; neither can We put
validly obtained abroad by the words in the mouth of
alien spouse capacitating him lawmakers.37 The legislature is
or her to remarry." Based on a presumed to know the
clear and plain reading of the meaning of the words to have
provision, it only requires that used words advisely and to
have expressed its intent by yield conclusions inconsistent
the use of such words as are with the general purpose of the
found in the statute. Verba act.39 Law have ends to
legis non est recedendum, or achieve, and statutes should
from the words if a statute be so construed as not to
there should be departure."38 defeat but to carry out such
ends and purposes.40 As held
Assuming, for the sake of
in League of Cities of the Phils.
argument, that the
et al. v. COMELEC et. al.:41
word "obtained" should be
interpreted to mean that the The legislative intent is not at
divorce proceeding must be all times accurately reflected in
actually initiated by the alien the manner in which the
spouse, still, the Court will not resulting law is couched. Thus,
follow the letter of the statute applying a verba legis or
when to do so would depart strictly literal interpretation of a
from the true intent of the statute may render it
legislature or would otherwise meaningless and lead to
inconvience, an absurd rendered, is no longer married
situation or injustice. To to the Filipino spouse. The
obviate this aberration, and provision is a corrective
bearing in mind the principle measure is free to marry under
that the intent or the spirit of the laws of his or her
the law is the law itself, resort countr.42 Whether the Filipino
should be to the rule that the spouse initiated the foreign
spirit of the law control its divorce proceeding or not, a
letter. favorable decree dissolving the
marriage bond and
To reiterate, the purpose of
capacitating his or her alien
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to
spouse to remarry will have the
avoid the absurd situation
same result: the Filipino
where the Filipino spouse
spouse will effectively be
remains married to the alien
without a husband or wife. A
spouse who, after a foreign
Filipino who initiated a foreign
divorce decree that is effective
divorce proceeding is in the
in the country where it was
same place and in like
circumstances as a Filipino erroneous. Such principle,
who is at the receiving end of found under Article 15 of the
an alien initiated proceeding. City Code, is not an absolute
Therefore, the subject and unbending rule. In fact, the
provision should not make a mer e existence of Paragraph
distinction. In both instance, it 2 of Article 26 is a testament
is extended as a means to that the State may provide for
recognize the residual effect of an exception thereto.
the foreign divorce decree on a Moreover, blind adherence to
Filipinos whose marital ties to the nationality principle must
their alien spouses are severed be disallowed if it would cause
by operations of their alien unjust discrimination and
spouses are severed by oppression to certain classes
operation on the latter's of individuals whose rights are
national law. equally protected by law. The
courts have the duty to enforce
Conveniently invoking the
the laws of divorce as written
nationality principle is
by the Legislature only if they discharge its primary role as
are constitutional.43 the vanguard of constitutional
guaranties, and require a
While the Congress is allowed
stricter and more exacting
a wide leeway in providing for
adherence to constitutional
a valid classification and that
limitations.46 If a legislative
its decision is accorded
classification impermissibly
recognition and respect by the
interferes with the exercise of a
court of justice, such
fundamental right or operates
classification may be subjected
to the peculiar disadvantage of
to judicial review.44 The
a suspect class strict judicial
deference stops where the
scrutiny is required since it is
classification violates a
presumed unconstitutional, and
fundamental right, or
the burden is upon the
prejudices persons accorded
government to prove that the
special protection by the
classification is necessary to
Constitution.45 When these
achieve a compelling state
violations arise, this Court must
interest and that it is the least
restrictive means to protect Constitution and calibrated by
such interest.47 history.50 It is akin to the
paramount interest of the state
"Fundamental rights" whose
for which some individual
infringement leads to strict
liberties must give way, such
scrutiny under the equal
as the promotion of public
protection clause are those
interest, public safety or the
basic liberties explicitly or
general welfare.51 It essentially
implicitly guaranteed in the
involves a public right or
Constitution.48 It includes the
interest that, because of its
right to free speech, political
primacy, overrides individual
expression, press, assembly,
rights, and allows the former to
and forth, the right to travel,
take precedence over the
and the right to vote.49 On the
latter.52
other hand, what constitutes
compelling state interest is Although the Family Code was
measured by the scale rights not enacted by the Congress,
and powers arrayed in the the same principle applies with
respect to the acts of the A Filipino who is married to
President which have the force another Filipino is not similarly
and effect of law unless situated with a Filipino who is
declared otherwise by the married to a foreign citizen.
court. In this case, We find that There are real, material and
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 substantial differences
violates one of the essential between them. Ergo, they
requisites53 of the equal should not be treated alike,
protection both as to rights conferred and
clause.54 Particularly, the liabilities imposed. Without a
limitation of the provision only doubt, there are political,
to a foreign divorce decree economic cultural, and
initiated by the alien spouse is religious dissimilarities as well
unreasonable as it is based on as varying legal systems and
superficial, arbitrary, and procedures, all too unfamiliar,
whimsical classification. that a Filipino national who is
married to an alien spouse has
to contend with. More
importantly, while a divorce Philippine and foreign laws,
decree obtained abroad by a both are considered as
Filipino against another Filipino Filipinos who have the same
is null and void, a divorce rights and obligations in a alien
decree obtained by an alien land. The circumstances
against his her Filipino spouse surrounding them are alike.
is recognized if made in Were it not for Paragraph 2 of
accordance with the national Article 26, both are still married
law of the foreigner.55 to their foreigner spouses who
are no longer their
On the contrary, there is no
wives/husbands. Hence, to
real and substantial difference
make a distinction between
between a Filipino who initiated
them based merely on the
a foreign divorce proceedings
superficial difference of
a Filipino who obtained a
whether they initiated the
divorce decree upon the
divorce proceedings or not is
instance of his or her alien
utterly unfair. Indeed, the
spouse . In the eyes of the
treatment gives undue favor to
one and unjustly discriminate at whim, tantamount to
against the other. insisting that he or she should
be governed with whatever law
Further, the differentiation in
he or she chooses. The
Paragraph 2 Article 26 is
dissent's comment that Manalo
arbitrary. There is inequality in
should be "reminded that all is
treatment because a foreign
not lost, for she may still pray
divorce decree that was
for the severance of her martial
initiated and obtained by a
ties before the RTC in
Filipino citizen against his or
accordance with the
her alien spouse would not be
mechanism now existing under
recognized even if based on
the Family Code" is anything
grounds similar to Articles 35,
but comforting. For the
36, 37 and 38 of the Family
guidance of the bench and the
Code.56 In filing for divorce
bar, it would have been better
based on these grounds, the
if the dissent discussed in
Filipino spouse cannot be
detail what these "mechanism"
accused of invoking foreign law
are and how they specifically
apply in Manalo's case as well foreigners, opening the
as those who are similarly floodgate to the indiscriminate
situated. If the dissent refers to practice of Filipinos marrying
a petition for declaration of foreign nationals or initiating
nullity or annulment of divorce proceedings against
marriage, the reality is that their alien spouses.
there is no assurance that our
The supposition is speculative
courts will automatically grant
and unfounded.
the same. Besides, such
proceeding is duplicitous, First, the dissent falls into a
costly, and protracted. All to hasty generalization as no data
the prejudice of whatsoever was sworn to
our kababayan. support what he intends to
prove. Second, We adhere to
It is argued that the Court's
the presumption of good faith
liberal interpretation of
in this jurisdiction. Under the
Paragraph 2 of Artilce 26
rules on evidence, it is
encourages Filipinos to marry
disputable presumed (i.e.,
satisfactory if uncontradicted conduct on the part of a
and overcome by other Filipino just because he or she
evidence) that a person is opted to marry a foreigner
innocent of crime or instead of a fellow Filipino. It is
wrong,57 that a person takes presumed that interracial
ordinary care of his unions are entered into out of
concerns,59 that acquiescence genuine love and affection,
resulted from a belief that the rather than prompted by pure
thing acquiesced in was lust or profit. Third, We take
conformable to the law and judicial notice of the fact that
fact, 60 that a man and woman Filipinos are relatively more
deporting themselves as forbearing and conservative in
husband and wife have nature and that they are more
entered into a lawful contract of often the victims or losing end
marriage,61 and that the law of mixed marriages.
has been obeyed.62 It is And Fourth, it is not for Us to
whimsical to easily attribute prejudge the motive behind
any illegal, irregular or immoral Filipino's decision to marry an
alien national. In one case, it children or no children, to love
was said: one another or not, and so on.
Thus, marriages entered into
Motive for entering into a
for other purposes, limited or
marriage are varied and
otherwise, such as
complex. The State does not
convenience, companionship,
and cannot dictated on the kind
money, status, and title,
of life that a couple chooses to
provided that they comply with
lead. Any attempt to regulate
all the legal requisites, are
their lifestyle would go into the
equally valid. Love, though the
realm of their right to privacy
ideal consideration in a
and would raise serious
marriage contract, is not the
constitutional questions. The
only valid cause for marriage.
right marital privacy allows
Other considerations, not
married couples to structure
precluded by law, may validly
their marriages in almost any
support a marriage.63
way they see it fit, to live
together or live apart, to have
The 1987 Constitution MR. RAMA. Mr. Presiding
expresses that marriage, as an Officer, may I ask that
inviolable social institution, is Commissioner Bernas be
the foundation of the family recognized.
and shall be protected by the
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
State.64 Nevertheless, it was
(Mr. Colayco). Commissioner
not meant to be a general
Bernas is recognized.
prohibition on divorce because
Commissioner Jose Luis FR. BERNAS. Just one
Martin C. Gascon, in response question, and I am not sure if it
to a question by Father has been categorically
Joaquin G. Bernas during the answered. I refer specifically to
deliberations of the 1986 the proposal of Commissioner
Constitutional Commission, Gascon. Is this be understood
was categorical about this as a prohibition of a general
point.65 Their exchange reveal law on divorce? His intention is
as follows: to make this a prohibition so
that the legislature cannot pass MR. GASCON. No Mr.
a divorce law. Presiding Officer.
MR. GASCON. Mr. Presding FR. BERNAS. Thank you.66
Officer, that was not primarily
Notably, a law on absolute
my intention. My intention was
divorce is not new in our
primarily to encourage the
country. Effectivity March 11,
social institution of marriage,
1917, Philippine courts could
but not necessarily discourage
grant an absolute divorce in
divorce. But now that the
the grounds of adultery on the
mentioned the issue of divorce,
part of the wife or concubinage
my personal opinion is to
on the part of the husband by
discourage it. Mr. Presiding
virtue of Act No. 2710 of the
Officer.
Philippine Legislature.67 On
FR. BERNAS. No my question March 25, 1943, pursuant to
is more categorical. Does this the authority conferred upon
carry the meaning of him by the Commander-in-
prohibiting a divorce law? Chief fo the Imperial Japanese
Forces in the Philippines and insanity.68 When the
with the approval of the latter, Philippines was liberated and
the Chairman of the Philippine the Commonwealth
Executive Commission Government was restored, it
promulgated an E.O. No. 141 ceased to have force and
("New Divorce Law"), which effect and Act No. 2710 again
repealed Act No. 2710 and prevailed.69 From August 30,
provided eleven ground for 1950, upon the effectivity of
absolute divorce, such as Republic Act No. 836 or the
intentional or unjustified New Civil Code, an absolute
desertion continuously for at divorce obatined by Filipino
least one year prior to the filing citizens, whether here or
of the action, slander by deed abroad, is no longer
or gross insult by one spouse recognized.70
against the other to such an
Through the years, there has
extent as to make further living
been constant clamor from
together impracticable, and a
various sectors of the
spouse's incurable
Philippine society to re-institute And Family Relations of
absolute divorce. As a matte of February 8, 2018. It was
fcat, in the currnet approved on March 19, 2018
17th Congress, House Bill on Third Reading - with 134 in
(H.B.) Nos. favor, 57 against, and 2
11671 106272 238073 and absentations. Under the bill,
602774 were filed in the House the grounds for a judicial
of representatives. In decree of absolute divorce are
substitution of these bills, H.B. as follows:
No. 7303 entitled "An Act
1. The grounds for legal
Instituting Absolute Divorce
separation under Article 55 of
and Dissolution of Marriage in
the Family Code, modified or
the Philippines" or
amended, as follows:
the Absolute Divorce Act of
2018 was submitted by the a. Physical violence or
House Committee on grossly abusive
Population conduct directed
against the petitioner, a
common child, or a d. Final judgment
child of the petitioner; sentencing the
respondent to
b. Physical violence or
imprisonment of more
moral pressure to
than six (6) years, even
compel the petitioner to
if pardoned;
change religious or
political affiliation; e. Drug addiction or
habitual alchoholism ro
c. Attempt of
chronic gambling of
respondent to corrupt
respondent;
or induce the petitioner,
a common child, or a f. Homosexuality of the
child of a petitioner, to respondent;
engage in prostitution,
g. Contracting by the
or connivance in such
respondent of a
corruption or
subsequent bigamous
inducement;
marriage, whether in
the Philippines or i. attempt by the
abroad; respondent against the
life of the petitioner, a
h. Marital infidelity or
common child or a child
perversion or having a
of a petitioner; and
child with another
person other than one's j. Abandonment of
spouse during the petitioner by
marriage, except when respondent without
upon the mutual justifiable cause for
agreement of the more than one (1) year.
spouses, a child is born
When the spouses are legally
to them by in vitro or a
separated by judicial decree for
similar procedure or
more thath two (2) years, either
when the wife bears a
or both spouses can petition
child after being a
the proper court for an
victim of rape;
absolute divorce based on said
judicial decree of legal having substitute
separation. parental authority over
the party, in that order,
1. Grounds for annulment of
unless after attaining
marriage under Article 45 of
the age of twenty-one
the Family Code restated as
(21) such party freely
follows:
cohabited with the other
a. The party in whose and both lived together
behalf it is sought to as husband and wife;
have the marriage
b. either party was of
annulled was eighteen
unsound mind, unless
(18) years of age or
such party after coming
over but below twety-
to reason, freely
one (21), and the
cohabited with the other
marriage was
as husband and wife;
solemnized without the
consent of the parents c. The consent of either
guradian or personl party was obtained by
fraud, unless such party e. Either party was
afterwards with full physically incapable of
knowledge of the facts consummating the
constituting the fraud, marriage with the other
freely cohabited with and such incapacity
the other husband and continues or appears to
wife; be incurable; and
d. consent of either f. Either part was
party was obtained by afflicted with the
force, intimidation or sexually transmissible
undue influence, unless infection found to be
the same having serious or appears to
disappeared or ceased, be incurable.
such party thereafter
Provided, That the ground
freely cohabited with
mentioned in b, e and f existed
the other as husband
either at the time of the
and wife;
marriage or supervening after 3. When one of the spouses
the marriage. undergoes a gender
reassignment surgery or
1. When the spouses have
transition from one sex to
been separated in fact for at
another, the other spouse is
least five (5) years at the time
entitled to petition for absolute
the petition for absolute divorce
divorce with the transgender or
is filed, and the reconciliation is
transsexual as respondent, or
highly improbable;
vice-versa;
2. Psychological incapacity of
4. Irreconcilable marital
either spouse as provided for
differences and conflicts which
in Article 36 of the Family
have resulted in the total
Code, whether or not the
breakdown of the marriage
incapacity was present at the
beyond repair, despite earnest
time of the celebration of the
and repeated efforts at
marriage or later;
reconciliation.
To be sure, a good number of government to adopt their
Filipinos led by the Roman particular doctrines as policy
Catholic Church react for everyone, nor can they
adversely to any attempt to cause the government to
enact a law on absolute restrict other groups. To do so,
divorce, viewing it as contrary in simple terms, would cause
to our customs, morals, and the State to adhere to a
traditions that has looked upon particular religion and, thus
marriage and family as an establish a state religion.76
institution and their nature of
The Roman Catholic Church
permanence,
can neither impose its beliefs
In the same breath that the and convictions on the State
establishment clause restricts and the rest of the citizenry nor
what the government can do can it demand that the nation
with religion, it also limits what follow its beliefs, even if it is
religious sects can or cannot sincerely believes that they are
do. They can neither cause the good for country.77While
marriage is considered a constitutional provision. Aside
sacrament, it has civil and legal from strengthening the
consequences which are solidarity of the Filipino family,
governed by the Family the State is equally mandated
Code.78 It is in this aspect, to actively promote its total
bereft of any ecclesiastical development.79 It is also
overtone, that the State has a obligated to defend, among
legitimate right and interest to others, the right of children to
regulate. special protection from all
forms of neglect, abuse,
The declared State policy that
cruelty, exploitation, and other
marriage, as an inviolable
conditions prejudicial to their
social institution, is a
development.80 To Our mind,
foundation of the family and
the State cannot effectively
shall be protected by the State,
enforce these obligation s if
should not be read in total
We limit the application of
isolation but must be
Paragraph 2 or Article 26 only
harmonized with other
those foreign divorce initiated
by the alien spouse. It is not Person Act of 2003"), as
amiss to point that the women amended by R.A. No.
and children are almost always 10364 ("ExpandedAnti-
the helpless victims of all forms Trafficking in Persons Act of
of domestic abuse and 2012").Moreover, in protecting
violence. In fact, among the and strengthening the Filipino
notable legislation passed in family as a basic autonomous
order to minimize, if not social institution, the Court
eradicate, the menace are R.A. must not lose sight of the
No. 9262 ("Anti-Violence constitutional mandate to value
Against Women and Their the dignity of every human
Children Act of 2004") R.A. No. person, guarantee full respect
9710 ("The Magna Carta of for human rights, and ensure
Women"), R.A. No 10354 the fundamental equality
("The Responsible Parenthood before the law of women and
and Reproductive Health Act men.81
of 2012") and R.A. No
9208 ("Anti-Trafficking in
A prohibitive view of Paragraph illegitimate. Surely, these are
2 of Article 26 would do more just but a few of the adverse
harm than good. If We disallow consequences, not only to the
a Filipino citizen who initiated parent but also to the child, if
and obtained a foreign divorce We are to hold a restrictive
from the coverage of interpretation of the subject
Paragraph 2 Article 26 and still provision. The irony is that the
require him or her to first avail principle of inviolability of
of the existing "mechanisms" marriage under Section 2,
under the Family Code, any Article XV of the Constitution is
subsequent relationship that he meant to be tilted in favor of
or she would enter in the marriage and against unions
meantime shall be considered not formalized by marriage, but
as illicit in the eyes of the without denying State
Philippine law. Worse, any protection and assistance to
child born out such "extra- live-in arrangements or to
marital" affair has to suffer the families formed according to
stigma of being branded as indigenous customs.82
This Court should not turn a reality for some is that the
blind eye to the realities of the attainment of the individual's
present time. With the full human potential and self
advancement of fulfillment is not found and
communication and information achieved in the context of a
technology, as well as the marriage. Thus it is hypocritical
improvement of the to safeguard the quantity of
transportation system that existing marriages and, at the
almost instantly connect same time, brush aside the
people from all over the world, truth that some of them are
mixed marriages have become rotten quality.
not too uncommon. Likewise, it
Going back, we hold that
is recognized that not all
marriage, being a mutual and
marriages are made in heaven
shared commitment between
and that imperfect humans
two parties, cannot possibly be
more often than not create
productive of any good to the
imperfect unions.83 Living in a
society where one is
flawed world, the unfortunate
considered released from the the meaning of the law, the first
marital bond while the other concern of the judge should be
remains bound to it.84 In to discover in its provisions the
reiterating that the Filipino intent of the lawmaker.
spouse should not be Unquestionably, the law should
discriminated against in his or never be interpreted in such a
her own country if the ends of way as to cause injustice as
justice are to be served, San this is never within the
Luis v. San Luis85 quoted: legislative intent. An
indispensable part of that
x x x In Alonzo v. Intermediate
intent, in fact, for we presume
Applellate Court, the Court
the good motives of the
stated:
legislature, is to render justice.
But as has also been aptly
Thus, we interpret and apply
observed, we test a law by its
the law not independently of
results: and likewise, we may
but in consonance with justice.
add, by its purposes. It is a
Law and justice are
cardinal rule that, in seeking
inseparable, and we must keep robots to the literal command
them so. To be sure, there are without regard to its cause and
some laws that, while generally consequence. "Courts are apt
valid, may seem arbitrary when to err by sticking too closely to
applied in a particular case the words of law," so we are
because only of our nature and warned, by Justice Holmes
functions, to apply them just agaian, "where these words
the same, in slavish obedience import a policy that goes
to their language. What we do beyond them."
instead is find a balance
xxxx
between the sord and the will,
that justice may be done even More that twenty centuries
as the law is obeyed. ago, Justinian defined justice
"as the constant and perpetual
As judges, we are not
wish to render every one of his
automatons. We do not and
due." That wish continues to
must not unfeelingly apply the
motivate this Court when it
law as it worded, yielding like
assesses the facts and the law
in ever case brought to it for construed according to its spirit
decisions. Justice is always an and reason, disregarding as far
essential ingredient of its as necessary the letter of the
decisions. Thus when the facts law.87 A statute may therefore,
warrant, we interpret the law in be extended to cases not
a way that will render justice, within the literal meaning of its
presuming that it was the terms, so long as they come
intention if the lawmaker, to within its spirit or intent.88
begin with, that the law be
The foregoing notwithstanding,
dispensed with justice.86
We cannot yet write finis to this
Indeed, where the controversy by granting
interpretation of a statute Manalo's petition to recognize
according to its exact and and enforce the divorce decree
literal import would lead to rendered by the Japanese
mischievous results or court and to cancel the entry of
contravene the clear purpose marriage in the Civil Registry of
of the legislature, it should be San Juan, Metro Manila.
Jurisprudence has set x x x Before a foreign judgment
guidelines before the Philippine is given presumptive
courts recognize a foreign evidentiary value, the
judgment relating to the status document must first be
of a marriage where one of the presented and admitted in
parties is a citizen of foreign evidence. A divorce obtained
country. Presentation solely of abroad is proven by the
the divorce decree will not divorce decree itself. The
suffice.89 The fact of divorce decree purports to be written
must still first be act or record of an act of an
proven.90 Before a a foreign official body or tribunal of
divorce decree can be foreign country.
recognized by our courts, the
Under Sections 24 and 25 of
party pleading it must prove
Rule 132, on the other hand, a
the divorce as a fact and
writing or document may be
demonstrate its conformity to
proven as a public or official
the foreign law allowing it.91
record of a foreign country by
either (1) an official publication In this case, Petitioner was
or (2) a copy thereof attested able to submit before the
by the officer having legal court a quo the 1) Decision of
custody of the document. If the the Japanese Court allowing
record is not kept in the the divorce; 2)
Philippines, such copy must be the Authentication/Certificate is
(a) accompanied by a sued by the Philippines
certificate issued by the proper Consulate General in Osaka,
diplomatic or consular officer in Japan of the Decree of
the Philippine foreign service Divorce; and 3) Acceptance of
stationed in the foreign country Certificate of Divorce byu the
in which the record is kept and Petitioner and the Japanese
(b)authenticated by the seal of national. Under Rule 132,
his office.92 Sections 24 and 25, in relation
to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of
In granting Manalo's petition,
the Rules of Court, these
the CA noted:
documents sufficiently prove
the subject Divorce Decree as
a fact. Thus, We are or clear mistake of fact or law,
constrained to recognize the albeit an opportunity to do so.95
Japanese Court's judgment
Nonetheless, the Japanese law
decreeing the divorce.93
on divorce must still be proved.
If the opposing party fails to
x x x The burden of proof lies
properly object, as in this case,
with the "party who alleges the
the divorce decree is rendered
existence of a fact or thing
admissible a a written act of
necessary in the prosecution or
the foreign court.94 As it
defense of an action." In civil
appears, the existence of the
cases, plaintiffs have the
divorce decree was not denied
burden of proving the material
by the OSG; neither was the
defendants have the burden of
jurisdiction of the divorce court
proving the material allegations
impeached nor the validity of
in their answer when they
its proceedings challenged on
introduce new matters. x x x
the ground of collusion, fraud,
It is well-settled in our Japanese laws on persons and
jurisdiction that our courts family relations are not among
cannot take judicial notice of those matters that Filipino
foreign laws. Like any other judges are supposed to know
facts, they must alleged and by reason of their judicial
proved. x x x The power of function.
judicial notice must be exercise
WHEREFORE, the petition for
d with caution, and every
review on certiorari is DENIED.
reasonable doubt upon the
The September 18, 2014
subject should be resolved in
Decision and October 12, 2015
the negative.96
Resolution if the Court of
Since the divorce was raised Appeals in CA G.R. CV.
by Manalo, the burden of No. 100076, are AFFIRMED
proving the pertinent Japanese IN PART. The case
law validating it, as well as her is REMANDED to the court of
former husband's capacity to origin for further proceedings
remarry, fall squarely upon her. and reception of evidence as to
the relevant Japanese law on Associate
divorce. Justice
SO ORDERED TERESITA
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA J.
LUCAS P.
Associate Justice LEONARD
BERSAMIN
O DE
Associate
WE CONCUR: CASTRO
Justice
Associate
On leave
Justice
MARIA LOURDES P.A.
SERENO* I join the I join the
Chief Justice dissent of J. dissent of J.
Chairperson Caguioa Caguioa
MARIANO ESTELA M.
ANTONIO PRESBITE C. DEL PERLAS-
T. CARPIO RO J. CASTILLO BERNABE
Acting Chief VELASCO, Associate Associate
Justice JR. Justice Justice
I concur, Justice
See No part
NOEL G. ANDRES B.
Separate FRANCIS
TIJAM REYES, JR.
Opinion H.
Associate Associate
MARVIC JARDELEZ
Justice Justice
M.V.F. A***
LEONEN Associate ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Justice
CERTIFICATION
See SAMUEL R.
dissenting MARTIRES Pursuant to the Section 13,
Opinion. Associate Article VIII of the Constitution, I
ALFREDO Justice certify that the conclusions in
BENJAMIN the above Resolution had been
S. reached in consultation before
CAGUIOA the case was assigned to the
Associate
writer of the opinion of the Justices Vicente S.E.
Court. Veloso and Nina G.
Antonio-Valenzuela
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
concurring; rollo, pp. 23-21.
Acting Chief Justice
2
 Rollo, pp. 32-33.
3
 Id. at 30. (emphasis in the
Footnotes original)
4
*
 On leave  Id. at 42-43.
5
**
 Acting Chief Justice per  Id. at 25, 37-38.
Special Order No. 2539 6
 Id. at 40-41.
dated February 28, 2018.
7
***  663 Phil. 546 (2011).
 No part
8
1  223 Phil. 357 (1985).
 Penned by Associate
Justice Jane Aurora C. 9
 Amor-Catalan v. Court of
Lantion, with Associate Appeals, 543 Phil. 568,
575 (2007), citing Garcia v. wills and other public
Recio, 418 Phil. 723, 735- instruments shall be
736 (2001). governed by the laws of the
10 country in which they are
 Garcia v. Recio, supra, at
executed.
730 and Medina v. Koike,
G.R. No. 215723, July 27, When the acts referred
2016, 798 SCRA 733, 739. to are executed before
11 the diplomatic or
 Art. 15. Laws relating to
consular officials of the
family rights and duties, or
Republic of the
to the status, condition and
Philippine laws shall be
legal capacity of persons
observed in their
are binding upon citizens of
execution.
the Philippines, even
though living abroad. (9a) Prohobited laws
12 concerning persons,
 Art 17. The forms and
their acts or property,
solemnities of contracts,
and those which have
 for their object public and Perez v. Court of
order, public policy and Appeals, 516 Phil. 204,
good customs shall not 211 (2006). See
be rendered ineffective also Garcia v. Recio,
by laws or judgements supra note 9, at
promulgated, or by 730; Republic v. Iyoy, 507
determinations or Phil. 485, 504 (2005);
conventions agreed and Lavadia v. Heirs of
upon in a foreign Juan Luces Luna, 739 Phil.
country.(11a) 331, 341-342 (2014).
13 14
 Techaves v. Escano, et  Garcia v. Recio,
al., 122 Phil. 752, 759-760 supra note 9, at 730-731.
(1965), as cited in Cang v. 15
 FAMILY CODE, Article
Court of Appeals, 357 Phil.
26, Paragraph 2. See
129, 162 (1998); Llorente
also Garcia v. Recio, supra
v. Court of Appeals, 399
note 9, at 730 and Medina
Phil. 342, 356 (2000);
v. Koike , supra Note 10.
16 20
 Republic of the Phils. V.  Medina v. Koike,
Orbecido III, 509 Phil. 108, supra note 10 and Fujiki v.
112 (2005), as cited in San Marinay 712 Phil. 524, 555
Luis v. San Luis, 543 Phil. (2013).
275, 291 (2007). 21
 Fujiki v. Marinay, supra.
17
 Id. at 112-113, as cited 22
 Id.
in San Luis v. San Luis,
supra. 23
 See Vda. de Catalan v.
18 Catalan-Lee, 681 Phil. 493,
 Id. at 113, as cited
498 (2012); Roehr v.
in San Luis v. San Luis,
Rodriguez, 452 Phil. 608,
supra.
717-618 (2003); and 2003);
19
 Sempio-Diy, Alicia V., and Llorenre v. Court of
HANDBOOK ON THE Appeals, supra note 13.
FAMILY CODE OF THE 24
 Supra note 19, at 27,
PHILIPPINES, 1988, PP.
See also Republic of the
26-27.
Phils. V. Orbecido III,
 31
supra note 16, at 114, as  Van Dorn v. Judge
cited in Fujiki v. Marinay, Romillo, Jr. supra note 8, at
supra note 20, at 555 361-363 (Citations
and San Luis v. San Luis, omitted).
supra note 16, at 292. 32
 Supra note 20.
25
 Supra note 19, at 27 33
 Supra note 10.
26
 Supra note 16. 34
 Fujiki v. Marinay et al.
27
 Id. at 114-115 (Citations supra note 20, at 549-550.
omitted). (Citations omitted).
28 35
 625 Phil. 494 (2010).  642 Phil. 420 (2010).
29 36
 Supra note 8.  Supra note 9.
30 37
 Dacasin v. Dacasin,  Commissioner of
supra, at 507. (Citations Customs v. Manila Star
omitted; underscoring ours) Ferry, Inc. 298 Phil. 79, 86
(1993).
38
 Globe-Mackay Cable Monetary Board, 545 Phil.
and Radio Corp. v. 62, 72 (2007); Rep. of the
NLRC, 283 Phil. 649, 660 Phils. v. Lacap, 546 Phil.
(1992), as cited in Victoria 87, 100 (2007); and Phil.
v. Commission on Amusement and Gaming
Elections, 299 Phil. 263, Corp. (PAGCOR) v. Phil.
268 (1994); Enjay Inc. v. Gaming Jurisdiction Inc.
NLRC, 315 Phil. 648, 656 (PEJI), et al., 604 Phil. 547,
(1995); and Pioneer 553 (2009).
Texturizing Corp. v. 39
 Mariano, Jr. v.
NLRC, 345 Phil. 1057,
COMELEC, 312 Phil. 259,
1073 (1997). See
268 (1995).
also National Food
Authority v. Masada 40
 Id.
Security Agency, Inc. 493 41
Phil. 241, 251  623 Phil. 531, 564-565
(2005); Rural Bank of the (2009)
San Miguel, Inc. v.
42 45
 Fujiki v. Marinay  Central Bank Employees
supra note 20, at 555. Assn., Inc. v. Bangko
43 Sentral ng Pilipinas, 487
 See Barreto Gonzalez v.
Phil. 531, 597 (2004) as
Gonzalez, 58 Phil. 67, 72
cited in Serrano v. Gallant
(1933), as cited
Maritime Services, Inc. 601
in Techavez v. Escaño, et
Phil. 245, 436 (2009). See
al. supra note 13, at 762.
also Puno C.J., Separate
44
 See Assn. of Small Concurring Opinion, Ang
Landowners in the Phils., Ladlad LGBT Party v.
Inc. v. Hon. Secretary of COMELEC, 632 Phil. 32,
Agrarian Reform , 256 Phil. 100 (2010); Brion J.,
777, 808 (1989) Separate Opinion, Biraogo
and Sameer Overseas v. Phil. Truth Commission
Placement Agency, Inc. v. of 2010, 651. 374, 550
Cabiles, 740 Phil. 403, 436 (2010); and Leonardo-De
(2014). Castro, Jr., Concurring
Opinion, Garcia v. Judge
Drillon, et al., 712 Phil 44, Commission of 2010, supra
125 (2013). Velasco, Jr., J. Concurring
46 Opinion, International
 Central Bank Employees
Service for the Acquisition
Association, Inc. v. Bangko
of Agri-Biotech
Sentral ng Pilipinas, supra.
Applications, Inc., v.
47
 Serrano v. Gallant Greenpeace Southeast
Maritime Services, Inc. et Asia (Phils.) , et al., 774
al. 601 Phil. 245, 282 Phil. 508, 706 (2015); and
(2009) and Mosqueda Jardeleza, J., March 8,
Pilipino Banana Growers & 2016, 786 SCRA 1, 904.
Exporters Association , Inc. 48
 Brion, J., Separate
G.R. Nos, 189185 &
Opinion, Biraogo v.
189305, August 16, 2016,
Philippines Truith
800 SCRA 313, 360. See
Commission of 2010, supra
also Brion, J., Separate
note 45, at 553.
Opinion, Biraogo v.
Philippine Truth
49
 See Morales, J., al., 601 Phil. 245, 298
Dissenting Opinion, Central (2009).
Bank Employees Assn., 51
 Id.
Inc. v. Bangko Senral ng
Pilipinas, 487 Phil. 531, 52
 Brion J., Separate
697-698 (2004) as cited by Concurring Opinion, Sps.
Brion, J. Separate Opinion, Imbong v. Hon. Ochoa, Jr.,
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth et al., 732 Phil. 1, 326-327
Commission of 2010, supra (2014).
note 45, at 533, and 53
Leonen, J., Separate  To be valid, the
Opinion, Samahan ng mga classification must conform
Progresibong Kabataan v. to the following
Quezon City, G.R. No. requirements:
225442 August 8, 2017. 1.) It must rest on
50
 Serrano v. Gallant substantial distinctions.
Maritime Services, Inc. , et
2.) It must be germane 405 [2014]; Ferrer, Jr.
to the purpose of the v. Mayor Bautista, 762
law. Phil. 233, 277
(2015); Drugstores
3.) It must not be
Association of the
limited to existing
Philippines, Inc. v.
conditions only.
National Council on
4.) It must apply to all Disability Affairs, G.R.
members of the same No. 194561, September
class. (See PAGCOR 14, 2016, 803 SCRA
v. Bureau of Internal 25, 22; Ocampo v.
Revenue, 660 Phil. Enriquez, G.R. Nos.
636, 648 [2011]; Maj. 225973, 225984,
Gen. Garcia v. The 226097, 226116,
Executive Secretary et. 226120 & 226294,
al. 692 Phil. 114, 141- November 8, 2016;
142 [2012]; Corpuz v. and Mindanao
People, 734 Phil. 353, Shopping Destination
 Corp. v. Duterte, G.R. Appeals, supra note
No. 211093, June 6, 13;; Llorente v. Court of
2017). Appeals supra note 13;
54 and Perez v. Court of
 Section 1, Article III of
Appeals, supra note 13.
the Constitution states:
See also Garcia v. Recio,
Section 1. No person supra note 9, at
shall be deprived of life, 730; Republic v. Iyoy,
liberty, or property supra, note 13;
without due process of and Lavadia v. Heirs of
law, nor shall any Juan Luces Luna,
person be denied the supra note 13. FAMILY
equal protection of the CODE, Article 26 Pragraph
laws. 2. See also Garcia v.
55
Recio, supra note 9, at 730
 Tenchavez v. Escano, et and Medina v. Koike,
al., supra note 13, as cited supra note 10.
in Cang v. Court of
56
 Art. 35 The following contracted with
marriages shall be void either or both
from the beginning: parties believing in
good faith that the
(1) Those
solemnizing officer
contracted by any
had the leagl
party below
authority to do so;
eighteen years of
age even with the (3) Those
consent of parents solemnized without
or guardians; a license, except
covered by
(2) Those
preceding Chapter;
solemnized by any
person not legally (4) Those bigamous
authorized to or polygamous
perform marriages marriage not falling
unless such under article 41;
marriages were
 (5) Those with the essential
contracted through marital obligations of
mistake of one marriage, shall likewise
contracting party as be void even if such
to the identity of the incapacity becomes
other; and manifest only after
solemnization. (As
(6) those
amended by E.O. 227)
subsequent
marriages that are Art 37. Marriages
void under Article between the following
53. are incestuous and void
from the beginning,
Art. 36. A marriage
whether the relationship
contracted by any party
between the parties be
who, at the time of the
legitimate or
celebration, was
illegitimate:
psychologically
incapacitated to comply
 (1) Between legitimate or
ascendants and illegitimate, up to
descendants of any the fourth civil
degree; and degree;
(2) Between (2) Between step-
brothers and parents and step-
sisters, whether of children;
full or half blood.
(3) Between
Art. 38. The following parents-in-law and
marriages shall be void children-in-law;
from the beginning for
(4) Between the
reasons of public
adopting parent and
policy:
the adopted child;
(1) Between
(5) Between the
collateral blood
surviving spouse of
relatives, whether
the adopting parent
and the adopted intention to marry
child; the other, killed that
other person's
(6) Between the
spouse or his her
surviving spouse of
own spouse. (82)
the adopted child
and the adopter; Art. 41. A marriage
contracted by any
(7) Between the
person during the
adopted child and a
subsistence of a
legitimate child of
previous marriage shall
the adopter;
be null and void, unless
(8) Between the before the celebration
adopted children of of the subsequent
the same adopter; marriage, the prior
and spouse had been
absent for four
(9) Between parties consecutive years and
where one, with the
the spouse present has paragraph, the spouse
well founded belief that present must institute a
the absent spouse was summary proceeding
already dead. In case as provided in this
of disappearance Code for the
where there is danger declaration of
of death under the presumptive death of
circumstances set forth the absentee, without
in the provisions of prejudice to the effect
Article 391 of the Civil of reappearance of the
Code, an absence of absent spouse. (83a)
only two years shall be
Art. 52. The judgment
sufficient.
of annulment or of
For the purpose of absolute nullity of the
contracting the marriage, the partition
subsequent marriage and distribution of the
under the preceding properties of the
spouses, and he subsequent marriage
delivery of the shall be null and void.
children's presumptive 57
 REL 131, Section 3(a).
legitimes shall be
recorded in the 58
 Id., Section 3(c).
appropriate civil registry 59
and registries of  Id., Section 3(d).
property; otherwise, the 60
 Id., Section 3(x)..
same shall not affect 61
third persons.(n)  Id., Section 3(aa).
62
Art. 53 Either of the  Id., Section 3(ff).
former spouses may 63
 Rep. of the Phils. v.
marry again after Albios, 719 Phil. 622, 636
complying with the (2013).
requirements of the
64
immediately preceding  1987 CONSTITUTION,
Article; otherwise, the Article XV, Section 2. This
echoed the Family Code not subject to
provision, which provides: stipulation, except that
marriage settlements
Art. 1. Marriage is a
may fix the property
special contract of
relations during the
permanent union
marriage within the
between a man and a
limits provided by this
woman entered into in
Code.
accordance with law for
65
the establishment of  Bernas, Joaquin G., S.J.,
conjugal and family life. THE INTENT OF THE
It is the foundation of 1986 CONSTITUTION
the family and an WRITERS, 1995 Edition ,
inviolable social pp. 1132 citing V.
institution whose RECORD 41.
nature, consequences, 66
 Reconrd of the
and incidents are
Constitutional Commission:
governed by law and
Proceedings and Debates,
Volume V September 24, Reyes, 519 Phil. 337
1986, p. 41. (2006).
67 69
 See Garcia Valdez v.  Baptista v. Castañeda
Soteraña Tuason, 40 Phil. supra at 463.
943, 944 (1920); Francisco 70
 Tenchavez v. Escano, et.
v. Tayao, 50 Phil. 42
al., supra note 13;
(1927); People v. Bitdu, 58
and Perez v. Court of
Phil. 817 (1933); Sikat v.
Appeals, supra note 13.
Cason, 67 Phil. 207 (1939);
See also Garcia v. Recio,
and Arca, et al. v.
supra note 9, at
Javier, 95. Phil. 579 (1954)
730; Republic v. Iyoy,
68
 See Baptista v. supra note 13; and Lavadia
Castañeda, 76 Phil. 461 v. Heirs of Juan Luces
(1946); Luz v. Court of First Luna, 739 Phil, 331, 341-
Instance of Tacloban, 77 342 (2014).
Phil. 679 (1946); Antonio v.
71
 Entitled "Instituting Barbers as Principal
Absolute Divorce in the Author.
Philippines, Amending for 73
 Entitled "An Act
the Purpose,' with
Introducing Divorce in the
Representative Edcel C.
Philippines, Amending foe
Lagman as Principal
the Purpose Articles 26, 55
Author.
to 66 and Repealing Article
72
 Entitled "An Act 36 Under Title II of
Amending Title I, Chapter 3 Executive Order No. 209,
of Executive No. 209, As Amended, Otherwise
Otherwise known as the Known as the Family Code
Family Code of the of the Philippines, and For
Philippines, Prescribing Other Purposes," with
Additional Ground for Gabriela Women's Party
Annulment," with Representatives Emmi A.
Representative Robert Ace De Jesus and Arlene D.
Brosas as principal Alvarez, Antonio L. Tinio,
authors. and Carlos Isagani T.
74 Zarate as Principal
 Entitled "An Act
Authors.
Providing for Grounds for
75
the Dissolution of  See Leone, J. dissenting
Marriage," with in Matudan v.
Representatives Teddy B. Republic, G.R. No 203284,
Baguilat, Jr. Rodel M. November 14, 2016.
Batocabe, Arlene D. 76
 Re: Letter of Tony Q.
Brosas, Ariel B. Casilao,
Valenciano, A.M. No. 10-4-
France L. Castro, Nancy A.
19-SC (Resolution), March
Catamco, Pia S. Cayetano,
7, 2017.
Emmi A. De Jesus, Sarah
Jane I. Elago, Gwedolyn F. 77
 See Sps. Imbong , et al.
Garcia, Ana Cristina v. Hon. Ochoa , Jr. et al.,
Siquian Go. Edcel C. 732 Phil. 1, 167 (2014).
Lagman, Pantaleon D.
78
 Tilar v. Tilar G.R. No. pp. 1132, citing V.
214529, July 12, 2017. RECORD 40, 44.
79 83
 Article XV, Section 1.  See Paras v. Paras, 555
80 Phil.786, 804 (2007)
 Article XV, Section 3(2).
84
81  San Luis v. San Luis,
 Article II, Sectioons 11,
supra note 16, at 292-293.
12 and 14. See also
85
Republic Act Nos. 7192  Supra note 16.
("Women in Development 86
 San Luis v. San Luis,
and Nation Building Act")
supra note 16, at 293-294.
and 9710 ("The Magna
Carta of Women"). 87
 Republic of the Phils. v.
82 Orbecido III, supra note 16,
 Bernas, Joaquin G. S.J.,
at 115.
THE INTENT OF THE
1986 CONSTITUTION 88
 Id.
WRITERS, 1995 Edition,
89
 Garcia v. Recio, v. The Hon. Court of
supra note 9, at 731, as Appeals, et al. 591 Phil. 45,
cited in Vda. de Catalan v. 470 (2008).
Catalan-Lee, supra note 92
 Garcia v. Recio,
23, at 501.
supra note 9, at 732-733.
90
 Fujiki v. Marinay, (Citations omitted). See
supra note 20, at 544 also Vda. de Catalan v.
and Vda. de Catalan v. Catalan-Lee, supra note
Catalan-Lee, supra note 23, at 499 and 501-502
23, at 499. and San Luis v. San Luis,
91 supra note 16, at 294.
 Garcia v. Recio,
93
supra note 9, at 731, as  Rollo, pp. 29-30.
cited in Medina v. Koike, 94
 Garcia v. Recio,
supra note 10
supra note 9, at 733-734.
and Republic of the Phils.
v. Orbecido III, supra note 95
 See Bayot v. Hoen
16, at 116. See also Bayot Coutrt of Appeals, et al.,
supra note 75, at 470-471;
and Roehr v. Rodriguez,
supra note 23, at 617.
96
 Garcia v. Recio,
supra note 9 at 735.
(Citations omitted). See
also Vda. de Catalan v.
Catalan-Lee, supranote 23,
at 500-501; San Luis v.
San Luis, supra note 16, at
295; Republic of the Phils.
v. Orbecido, III, supranote
16, at 116; Llorente v.
Court of Appeals,
supra note 13, 354.