Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Republic of The Philippines vs. Manalo Facts

    Uploaded by

    joel ayon
    This case involves Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, who filed a petition to cancel her marriage registration in the Philippines after obtaining a divorce from her Japanese husband in Japan. The trial court denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals overturned this decision. The Supreme Court held that under Article 26 of the Family Code, Manalo's marriage was dissolved by the valid foreign divorce as her husband was a foreigner at the time of the divorce. However, the case was remanded to the lower court to determine if the divorce was validly obtained under relevant Japanese law on divorce by requiring Manalo to prove the divorce and its compliance with that law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic of The Philippines vs. Manalo Facts

    Uploaded by

    joel ayon
    51 views2 pages
    This case involves Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, who filed a petition to cancel her marriage registration in the Philippines after obtaining a divorce from her Japanese husband in Japan. The trial court denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals overturned this decision. The Supreme Court held that under Article 26 of the Family Code, Manalo's marriage was dissolved by the valid foreign divorce as her husband was a foreigner at the time of the divorce. However, the case was remanded to the lower court to determine if the divorce was validly obtained under relevant Japanese law on divorce by requiring Manalo to prove the divorce and its compliance with that law.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    12. REP VS MANALO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, who filed a petition to cancel her marriage registration in the Philippines after obtaining a divorce from her Japanese husband in Japan. The trial court denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals overturned this decision. The Supreme Court held that under Article 26 of the Family Code, Manalo's marriage was dissolved by the valid foreign divorce as her husband was a foreigner at the time of the divorce. However, the case was remanded to the lower court to determine if the divorce was validly obtained under relevant Japanese law on divorce by requiring Manalo to prove the divorce and its compliance with that law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    51 views2 pages

    Republic of The Philippines vs. Manalo Facts

    Uploaded by

    joel ayon
    This case involves Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, who filed a petition to cancel her marriage registration in the Philippines after obtaining a divorce from her Japanese husband in Japan. The trial court denied the petition, but the Court of Appeals overturned this decision. The Supreme Court held that under Article 26 of the Family Code, Manalo's marriage was dissolved by the valid foreign divorce as her husband was a foreigner at the time of the divorce. However, the case was remanded to the lower court to determine if the divorce was validly obtained under relevant Japanese law on divorce by requiring Manalo to prove the divorce and its compliance with that law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

    MANALO
    Apr 24, 2018
    FACTS:

    Respondent MarelynTanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil
    Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by the Japanese court. Manalo
    was allowed to testify. Among ithe documents that were offered and admitted were: (1) Court Order finding the
    petition and its attachments to be sufficient in form and in substance; (2) Affidavit of Publication; (3) Certificate
    of Marriage between Manalo and her former Japanese husband; (4) Divorce Decree of the Japanese court; (5)
    Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan of the Notification of
    Divorce; and (6) Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce.
    The Office of the Solicitor’s General, as it appeared for the petitioner Republic of the Philippines, did not
    present any controverting evidence to rebut the allegations of Manalo.
    The trial court denied the petition for lack of merit. It opined that, based on Article of Article 15 of the New
    Civil Code, the Philippine law “does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce, whether they are in the
    country or living abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in
    the Philippines or in another country.
    On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines is
    applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree they
    obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former capacitating him to remarry.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between a foreigner and a Filipino was dissolved through a divorce filed
    abroad by the latter?

    HELD: Yes. Article 26 of the Family Code which reads:


    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), 3637 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 have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by Executive
    Order 227)
    Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on the Philippine Courts to extend the effect of a foreign
    divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of
    the marriage. It authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce decree precisely because the
    Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on the merits because it is tantamount
    to trying a divorce case. Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by
    a spouse of foreign nationality, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care, and support of the children or
    property relations of the spouses, must still be determined by our court.
    The Court state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:

    1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
    2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitation him or her to remarry.
    The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their
    citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
    Moreover, invoking the nationality principle is erroneous. Such principle, found under Article 15of the Civil
    Code, is not an absolute and unbending rule. In fact, the mere existence of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is a
    testament that the State may provide for an exception thereto. Also, blind adherence to the nationality principle
    must be disallowed if it would cause unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of individuals
    whose rights are equally protected by law.
    The Court, however, asserts that it cannot yet write finis to this controversy by granting Manalo’s petition to
    recognize and enforce the divorce decree rendered by the Japanese Court. Before a foreign divorce decree can
    be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its
    conformity to the foreign law allowing it.

    The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings and reception of evidence as to the
    relevant Japanese law on divorce.

    Page 1 of 2
    i

    You might also like