Shela Bacaltos Asilo v. Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzales-Betic

 

Shela Bacaltos Asilo v. Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzales-Betic

G.R. No. 232269

July 10, 2024

 

FACTS:

On February 25, 2014, Shela filed the instant Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Divorce obtained in Hong Kong. In her Petition, she alleged that, on November 1, 2002, she married Tommy Appling (Tommy) in Hong Kong. After the wedding, Shela and Tommy lived together in Hong Kong until August 11, 2011, when they decided to separate. They eventually obtained a divorce. She testified that Tommy is now married to another woman. The RTC denied the Petition. It ruled that first, Shela did not present the law on divorce of Hong Kong. Second, the divorce decree was obtained by Shela, a Filipino citizen. To be recognized in the Philippines, the divorce must have been obtained by the foreign spouse. For these reasons, the Petition was denied. The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by Shela.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the foreign divorce decree may be recognized in our jurisdiction.

HELD:

Yes. The fact that it was the Filipino spouse who initiated the divorce proceedings is irrelevant in determining whether the foreign divorce decree should be recognized in our jurisdiction. In the seminal case of Republic v. Manalo, the Court settled with finality the issue of whether a foreign divorce decree initiated by a Filipino spouse, instead of the foreign spouse, may be recognized in Our jurisdiction. The Court answered this in the affirmative, stating that there is no distinction between the effects of a foreign divorce obtained by the foreign spouse and that obtained by the Filipino spouse. Hence, the Court held that a foreign divorce decree obtained by a Filipino spouse on their own initiative may be recognized in Our jurisdiction. Both Dacasin v. Dacasin and Van Dorn already recognized a foreign divorce decree that was initiated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal effects on the issues of child custody and property relation, respectively. In addition, the fact that a validly obtained foreign divorce initiated by the Filipino spouse can be recognized and given legal effects in the Philippines is implied from Our rulings in Fujiki v. Marinay, et al. and Medina v. Koike.

In the instant case, one of the grounds for the RTC's denial of the Petition for Recognition of the Foreign Decree is that Shela, the Filipino spouse, was the one to apply for it. With the Court's disquisition in Manalo, there is no longer any controversy on this score. The fact that the foreign divorce was obtained by Shela against Tommy is not fatal to her cause. Nevertheless, the RTC still had sufficient legal basis for its denial: that Shela failed to allege and prove the applicable foreign law on divorce. It is well-established that "[t]he 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." To validly recognize an absolute divorce on the basis of Article 26(2) of the Family Code, both the foreign judgment providing for the absolute divorce and the national law of the alien spouse, which recognizes the absolute divorce and capacitates said alien spouse to remarry, must be alleged and proven as fact.

At this juncture, for purposes of clarity, the Court states that in a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree on the basis of Article 26(2) of the Family Code, the ultimate. facts that must be alleged are as follows:

1. The celebration of a marriage between a Filipino and an alien;

2. The subsequent acquisition of an absolute divorce in a foreign jurisdiction;

3. The nationality of the alien spouse at the time the absolute divorce was obtained; and

4. The national law of the alien spouse, which recognizes the absolute divorce and capacitates said alien spouse to remarry.

Due to the absence of both allegation and proof as to (1) the nationality of Tommy, and (2) his national law, which recognizes the absolute divorce obtained in Hong Kong thereby capacitating him to remarry, the Court cannot recognize the foreign judgment and allow Shela to reclaim her name and surname prior to their marriage, as prayed for.