CHOICE OF LAW IN SPECIFIC LEGAL

RELATIONS

- on Marriage and Divorce -

 APPLICABLE LAWS
ARTICLE 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon
citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

ARTICLE 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and

other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country
in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular
officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the
solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their
execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those
which have for their object public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country.
CONFLICT OF LAWS CONTEXT
FOREIGN ELEMENT
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
EXTENT OF APPLICATION OF
NOTE: my humble submission, used dichotomy
 GR 221029, April 24, 2018
Marelyn Tanedo Manalo vs. Republic of the Philippines
Established facts:
Marelyn T. Manalo - Filipina ***M-PHL*** Yoshino Minoro – Japanese
Filipina filed a case, and obtained a divorce decree from the Japanese court
Presently- no longer living together (as husband and wife)
Filipina filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the civil registry
of San Juan, Metro Manila which she later amended and included in the
caption that it is also a petition for recognition and enforcement of foreign
judgment.

RTC- petition denied for of merit – NCC Art 15 nationality rule on family
rights, duties, status, condition and legal capacity (contract of marriage)

CA – on appeal – reversed on the basis of Family Code Art 26 – because the

decree obtained made the Japanese no longer married to the Filipina
capacitating him to remarry.
 SUPREME COURT RULING
Based on the clear and plain reading – par2 Art 26 Family Code
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.
(compare with:

”xxx a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse , capacitating him or her to
remarry, xxx”
So, by te clear and plain reading of the provision, the valid divorce thereafter capacitated the alien
spouse to remarry. And if we sought to argue otherwise, then we go to the rule that the spirit and
intent of the law controls its letter:
-> to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to te alien spouse who,
after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer
married to the Filipino spouse.
So, by either way, whether : Filipino / Alien spouse initiated a foreign divorce proceeding =
The Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife.
Thus, a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce is in the same place and circumstance as a Filipino who
is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding.

Art 26, 2nd par. Then is extended as a means to recognize the residual
effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to
their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter’s national law.
 SUPREME COURT RULING
SC – partially affirmed CA’s decision
- Declared Par 2 Article 26 violative of the equal protection clause.
-That limiting the provision only to a foreign divorce decree initiated by the alien spouse is
unreasonable, based on superficial, arbitrary and whimsical classification.
- That in the eyes of the Philippines and foreign laws, a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce
proceeding and a Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of the alien spouse are
considered as Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations in an alien land.
Were it not for the addition of Par 2 of Art 26 of the Family Code or Executive Order No. 209
, both are still married to their foreigner spouses who are no longer their wives/husbands. Hence, to
give undue favor to the one who is merely at the receiving end of the decree initiated by his
foreigner spouse is unfair and unjustly discriminatory.
-> Where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would contravene the
real purpose of the legislature, then we go to the rule that the spirit and intent of the law controls
its letter.
According to the then Judge Alicia Sempio-Dy, a member of the Committee, the idea of the
amendment -> to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to te alien
spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is
no longer married to the Filipino spouse (A problem of many Filipino left unsolved by the New
Civil Code).
- That in the history of the Philippines, our Courts could grant absolute divorce since 1917, and up
until 1950 when, by the affectivity of the NCC on August 30, 1950, the divorce obtained by Filipino
Citizens whether here or abroad is no longer recognized.
- That the provision in the 1987 Constitution that expresses marriage as an inviolable institution is
not a general prohibition on divorce, as categorically pointed out in the deliberations of the 1986
Constitutional Commission.
- That none of our law should be based on any religious law or teaching or else there will be a
violation of the separation of the Church and the State.
 (SC RULING CONTINUED)

Cases where SC already recognized a foreign divorce

decree that was initiated and obtained by the Filipino
spouse:
- Vand Dorn v. Romillo, 1985 [“Alice appeared in
person xxx (Upton) authorized his attorney to agree to
the divorce xxx]
- Dacasin v. Dacasin, 2010 (Sharon, the Filipina wife
sought and obtained a divorce decree against Herald,
American husband)
- Fujiki v. Marinay, 2013 (“Fujiki helped Marinay to
obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan”)
-Medina v. Koike, 2016 (Jointly filed)
- now, in 2018, this case.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the court cannot entirely grant Manalo’s petition because before a
foreign divorce decree can be recognized in this jurisdiction, the party pleading must :
- prove the divorce as a fact and
- demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.**
[Sec 24 and 25 Rule 132 states that a writing or document may be proven as an official or
public record of a foreign country by either
(1) an official publication or
(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents.
If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be accompanied by
(a) 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
In this case, the Divorce Decree as a fact was sufficiently proven by submitting the following
documents before the court:
1. decision of the Japanese Court allowing the divorce;
2. the Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Osaka, Japan
of the Decree of Divorce; and
3. Acceptance Certificate of Divorce by Manalo and Minoro.
 GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III
Cipriano Orbecido and Lady Villanueva are both Filipino, and were married in the Philippines.

Lady went to the United States, became naturalized as a foreign citizen, and later obtained a divorce decree
and remarried, now with a certain Innocent Stanley.

Thereafter, Orbecido filed a petition for authority to remarry, invoking Par 2 of Art 26 of family Code.

No opposition was filed, the court found merit == granted.

Subsequently, OSG questioned the lower court’s decision , contending that the provision invoked in the FC
only applies to mixed marriages.

SC – did not agree with the OSG.

- That the legislative intent is 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.

- elements for the application of said provision was satisfied:

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 capacitating him or her to remarry.

That the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties when divorce is obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.

 SC declared in this case that “ the twin requisites for the application of said provision are both present
in this case. Thus, Cipriano, the ‘divorced’ Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.”
However, Orbecido was not able to submit competent evidence to prove his allegation concerning
the divorce decree and the naturalization of Lady.
 Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, Orbecido
 Must prove the divorce as a fact, and
 Demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
 Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of
foreign laws, and
 That the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in
art 26.
Thus, in this case, SC ruled that in the absence of sufficient evidence submited and on
record, it was unable to declare, based on Orbecido’s bare allegations, that Lady was
naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried
and American, that Orbecido is now capacitated to remarry.
RP v. Manalo
– a mixed marriage from the start;
Filipina and Japanese
-The Filipina was the one who initiated
and then obtained the divorce decree.
-The SC recognized the divorce decree,
subject to the submission of pertinent
evidence as to the relevant Japanese law
on divorce
RP v. Orbecido
-marriage of both Filipinos at the start,
but later became a mixed one when
Lady became a naturalized citizen of
America.
-The naturalized Filipino was the one
who obtained the Divorce decree.
-The SC declared that the divorced
Filipino spouse should be allowed to
remarry when the twin requisites under
par2 of art 26 of the FC is satisfied
(although the grant of his petition by the
RTC was set aside for failing to submit
the necessary evidence to prove his
allegations)
GR NO. 186571. August 11, 2010
Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General

Gerbert Corpuz was already a naturalized Canadian Citizen when he married

Daisylyn Sto Tomas, a Filipina.

He continued to work in America, and when one day, he went home to surprise
his wife, he was shocked to discover that Daisylyn was having an affair with
another man.

He returned to America and filed and obtained a divorce decree.

Thereafter, desirous marrying another Filipina, he went to the Pasig City
Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and
Daisylyn’s marriage certificate. However, pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4,
series of 1982, for the foreign divorce decree to be enforceable, it must first
be judicially recognized by the competent court.

Hence Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or
declaration of marriage as dissolved.

 RTC : pursuant to par 2, art 26 of the fC, only the Filipino souse can avail of
the remedy. Gerbert is a naturalized Canadian citizen, he is not the proper
party to file the suit.
SC  agreed to RTC
 but Gerbert is not stripped 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 sec 48, Rule 39:

Effect of foreign judgments and 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 onclusive upon a 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 subsequen title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelle by evidence of a want
ofjurisdiction, want of noticeto the party, collusion, fraudulent or clearmistake of law
or fact.
 - as to the proof necessary to be proven,(sec 24 rule 132).

 records show that gerbert attached tohis petitoin a copy of the divorce
decree,a s wll as the required certificates proving it suthenivty, but failed to include
a copy of the canadian law on divorce.
FUNERAL BENEFITS

Funeral benefit is intended to help defray the expenses incident to the

burial and funeral of the deceased member, pensioner or retiree. It is
payable to any qualified individual, in accordance with the
following order of priority:
(a) legitimate spouse;
(b) legitimate child who spent for the funeral services; or
(c) any other person who can show incontrovertibly proof that he
shouldered the funeral expenses of the deceased.

[Retiree- someone who has retired from working, nonworking]

 LIFE INSURANCE BENEFIT

The GSIS life insurance is compulsory and

available to all employees, except for Members
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine National Police.