Facts:
Maria, a Filipino national, and her husband, Karl, a German national were married in 1990, and blessed with two kids. In 2006, Maria filed a dissolution of her marriage in the state of Nevada, USA, and the same was granted.
Maria then filed a petition for recognition of her divorce decree obtained from the US before the Regional Trial Court of Mambajao, Camiguin. The RTC, however, dismissed the petition, ratiocinating that as a Filipino citizen who herself filed the divorce, she is not allowed to file the petition, as Article 26(2) of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree only if the divorce decree is obtained abroad by the alien spouse.
Maria went up to the Supreme Court on direct recourse, on the issue of whether or not a divorce decree dissolving a marriage between a Filipino spouse and a foreign national, which was obtained by the former, can be judicially recognized in the Philippines.
Ruling:
The Court granted the petition, reiterating its ruling in Republic v. Manalo:
“Paragraph 2 of Article speaks of “a divorce… validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.” Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is bound by the words of the statute; neither can We put words in the mouths of the lawmakers. “The legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute. Verbal egis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.”
Assuming for the sake of argument, that the word “obtained” should be interpreted to mean that the divorce proceedings must be actually initiated by the alien spouse, still, the Court will not follow the letter of the statute when to do so would depart from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Laws have ends to achieve, and statutes should be so construed as not to defeat but to carry out such ends and purposes. As held in League of Cities of the Phils. Et al v. COMELEC, et al.:
The legislative intent is not at all times accurately reflected in the manner in which the resulting law is couched. Thus, applying a verbal egis or strictly literal interpretation of the statute may render it meaningless and lead to inconvenience, an absurd situation or injustice. To obviate this aberration, and bearing in mind the principle that the intent or spirit of the law is the law itself, resort should be to the rule that the spirit of the law controls its letter.
To reiterate, the purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the 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. The provision is a corrective measure tov address an anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country. Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce decree proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instances, it 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.”
In the Matter of Petition of the Judicial Recognition of Divorce Decree obtained in the State of Nevada, U.S.A.; Maria Josephine Praxedes Octaviano, petitioner, vs. Karl Heinz Ruthe and Lisa Grace S. Bernales, respondents
G.R. No. 218009, June 26, 2023
Kho, Jr. J.: