The Supreme Court ruled that for a Filipino citizen to remarry after a foreign divorce, they must first obtain judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree in the Philippines. This recognition is essential to establish the validity of the divorce and to be entitled to the legal effects of remarriage, including the issuance of a passport under the new married name. The court emphasized that proving the divorce decree alone is insufficient; the relevant foreign law under which the divorce was obtained must also be presented and proven in court.

Navigating Marital Status: Can a Foreign Divorce Guarantee a New Philippine Passport?

This case revolves around Edelina T. Ando’s petition to compel the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to issue her a Philippine passport under the surname of her second husband, Masatomi Y. Ando. Edelina had previously been married to Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese national, who obtained a divorce in Japan. Believing the divorce capacitated her to remarry, Edelina married Masatomi. However, the DFA refused to issue her a passport under her second husband’s name without a competent court decision validating her marriage to Masatomi. The central legal question is whether a foreign divorce, obtained by a non-Filipino spouse, automatically allows a Filipino spouse to remarry and secure a passport reflecting their new marital status without prior judicial recognition of the divorce in the Philippines.

The petitioner initially filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking a declaration of the validity of her marriage to Masatomi and an order compelling the DFA to issue her a passport under the name ‘Edelina Ando y Tungol.’ The RTC dismissed the petition, stating that Edelina had not obtained judicial recognition of her divorce from her first husband, Yuichiro. This meant that under Philippine law, she was still considered married to Yuichiro when she married Masatomi, rendering her second marriage potentially bigamous. The RTC emphasized that only a family court had the authority to rule on the validity of the divorce.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court highlighted two critical procedural errors made by the petitioner. First, the Court pointed out that Edelina should have initially appealed the DFA’s refusal to issue her a passport to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, as stipulated under Republic Act No. 8239, also known as the Philippine Passport Act of 1996. This Act provides a clear administrative remedy for individuals aggrieved by decisions related to passport issuance. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 8239 detail the documentary requirements for married women seeking passports under their spouse’s name, including the presentation of a certified true copy of the marriage contract and, in cases of divorce, a duly authenticated Divorce Decree.

The law specifically provides a recourse for denial of a passport application. Section 9 of R.A. 8239 states:

Sec. 9. Appeal. — Any person who feels aggrieved as a result of the application of this Act of the implementing rules and regulations issued by the Secretary shall have the right to appeal to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs from whose decision judicial review may be had to the Courts in due course.

The IRR further elaborates on this right to appeal, setting a timeframe for the appeal process. Instead of exhausting this administrative remedy, Edelina prematurely sought judicial intervention.

Building on this procedural misstep, the Supreme Court addressed the substantive issue of recognizing foreign divorces in the Philippines. It reiterated the established principle that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse may be recognized in the Philippines, provided that the divorce is valid under the national law of that foreign spouse. This principle was thoroughly discussed in Garcia v. Recio, where the Supreme Court clarified the requirements for recognizing foreign divorce decrees.

The Court emphasized that merely presenting the divorce decree is insufficient. The party seeking recognition must also present evidence of the foreign spouse’s national law to prove the validity of the divorce under that law. Philippine courts do not automatically take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments. As such, the law on evidence mandates that both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien spouse be alleged and proven as facts.

The Supreme Court in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas further reinforced this principle:

Because our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment, our law on evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven and like any other fact.

In Edelina’s case, the Supreme Court found insufficient evidence on record regarding the national law of her first husband, Yuichiro Kobayashi, and the validity of the divorce decree under that law. Without such evidence, the Court could not declare the divorce valid, which is a prerequisite for recognizing her subsequent marriage to Masatomi. Thus, the correct course of action for Edelina would have been to file a petition for the judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from Yuichiro.

While the Court acknowledged that a petition for authority to remarry can sometimes be treated as a petition for declaratory relief, as noted in Republic v. Orbecido III, it could not grant Edelina’s prayer due to the lack of evidence regarding the foreign law. Therefore, any declaration regarding the validity of the divorce can only be made after she submits complete evidence proving the divorce decree and the relevant foreign law in a properly instituted action.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a Filipino citizen could remarry and obtain a passport under her new married name based on a foreign divorce decree obtained by her foreign spouse, without first securing judicial recognition of that divorce in the Philippines.
What did the court rule?	The court ruled that judicial recognition of the foreign divorce is required before a Filipino citizen can remarry and be entitled to the legal effects of remarriage, such as obtaining a passport under her new married name.
What evidence is needed to recognize a foreign divorce in the Philippines?	You need to present both the divorce decree and evidence of the foreign law under which the divorce was obtained to prove its validity. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws.
What should Edelina have done first to get her passport?	Edelina should have first appealed the DFA’s decision to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, as provided under the Philippine Passport Act, before seeking judicial intervention.
What type of petition should Edelina have filed?	Edelina should have filed a petition for judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from her first husband before seeking a declaration of validity for her second marriage.
Can a petition for authority to remarry be considered a petition for declaratory relief?	Yes, under certain circumstances, a petition for authority to remarry can be treated as a petition for declaratory relief, but sufficient evidence must still be presented to prove the validity of the divorce.
Why was Edelina’s petition denied?	Edelina’s petition was denied because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies with the DFA and did not provide sufficient evidence of the divorce decree and the relevant foreign law to prove its validity.
What is the next step for Edelina to have her second marriage recognized?	Edelina needs to file a petition for judicial recognition of her foreign divorce and present evidence of both the divorce decree and the relevant Japanese law to the court.

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of following the correct legal procedures when dealing with foreign divorces and remarriage in the Philippines. It clarifies that merely obtaining a divorce decree abroad is insufficient; judicial recognition of the divorce, supported by evidence of the relevant foreign law, is necessary to ensure the validity of subsequent actions, such as remarriage and passport issuance.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ando v. Department of Foreign Affairs, G.R. No. 195432, August 27, 2014