In Republic vs. Cote, the Supreme Court clarified the procedural rules for recognizing foreign divorce decrees in the Philippines, particularly when one spouse is a Filipino citizen. The Court affirmed that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which governs annulment and nullity of marriage, does not apply to cases involving the recognition of foreign divorce. Instead, these cases are governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, impacting the requirements for appeal and subsequent remarriage of the Filipino spouse. This ruling ensures that Filipinos divorced abroad by a foreign national can have their civil status recognized in the Philippines, allowing them to remarry.

Navigating Divorce Across Borders: When Can a Filipino Remarry After a Foreign Divorce?

This case arose after Florie Grace M. Cote, a Filipino citizen, sought recognition in the Philippines of a divorce decree obtained by her then-husband, Rhomel Gagarin Cote, in Hawaii. They were married in the Philippines but Rhomel later obtained a divorce in the U.S. after he became an American citizen. Florie then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to recognize the foreign divorce and to cancel her marriage contract in the civil registry. The RTC granted Florie’s petition, declaring her capacitated to remarry. However, the Republic appealed, arguing that the RTC erred in its application of procedural rules. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the Republic’s petition, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.

The central legal issue was whether the procedural rules for nullity of marriage proceedings under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC apply to a case for recognition of a foreign divorce decree. The Supreme Court emphasized that Philippine law does not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino citizens. However, Article 26 of the Family Code provides an exception. It addresses marriages between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, stating that if a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, capacitating them to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

The Supreme Court has previously clarified that the crucial point is the citizenship of the parties at the time the divorce is obtained. In Republic v. Orbecido III, the Court ruled that the determining factor is not the citizenship at the time of marriage but at the time the divorce is validly obtained abroad. This means that even if both parties were Filipino citizens at the time of marriage, if one becomes a naturalized citizen of another country and obtains a divorce abroad, the Filipino spouse can benefit from the divorce and remarry under Philippine law.

Despite the recognition of foreign divorce, the Filipino spouse cannot automatically remarry. They must first file a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce in the Philippines. The Court has clarified the necessity of this step because Philippine courts do not automatically recognize foreign judgments or laws. As Justice Herrera explained, “no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country.” This principle necessitates that the foreign judgment and the relevant foreign law be proven as facts according to Philippine rules of evidence.

The petition filed by Florie with the RTC was intended to recognize the divorce decree obtained by her naturalized husband in Hawaii. By impleading the Civil Registry of Quezon City and the National Statistics Office (NSO), she sought the cancellation or correction of entries regarding her marital status. This is typically achieved through a proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which governs the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.

The Supreme Court has previously addressed the relationship between recognition proceedings and cancellation of entries under Rule 108. In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, et al., the Court noted that Article 412 of the Civil Code mandates a judicial order before any entry in a civil register can be changed or corrected. Rule 108 supplements this by detailing the jurisdictional and procedural requirements for such judicial orders, including filing a verified petition with the RTC, making the civil registrar and interested parties parties to the proceedings, and publishing the hearing notice in a newspaper of general circulation. The Court also clarified that a single proceeding can serve both to recognize the foreign decree and to cancel the corresponding entry in the civil registry.

The RTC initially granted Florie’s petition based on her marriage to an American citizen and her compliance with legal requirements. However, the confusion arose when the RTC denied the Republic’s appeal for failing to file a prior motion for reconsideration, citing Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. The Republic argued that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to recognition of foreign divorce cases, as it only governs petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages. Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly states, “This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines.”

The Supreme Court agreed that the CA was correct in ruling that the trial court misapplied Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. A decree of absolute divorce procured abroad is distinct from annulment as defined by Philippine family laws. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers only void and voidable marriages that are specifically enumerated in the Family Code. Void and voidable marriages involve situations where the basis for nullity or annulment exists before or at the time of the marriage, effectively treating the marriage as if it never existed. Divorce, conversely, terminates a legally valid marriage due to circumstances arising after the marriage.

Therefore, the RTC erred in using Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC as the basis for denying the Republic’s appeal. Because Florie followed the procedure for cancellation of entry in the civil registry, a special proceeding governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the RTC decision should be governed by Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. This section dictates that an appeal must be filed within fifteen days from notice of the judgment or final order, which the Republic had complied with. Therefore, the Republic’s appeal was improperly denied.

The Supreme Court clarified that while the RTC erroneously applied A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, this error did not amount to grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” It must be patent and gross, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. In this case, the Court found no indication that the RTC acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or whimsically in arriving at its decision. Florie had sufficiently complied with the jurisdictional requirements, and the lower court rendered judgment recognizing the foreign divorce decree and declaring her legally capacitated to remarry. Thus, the CA was correct in denying the petition for certiorari, even though the RTC’s dismissal of the appeal was erroneous.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the procedural rules for nullity of marriage proceedings (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) apply to cases involving the recognition of a foreign divorce decree in the Philippines. The Court ruled that they do not.
What is the effect of a foreign divorce on a Filipino citizen?	If a foreigner validly obtains a divorce abroad, and they are married to a Filipino, the Filipino spouse also has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law, provided the divorce is recognized in the Philippines.
Do Philippine courts automatically recognize foreign divorce decrees?	No, Philippine courts do not automatically recognize foreign judgments or laws. The foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under Philippine rules of evidence.
What procedure must a Filipino citizen follow to remarry after a foreign divorce?	The Filipino spouse must file a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce in the Philippines before they can remarry. This is typically done through a proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
What is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court?	Rule 108 governs the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. It outlines the procedural requirements for obtaining a judicial order to change or correct entries, including those related to marital status.
What was the error made by the Regional Trial Court in this case?	The RTC erroneously applied Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which pertains to annulment and nullity of marriage, to deny the Republic’s appeal in a case involving recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
What rule should have been applied for the appeal in this case?	The appeal should have been governed by Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which dictates the period for filing an appeal from a decision in a special proceeding like the cancellation of entry in the civil registry.
What is considered as grave abuse of discretion by a court?	Grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. It must be patent and gross, amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Republic vs. Cote clarifies the proper procedure for Filipinos seeking to have foreign divorce decrees recognized in the Philippines. It underscores the importance of adhering to the correct rules of procedure, ensuring that Filipinos are not unduly burdened in exercising their right to remarry after a foreign divorce. This ruling provides valuable guidance for individuals navigating the complexities of international family law.

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: Republic of the Philippines vs. Florie Grace M. Cote, G.R. No. 212860, March 14, 2018