CYNTHIA A. GALAPON, PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 243722 (Formerly UDK-16060), January 22, 2020
FACTS:
Cynthia Galapon, a Filipino citizen, and Noh Shik Park, a South Korean national, got married in Manila, on February 27, 2012, but divorced by mutual agreement in South Korea on July 16, 2012, by the Cheongju Local Court. Cynthia filed before the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, a Petition for the Judicial Recognition of a Foreign Divorce, which the case was ordered to be heard and its notice was published in The Daily Tribune once per week for three consecutive weeks. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Notice of Appearance for the Republic of the Philippines with the assistance of the Provincial Prosecutor of Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
Abigail Galapon represented her sister Cynthia and claimed that her sister could not personally testify due to the expiration of her Korean visa. Abigail alleged that Park intended to marry his former girlfriend, thus he threatened Cynthia’s life and forced her to agree to the divorce. The RTC granted the Recognition Petition, but the OSG filed a Petition for Reconsideration arguing that (1) the case should have been filed at the RTC of Manila City and (2) absolute divorce is not applicable in the case.
The Petition for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC of Santo Domingo, Nueva Ecija, thus the OSG elevated the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA (1) held that courts cannot motu propio dismiss an action on the ground of improper venue. However, (2) it upheld that absolute divorce cannot be granted since it was through a mutual agreement and not initiated by the foreign spouse as stated in Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court of appeals erred in denying the recognition of the divorce decree obtained by Cynthia and her foreign spouse.
HELD:
Yes. Article 26 of the family code states that “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38 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 likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
In the recent case of Manalo the Court extended the scope [of] Article 26 (2) and removed the distinction between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding and a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated the 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.
The fact that the couple obtained divorce through a mutual agreement does not assail Article 26(2) of the Family Code which states that a Filipino spouse can remarry whenever the foreign spouse obtained divorce capacitating him or her to remarry
Pursuant to the majority in the Manalo case, Article 26 (2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is:
- obtained by the foreign spouse
- obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and
- obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.
Hence, the divorce decree obtained by Park, with or without Cynthia’s conformity, falls within the scope of Article 26 (2) and merits recognition in this jurisdiction.