DE FACTO SEPARATION; EFFECTS ON PERSONAL
Mom cannot vest custody in maternal grandma instead
RELATIONS; CHILDREN
Art 211 FC. [DE FACTO SEP; RELATIONS WITH CHILDREN] The father
and the mother shall jointly exercise parental authority over the
persons of their common children. In case of disagreement, the
father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the
contrary.
Children shall always observe respect and reverence towards their
parents and are obliged to obey them as long as the children are
under parental authority. (311a)
1. Joint parental authority.
a. But mom’s authority is sub to that of dad in case of
conflict; since latter is head of family
b. Art 225: in case of disagreement, dad is preferred in
administration of property of children.
c. Art 14: right to give or deny consent to marriage of
child is dad’s first.
d. Art 2180 CC: responsibility of quasi-delicts of child is
vested in dad
i. Only in case of death or incapacity of dad shall
these be given to mom.
e. If spouses fail to come up with an agreement, Court
shall decide who shall have custody and who shall have
visitation rights (based on Art 213 FC1).
f. Tender Years Presumption – that only mother can
provide love and other basic needs of child of tender
years (7 y.o.)
g. Whether the child is below or above (7) years, Court
decides whether there are compelling reasons for
custody to be given to dad (if below 7), or to parent
not chosen.
2. Adopted children.
a. if adopted by only (1) parent  authority of that
parent only.
b. If both adopted  joint authority
3. Illegitimate children.
a. Authority of mother (Art 176)
b. But if mom marries other than dad of such child 
Court may appoint guardian, if better for child.
4. Authority limited to parents.
a. As long as alive and have not lost authority.
i. Otherwise, other relatives take over as provided
by law.
ii. If not relative, appointed guardian.
iii. Or asylum, or orphanage, person (adoption) etc.
iv. Aunt of minors, by virtue of relationship per se,
is not entitled to such legal custody.
b. Even if parents are minors.
1 parent so chosen be unfit to take charge of the child by reason of moral
Art 213 FC. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be
exercised by the parent designated by the Court. The Court shall take into
account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over (7)
years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit:
- Poverty
- Moral depravity
- Habitual drunkenness
SEC. 6. Proceedings as to child whose parents are separated. Appeal. When
husband and wife are divorced or living separately and apart from each
other, and the question as to the care, custody and control of a child or
children of their marriage is brought before a Regional Trial Court by petition
or as an incident to any other proceeding, the court, upon hearing the
testimony as may be pertinent, shall award the care, custody and control of
each such child as will be for its best interest, permitting the child to choose
which parent it prefers to live with if it be over ten years of age, unless the
c.
of father.
5. Follows parents.
a. Exercise of rights of parental authority is governed by
national law; parent exercising it, although residing
abroad with children, does not lose such right, but
carried it wherever.
6. Duties of children.
a. To obey parents as long as they are under parental
authority  temporary.
b. To respect and honor them at all times  forever.
i. Mother: should always be held sacred, honored,
venerated, because of sacrifices. All the more
reason to if she is illiterate, unfortunate, etc.
ii. Duty does not mean child is barred from fulfilling
legal/ moral/ social obligations as expense of
said reverence.
c. Sanction of duties:
i. Criminal liability upon complaint of parents (Act
No. 402).
ii. Art 223 FC: remedy provided to enforce parental
authority.
iii. Duty of children after emancipation does not
have civil/criminal sanction, EXCEPT when
disrespect amount to physical maltreatment or
grossly insulting language (ground for
disinheritance).
7. Santos, Sr. v CA: Only when the parent present is shown to be
unfit or unsuitable may the grandparents exercise substitute
parental authority.
8. Sy v CA & Perez v CA: The foremost consideration in
determining which parent will have custody of child is always
welfare and best interest of the child; foremost consideration
is the physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the
child.
DE FACTO SEPARATION; EFFECT ON PROPERTY
Art 127 FC. The separation in fact between husband and wife shall
not affect the regime of conjugal partnership, except that:
(1) The spouse who leaves the conjugal home or refuses to live
therein, without just cause, shall not have the right to be
supported;
(2) When the consent of one spouse to any transaction of the other
is required by law, judicial authorization shall be obtained in a
summary proceeding;
(3) In the absence of sufficient conjugal partnership property, the
separate property of both spouses shall be solidarily liable for the
depravity, habitual drunkenness, incapacity, or poverty. If upon such hearing,
it appears that both parents are improper persons to have the care, custody,
and control of the child, the court may either designate the paternal or
maternal grandparent of the child, or his oldest brother or sister, or some
reputable and discreet person to take charge of such child, or commit it to
any suitable asylum, childrens home, or benevolent society. The court may in
conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code order either or both parents
to support or help support said child, irrespective of who may be its
custodian, and may make any order that is just and reasonable permitting
the parent who is deprived of its care and custody to visit the child or have
temporary custody thereof. Either parent may appeal from an order made in
accordance with the provisions of this section. No child under seven years of
age shall be separated from its mother, unless the court finds there are
compelling reasons therefor.
support of the family. The spouse present shall, upon petition in a
summary proceeding, be given judicial authority to administer or
encumber any specific separate property of the other spouse and
use the fruits or proceeds thereof to satisfy the latter's
share. (178a)
1. [Comments same as article 100.]
DE FACTO SEPARATION; EFFECT ON PROPERTY;
CONSENT TO TRANSACTIONS
1. Admin and enjoyment of properties belonging to ACP or CPG
belong to both spouses jointly2.
2. Acts of ownership such as sale, mortgage of props require
written authority of both spouses without which disposition or
encumbrance shall be void.
3. Spouse may not donate any property w/o consent of other,
except for moderate gifts during times of happiness or grief.3
4. Unavailability of such requires judicial authorization (but only
subsidiary) to be able to sustain family.
Art 239 FC. When a husband and wife are separated in fact, or one
has abandoned the other and one of them seeks judicial
authorization for a transaction where the consent of the other
spouse is required by law, but such consent is withheld or cannot
be obtained, a verified petition may be filed in court alleging the
foregoing facts.
The petition shall attach the proposed deed, if any, embodying the
transaction, and, if none, shall describe in detail the said
transaction and state the reason why the required consent thereto
cannot be secured. In any case, the final deed duly executed by the
parties shall be submitted to and approved by the court. (n)
Art 242 FC. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall notify the
other spouse, whose consent to the transaction is required, of said
petition, ordering said spouse to show cause why the petition
should not be granted, on or before the date set in said notice for
the initial conference. The notice shall be accompanied by a copy
of the petition and shall be served at the last known address of the
spouse concerned. (n)
Art 246 FC. If the petition is not resolved at the initial conference,
said petition shall be decided in a summary hearing on the basis of
affidavits, documentary evidence or oral testimonies at the sound
discretion of the court. If testimony is needed, the court shall
specify the witnesses to be heard and the subject-matter of their
testimonies, directing the parties to present said witnesses. (n)
Art 247 FC. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final
and executory. (n)
DE FACTO SEPARATION; EFFECTS ON PROPERTY;
ADINISTRATION OF PROPERTY; COMMON PROPERTY
Partosa v CA
*Abandonment – a departure by one spouse with the avowed intent
never to return  Spouse, within (3) mos) who has left conjugal
2 Art 124 FC
3 Art 125 FC
4 (6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact
Article 178(3). The separation in fact between husband and wife without
judicial approval, shall not affect the conjugal partnership, except that:
(3) If the husband has abandoned the wife without just cause for at least
one year, she may petition the court for a receivership, or administration by
her of the conjugal partnership property, or separation of property. (n)
dwelling, or failed to give info as to his/her whereabouts, shall prima
facie be presumed to have no intention of returning to conjugal
dwelling; that spouse did not at least provide for one’s family
although able to.
1. Art 178(3) CC4:
a. This has already been superseded by Art 128 FC: “If a
spouse w/o just cause abandons the other or fails to
comply with his or her obligations to the family, the
aggrieved spouse may petition the court for
receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for
authority to be the sole administrator of the conjugal
partnership property, subject to such precautionary
conditions as the court may impose.
b. Obligations to fam refer to marital, parental or
property relations.
c. As early as 1942, Jo already rejected Partosa when he
refused to accept her sa home  shows lack of
intention to resume conjugal relationship.
d. Partosa may also invoke that Jo failed, w/o just cause,
to comply with his obligations to the fam  he had
other women and children!
e. (SIDENOTE: although the original case used the Civil
Code as legal basis, the decision of the SC used the FC
because courts, upon the appeal of a previous
decision, will abide by intermediate changes in the
law which may render previous decisions erroneous),
2. Art 135 FC(6)5
a. Can assert that after (1) year, reconciliation is highly
improbable.
DE FACTO SEPARATION; EFFECTS ON PROPERTY;
ADINISTRATION OF PROPERTY; SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR
JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF PROPERTY
1. Art 135(4) FC: a person whose spouse had abandoned him or
her or failed to comply with his/her obligations to fam may ask
for a judicial separation of property.
2. Spouse is deemed to have abandoned other when s/he left
conjugal home w/o intention of returning.
3. Spouse who left conjugal dwelling for (3) mos or failed within
same period to give any info as to his/her whereabouts shall be
prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the
conjugal home.
4. Each spouse may own exclusively all his own earnings and fruits
of his separate property.
5. Obligation to support children continues.
a. Contribution is proportionate to income or property.
6. Mutual obligation to support one another continues, unlike in
LS where property and personal relations cease.
DE FACTO SEPARATION; EFFECTS ON PROPERTY;
ADINISTRATION OF PROPERTY; EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
OF OTHER SPOUSE
1. Additional remedy for spouse left behind: law allows him/her
to obtain court approval to administer exclusive property of
5Art 135(6): Any of the ff shall be considered sufficient cause for judicial
separation of property:
for at least (1) year and reconciliation is highly improbable.
 other spouse who has been judicially declared absentee (Art
142(2).
2. Also allowed when one spouse becomes a fugitive from justice
or is in hiding as an accused in a criminal case.
OTHER REMEDIES
1. RA 9262 Anti-VAWC Act: If husband abandoned wife, she may
resort to application of protection order.
a. Depriving/threatening to deprive woman or her
children of financial support legally due her or her
fam.
b. Deliberately providing insufficient financial support
for woman’s children. With purpose of controlling or
restricting woman or children’s movement/conduct.
c. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule
or humiliation to woman or children.
d. Denying financial support/custody of minor children.
2. Protection order – purpose of “safeguarding victim from
further harm, minimizing any disruption in victim’s daily life,
facilitating opportunity and ability of victim to independently
regain control over her life”
a. May compel hubby to provide support for wife and
children.
b. By ordering appropriate % of income or salary of
respondent to be withheld regularly by respondent’s
employer, and automatically remitted to woman.
c. Failure to remit/withhold or delay of such w/o
justification shall render respondent and employer
liable for indirect contempt.
d. Types:
i. Barangay Protection Order (BPO)
ii. Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
iii. Permanent Protection Order (PPO)
DIVORCE
DIVORCE; BRIEF HISTORY
[JUST READ MA’AM BOOK, IT’S SO LONG]
DIVORCE; ABSOLUTE DIVORCE V OTHER REMEDIES
1. LEGAL SEPARATION AND SEPARATION DE FACTO
a. Legal separation is relative divorce (Art 55 FC).
b. LS: (separation of bed and board) does not result in
dissolution of marital ties but modifies incidents of
marriage relationship by relieving spouses of duty of
living with each other. It does not necessarily affect
their economic rights and duties, since the Court may
order the spouse who gave cause for separation to
provide for support of the innocent spouse and
common children (Art 62 FC)
c. Absolute divorce: (divorce a vincula matrimonii)
termination of legal marriage after which the
marriage vows are permanently severed. Spouses
have no rights or obligs unto each other. It is
therefore essential that court has personal
jurisdiction over the respondent spouse and the
spouses’ ACP/CPG that it seeks to affect by its decree.
d. De facto separation: In case of such separation,
regimes are unaffected. FC enumerates qualifications
for this rule.
i. Spouse who leaves home or refuses to live
there, w/o justifiable cause, shall lose right
to be supported (Art 100 & 127)
ii.
Transaction entered by a spouse during de
facto separation, if law requires consent,
judicial authorization shall be obtained in a
summary proceeding (Art 100 & 127 FC).
iii. In terms of support of fam, if community or
conjugal partnership is insufficient, spouse’s
separate property shall be solidarily liable,
via judicial authority to administer/
encumber any specific property to satisfy
latter’s share.
2. ANNULMENT AND NULLITY
a. Divorce: Grounds emerge only during marriage.
b. Annulment: grounds already existent during
celebration; marriage is considered valid until
annulled; but there is prescription (typically 5 years)
that upon lapse, shall validate marriage forever via
ratification.
c. Nullity: Grounds in Art 35-38 must have already
existed during celebration, EXCEPT for Art 36, which is
dubbed as PH-style-divorce, because of
misconception that it allows for grounds that emerge
during marriage and after celeb.
i. Source of misconception: committee; when
it intended Judicial declaration of nullity to
resolve the church’s opposition to divorce,
deriving from Canon Law its grounds for
annulment.
ii. This misconception also tends to support
those who argue that there is not need for
such since Art 36 already exists.
iii. Marcos v Marcos: Article 36 FC is not to be
confused with divorce law that cuts the
marital bond at the time the causes
therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a
serious psychological illness afflicting a
party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It must be grave, incurable,
antecedent, that prevents persons from
understanding/fulfilling duties and
responsibilities of matrimonial bond under
Art 68, 71, 220, 221, 225.
DIVORCE; FOREIGN DIVORCES
DIVORCE; FOREIGN DIVORCES; FIL CITIZEN
***Art 15 CC. 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. (9a)
1. Two theories on personal law
a. Domiciliary theory – necessary connection between
individual and State is sourced from fact that indiv is
domiciled in that State.
i. Followed in US.
b. Nationality theory – nationality or citizenship is basis
for determining personal laws of indiv.
2. Nationality theory.
a. Started in the Napoleon Code.
b. That the person’s rights should be determined by
political allegiance owing to the awareness during the
French revolution.
3. Application of Article.
a. Purely personal relations, and status and capacity for
juristic acts.
 b. All questions on marriage, legal separation, divorce,
conjugal partnership, support between members of
fam, marital authority are governed exclusively by PH
laws, when Filipinos are involved.
c. Capacity to contract – If under the law of the State of
which the party to a contract is a citizen, he is already
of age, he cannot set such contract aside on the
ground of minority in the PH.
d. Renunciation of allegiance – process of ridding self of
current citizenship concerns his national law.
e. Foreign adoption – Private International Law: status
of adoption, created by law of State having jurisdiction
over it, is given the same effect in another state as is
given by the latter to the status of adoption when
created by its own law.
i. This principle is recognized in PH, EXCEPT when
public policy or interests of its inhabitants forbid
its enforcement and demand the substitution of
the.
4. This article apples to all Filipinos wherever they are residing. It
does not matter that Fil spouses have long domiciled in a
country which allows divorce.
5. Tho courts of competent jurisdiction in the place of domicile
grant divorce, such will not be recognized in PH  we have no
divorce decree  we do not have legal capacity to obtain
divorce  we cannot enter into a subsequent marriage after
divroce.
Art 25 FC. The local civil registrar concerned shall enter all
applications for marriage licenses filed with him in a registry book
strictly in the order in which the same are received. He shall record
in said book the names of the applicants, the date on which the
marriage license was issued, and such other data as may be
necessary. (n)
Art 26 FC. All marriages solemnized outside the PH in accordance
with the laws in force in the country there were solemnized, and
valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those
prohibited under Art 35(1), (4), (5), (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 have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
1. Art 35(1): Those contracted by any party below eighteen years
of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
2. Art 35(4): Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing
under Article 41
a. Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during
subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and
void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent
marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four
consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-
founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger
of death under the circumstances set forth in the
provisions of Article 391 CC, an absence of only two
years shall be sufficient.
3. Art 35(5): Those contracted through mistake of one contracting
party as to the identity of the other; and
4. Art 35(6): Those subsequent marriages that are void under
Article 53.
a. Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again
after compliance with the requirements of the
immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the
subsequent marriage shall be null and void
b. Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute
nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution
of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of
the children's presumptive legitimes shall be
recorded in the appropriate civil registry and
registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not
affect third persons. (n)
5. Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of
the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise
be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.
6. Art. 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and
void from the beginning, whether relationship between the
parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
a. Between ascendants and descendants of any degree;
and
b. Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or
half blood.
7. Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning for reasons of public policy:
a. Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate
or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
b. Between step-parents and step-children;
c. Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
d. Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
e. Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent
and the adopted child;
f. Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child
and the adopter;
g. Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of
the adopter;
h. Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
i. Between parties where one, with the intention to
marry the other, killed that other person's spouse, or
his or her own spouse. (82)
DIVORCE; FOREIGN DIVORCES; BETWEEN TWO FILS
***Art 15 CC. 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. (9a)
SOME RULES ON FOREIGN DIVORCES (Tenchavez v Escano 1965):
1. That a foreign divorce between Fil citizens, sought and
decreed after the effectivity of present CC (RA 386) is not
entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither
is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced
consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce,
entitled to validity in the country.
2. That the marriage of divorces wife and her cohabitation with a
person other than the lawful husband entitle the latter to a
decree of LS conformably to PH law.
3. That the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree
by one consort entitles the other to recover damages.
4. That the action for alienation of affections against the parents
of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of malice
or unworthy motives on their part.
DIVORCE; FOREIGN DIVORCE; FIL AND ALIEN;
MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FIL AND ALIEN
After the case of Tenchacez and Escano, before amendment of Art
26, SC decided the landmark case of Van Dorn Romillo, Jr. which
gave recognition to foreign divorce decree obtained by an alien
spouse married to a Filipino. Court ruled that dissolution of marriage
brought bout by a foreign divorce decree should bind not only the
alien, but also the Fil spouse. This was designed to put an end to the
bizzare situation of a Filipino still being married to a foreigner who,
by the latter’s own law, is no longer married to the Fil.
JURISPRUDENCE
De Facto Separation:
1. Lacson v San Jose: The law allows the separation of property of
the spouses and the dissolution of their conjugal partnership
provided judicial sanction is secured beforehand.
a. “In the absence of an express declaration in the
marriage settlements, the separation of property
between the spouses during the marriage shall not
take place save in virtue of a judicial order” (Art 190,
CC).
b. “The husband and the wife may agree upon the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the
marriage, subject to judicial approval…” (Art 191, CC)
2. Estrada v Escritor: Entering into illicit relationships with a 3rd
persons constitute civil, criminal liability for adultery/
concubinage, or administrative liability for immoral conduct.
3. Banaag v Espeleta: Extra-marital cohabitation as a ground for
immoral conduct, civil and criminal liability.
4. Santos Sr. v CA: Only when the parent present is shown to be
unfit or unsuitable may the grandparents exercise substitute
parental authority.
5. Perez v CA: The foremost consideration in determining which
parent will have custody of child is always welfare and best
interest of the child.
6. Salientes v Abanilla: In absence of judicial grant of custody
(because de facto separated only), both parents are still
entitled to custody of the child.
7. Davidas v Villanueva: In order to entitle a wife to maintain a
separate home and to require separate maintenance from her
husband, it is not necessary that the husband should bring a
concubine into the marital domicile. Repeated illicit relations
with women outside of the marital establishment are enough.
The law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live in
marital relations with a husband whose propensity towards
other women makes common habitation with him unbearable.
8. Chua Ching Beng compared with Del Rosario v Del Rosario:
Relationship problems with in-laws MAY justify de facto
separation.
9. Partosa-Jo v CA: Abandonment – a departure by one spouse
with the avowed intent never to return Spouse, within (3)
mos) who has left conjugal dwelling, or failed to give info as to
his/her whereabouts, shall prima facie be presumed to have no
intention of returning to conjugal dwelling; that spouse did not
at least provide for one’s family although able to.
Divorce:
10. Tenchavez v Escano: Divorce obtained abroad by Fil against Fil
spouse is unrecognized in PH.
11. Judge Sempio-Diy: Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code was
enacted to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino still being
married to his or her alien spouse, although the latter is no
longer married because of a divorce obtained abroad that is
recognized by his or her national law.
a. The main opinion cites the following SC decisions
where it recognized foreign divorce and extended its
legal effects:
12. Repulic v. Obercido III: Art 26(2), allowing former spouses of
aliens, who obtained divorce abroad, to remarry under PH laws,
includes those whose spouse were naturalized at the time the
divorce was obtained. Citizenship at time of divorce decree was
obtained is considered, NOT at time of marriage.
13. Van Dorn v. Romillo: Gave recognition to foreign divorce
decree obtained by an alien spouse married to a Filipino
14. Fujiki v. Marinay: Prior foreign spouse can petition to nullify
bigamous marriage in a foreign court.
A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects
the civil status, condition and legal capacity of its parties.
However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To
extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines,
Philippine courts must... determine if the foreign judgment is
consistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory
laws.[60] Art 15 CC provides that "[l]aws 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." This is the rule of lex nationalii in private
international law. Thus, the Philippine State may require, for
effectivity in the Philippines, recognition by Philippine courts of
a foreign judgment... affecting its citizen, over whom it
exercises personal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition
and legal capacity of such citizen.
A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage
void does not require relitigation under a Philippine court of the
case as if it were a new petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage. Philippine courts cannot presume to know the foreign
laws under which the... foreign judgment was rendered. They
cannot substitute their judgment on the status, condition and
legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is under the jurisdiction
of another state. Thus, Philippine courts can only recognize the
foreign judgment as a fact according to... the rules of evidence.
15. Medina v. Koike: The Filipina and her foreign husband jointly
files for a divorce. It must be proven as a fact according to the
Rules on Evidence.
16. Pilapil v Ibay-Somera: Where a foreign court has granted
divorce between the alien spouse and Filipino, the divorce
decree binds the Filipino spouse as well.
17. Llorente v CA: Aliens, (In this case, Lorenzo became an alien by
virtue of his naturalization in the US) meanwhile, may obtain
absolute divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to
law.
18. Corpuz v Sto Tomas: 26(2) is meant to benefit the Filipino
spouse ONLY. In this case though, foreign spouse was granted
recognition of foreign judgment since it will also benefit his Fil
spouse.
19. Manalo: Ma’am says she did not like the ruling here, not
because it was unpleasant, but because it was legally wrong. PH
may only recognize divorce decrees from abroad if it is
OBTAINED (versus initiated) by the foreign spouse. Not the
Filipino. (NOTE: Please correct me if I’m wrong)
20. Quita v CA: The Court therein hinted, by way of obiter dictum,
that a Filipino (Obrecido) divorced by his naturalized foreign
spouse (Villanueva) is no longer married under Phil law and can
thus remarry.
EVIDENCE OF FOREIGN DIVORCES
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132
Garcia v Recio:

1. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our

courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact
and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
a. It is insufficient to just present the divorce decree.
2. Under Sections 246 and 257 of Rule 132, a writing or document
may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country
by either:
a. an official publication
b. a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal
custody of the document.
3. If the document isn’t kept in the Philippines, the copy must be
a. accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine
Foreign Service stationed in that foreign country in
which the record is kept
b. authenticated by the seal of his office

CONCLUSION BY MA’AM (after discussing Fujiki):

From these cases, we can observe the restrictive substantive and

procedural rules that attend the recognition of foreign divorce
decrees involving Filipinos. To simplify these convoluted laws and
avoid the unjust results of an unrecognized foreign judgment, our
laws should give legal effect to a divorce decree obtained abroad,
regardless of whether it was the alien or Filipino spouse who filed
the petition, for as long as their marital domicile was in that
foreign State.

6
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents
referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, 7Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation
the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the
that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office. (25a)