SC told to dismiss petition to recognize foreign divorces

By Erika Mae P. Sinaking, Reporter

THE Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday has been told that recognizing a foreign divorce obtained by a then-Filipino spouse could unsettle exceptions under the Family Code, a move that could potentially shift the country’s rigid stance on marital dissolution for dual citizens and transnational families.

During oral arguments, in which Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan took part in the questioning, the High Tribunal heard the petition of a natural-born Filipino who secured a divorce in the US in 2010 while still a Philippine citizen. The petitioner later became an American and eventually reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225.

Counsel for the petitioner, Melvin D.C. Mane, argued that denying recognition of the foreign decree would effectively “render the petitioner a lesser Filipino.” He said reacquisition of citizenship is meant to restore fully a natural-born Filipino’s “political and civil rights without discrimination or undue diminution,” adding that the relevant reckoning point for citizenship should be when recognition is sought, not when the divorce was obtained.

Without recognition, he said, his client remains in a dilemma, considered unmarried under US law but still married under Philippine law.

However, Solicitor General Darlene Marie B. Berberabe opposed the petition, arguing that the “narrow exception” under Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines does not apply because “both spouses were Filipinos at the time of divorce.”

“This petition should be dismissed,” Ms. Berberabe told the court en banc, noting the petitioner had earlier failed to secure a declaration of nullity before a regional trial court prior to obtaining the US divorce. She added that the tribunal must adhere to current constitutional and statutory policies until Congress enacts a divorce law.

“I would join this Honorable Court and the Amici in giving all the data, all the arguments to our Congress in order to consider and pass a law that will address the many issues that are confronting the Filipinos because of the present state of our law” Ms. Berberabe said.

Based on the petitioner’s own admissions discussed during interpellation by Mr. Gaerlan, the petitioner first sought a declaration of nullity in 2006, which was denied for lack of merit. He later moved to the United States, obtained a divorce on Oct. 18, 2010, and remarried on Nov. 8, 2010, at a time when his first marriage remained legally valid under Philippine law. He subsequently became a naturalized US citizen in 2019 and reacquired Philippine citizenship in 2020.

For the Office of the Solicitor General, these dates are decisive. Ms. Berberabe said Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code was crafted as a limited remedy for cases where a foreign spouse obtains a divorce that leaves the Filipino spouse bound to a marriage that no longer exists abroad.

The case comes amid evolving jurisprudence, with the court in 2024 allowing recognition of judicial, administrative, or mutually obtained foreign divorces, and in 2025 clarifying evidentiary requirements for proving foreign law.

The Philippines remains one of only two sovereign states without a national divorce law, alongside Vatican City, relying instead on annulment or declaration of nullity.

Elizabeth H. Aguiling-Pangalangan of the University of the Philippines College of Law said unresolved cross-border divorces distort property, succession and family relations, because an heir or spouse recognized abroad may be treated differently under Philippine law at home.

McGyver L. Doria, assistant dean at the De La Salle University Tañada-Diokno School of Law, said that the Philippines’ absolute prohibition on divorce is a modern anomaly, noting that the Code of Muslim Personal Laws already allows it.

Meanwhile, Maria Liza A. Lopez-Rosario, an expert on the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, said that marriage remains a sacrament regardless of civil status.

“A civil marriage is not recognized under canon law,” she said, underscoring the divide between religious and civil frameworks.