7 landmark cases on divorce
Here is a one-paragraph summary for each of the seven (7) landmark cases on divorce. These cases were decided prior to Republic v. Manalo (2018).
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera[1] (Pilapil). Divorce obtained in Germany by German spouse. German spouse filed two (2) complaints charging Filipino spouse with adultery. HELD: The divorce decree is binding on the German spouse pursuant to the nationality principle. Accordingly, the German spouse lacks standing to file the complaints as "offended spouse", having obtained the divorce decree prior to the filing of said complaints.
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera[1] (Pilapil). Divorce obtained in Germany by German spouse. German spouse filed two (2) complaints charging Filipino spouse with adultery. HELD: The divorce decree is binding on the German spouse pursuant to the nationality principle. Accordingly, the German spouse lacks standing to file the complaints as "offended spouse", having obtained the divorce decree prior to the filing of said complaints.
Republic v. Iyoy[2] (Iyoy). Divorce obtained in the United States by Filipino wife prior to her naturalization as an American citizen. Filipino husband invokes the divorce decree secured by his Filipino wife as additional ground to grant his petition for declaration of nullity. HELD: The divorce decree cannot be recognized in the Philippines since the Filipino wife obtained the same while still a Filipino citizen, and was, at such time, bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, pursuant to the nationality principle.
Republic v. Orbecido III[3]. Divorce obtained in the United States by naturalized American spouse. Filipino spouse sought enforcement of divorce in the Philippines. HELD: The effects of the divorce decree must be recognized in favor of the Filipino spouse pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Family Code. Accordingly, the Filipino spouse should be allowed to re-marry.
Dacasin v. Dacasin[4]. Divorce obtained in the United States by Filipino spouse. American spouse sought enforcement of the Joint Custody Agreement he had executed with his former Filipino wife, which bore terms contrary to those in the divorce decree. HELD: The divorce decree is binding on the American spouse, pursuant to the nationality principle. Accordingly, he cannot be allowed to evade the same by invoking the terms of the Joint Custody Agreement.
Bayot v. Court, of Appeals[5] (Bayot). Divorce obtained in the Dominican Republic by naturalized American spouse. Naturalized American spouse sought annulment of her marriage with her Filipino spouse through a petition for annulment filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). HELD: The divorce decree is binding on the naturalized American spouse, pursuant to the nationality principle. Accordingly, she is left without any cause of action before the RTC, as a petition for annulment presupposes a subsisting marriage.
Fujiki v. Marinay[6] (Fujiki). Divorce obtained in Japan by Filipina wife against her second husband, who is a Japanese national. First husband (also a Japanese national) sought recognition of the divorce obtained by his Filipina wife against her second husband through a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage) filed before the RTC. HELD: The effect of the divorce decree issued pursuant to Japanese law may be recognized in the Philippines in order to affect the status of the first husband, who, pursuant to the nationality principle, is governed by Japanese law. Such recognition is in line with the Philippines' public policy, which characterizes bigamous marriages as void ab initio.
Medina v. Koike[7] (Medina). Divorce jointly obtained in Japan by Filipina wife and Japanese husband. Filipina wife sought to enforce the divorce in the Philippines through a Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Declaration of Capacity to Remarry before the RTC. HELD: The case was remanded to the CA to allow Filipina wife to prove that the divorce obtained abroad by her and her Japanese husband is valid according to the latter's national law.
[1] 256 Phil. 407 (1989) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].
[2] 507 Phil. 485 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
[3] 509 Phil. 108 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
[4] 625 Phil. 494 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
[5] 591 Phil. 452 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
[6] 712 Phil. 524 (2013) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
[7] 791 Phil. 645, 651-652 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
[3] 509 Phil. 108 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
[4] 625 Phil. 494 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
[5] 591 Phil. 452 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
[6] 712 Phil. 524 (2013) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
[7] 791 Phil. 645, 651-652 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
