Imagine that You marry abroad, your foreign spouse divorces you in another country, and you return to the Philippines still legally married—until you fight to be free.

   TOPIC: Recognition of Foreign Divorce in the Philippines - Part 1 of 10 

Can a Filipino seek recognition of a foreign divorce decree obtained by an alien spouse in a U.S. state, even if the alien spouse is a national of a different country, without proving the divorce laws of that spouse’s country of nationality?

Rosary Kristine I. Anido v. Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. 253527, March 6, 2025

 

Facts of the Case:

Rosary Kristine I. Anido, a Filipino citizen, met Enrique Martin Gomez Pomar, a Peruvian citizen, in the United States while they were both pediatric trainees. They married in New Jersey in 2012 and later resided in Kentucky. Due to infertility and subsequent marital discord, Enrique filed for divorce in Kentucky, where the court granted a decree of absolute divorce in 2015.

In 2017, Anido filed a Petition for Enforcement of a Foreign Decree of Divorce and Correction of Record with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), to recognize the Kentucky divorce decree in the Philippines. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance but did not object at the RTC level. After Anido presented documentary evidence, including the divorce decree, marriage certificates, and translations of the Peruvian and Kentucky laws, the RTC granted the petition, recognizing the foreign divorce and directing the annotation of the order on the marriage certificate.

The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that Anido failed to sufficiently prove Enrique’s personal law—Peruvian law—that would show he was capacitated to obtain a divorce and remarry. The CA reversed the RTC, ruling that the documents presented were not properly authenticated and that Anido failed to prove Enrique’s capacity to remarry under Peruvian law.

Anido elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.

 

Primary Issue:

Whether a Filipino spouse must prove the national (Peruvian) law of the alien spouse, or only the law of the U.S. state (Kentucky) that granted the divorce, to recognize a foreign divorce decree under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

 

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court held that Anido was not required to prove the law of Enrique’s country of nationality (Peru), but rather the law of the state (Kentucky) where the divorce decree was issued. Under Article 26(2) of the Family Code and the principle of comity, recognition of a foreign divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse requires proof that:

1. The divorce was validly obtained in accordance with the foreign law of the state that issued the decree.
2. The decree effectively capacitated the alien spouse to remarry.

The Court clarified that in cases where an alien spouse obtains a divorce decree from a foreign jurisdiction where he is domiciled (as in Kentucky), it is the law of that jurisdiction—not the law of the alien spouse’s nationality—that governs the validity and effect of the divorce.

However, the Court found that Anido failed to properly prove the laws of Kentucky as required by Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. Her submission of internet printouts and self-notarized attestations lacked the necessary official publication or attestation from a lawful custodian of the Kentucky laws, as well as proper diplomatic or consular authentication.

In the interest of substantial justice, the Court ordered the remand of the case to the Court of Appeals for reception of properly authenticated evidence on the relevant Kentucky divorce laws.

 

Dispositive Portion:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated September 8, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 111303 is SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for the reception of additional evidence solely on the relevant marriage and divorce laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, USA. SO ORDERED.”

Should Philippine courts evolve their evidentiary rules to more easily recognize divorce decrees from foreign courts in the digital age—especially when they affect the marital status and rights of Filipino citizens?

 

Important Doctrines:

1. “The foreign law that must be proven is that of the country or state that issued the divorce decree.”
   – Recognition of foreign divorces is grounded on the law of the issuing state, not necessarily the national law of the alien spouse.
2. “Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments.”
   – Both the foreign judgment and the enabling foreign law must be proven as facts under Philippine rules.
3. “A foreign divorce decree must show that it validly capacitated the alien spouse to remarry.”
   – It is not enough that a divorce was granted; the alien spouse must be shown to have capacity to remarry under the foreign jurisdiction’s law.
4. “Recognition of foreign judgments is governed by the principle of comity of nations.”
   – Courts must presume regularity and validity of foreign judgments unless proven otherwise.

 

Classification:
Civil Law (Family Code) / Remedial Law (Evidence and Foreign Judgments)

 

Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!

📢DISCLAIMER:

This content is for educational purposes only and does not guarantee the infallibility of the legal content presented. All content was created using premium AI tools and reviewed for accuracy to the best of our abilities. Always consult a qualified legal professional for legal advice.

CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)

Read Full text here

🎓 INTRODUCTION – LAW STUDENT & BAR REVIEW AID 🎓

In this short content, we explore Rosary Kristine I. Anido v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 253527, promulgated March 6, 2025, a Civil/Remedial Law case that tackles the recognition of a foreign divorce decree under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

This discussion is crafted to help law students and bar examinees recall essential doctrines in digestible format. We'll highlight 10 critical legal principles grounded in the Supreme Court’s ruling. This is especially useful for those reviewing Remedial Law, Conflict of Laws, and Family Law.

Nature of the Case: Petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45)
Parties: Rosary Kristine I. Anido (Petitioner) vs. Republic of the Philippines (Respondent)
Core Issue: Must the Filipino spouse prove the national law of the alien spouse or only the law of the state that issued the divorce decree?

👉 Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that only the law of the foreign jurisdiction that issued the divorce (Kentucky, USA) must be proven—not the national law (Peru) of the alien spouse.

🤔 Should a Filipino's right to remarry be so dependent on proving the foreign state’s law in technical compliance with local evidence rules?
📩 Comment below. Let’s discuss!

 

📜 10 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES FROM ANIDO v. REPUBLIC (G.R. No. 253527)

1. Issuing State’s Law Governs Divorce Recognition
   ➤ The law that must be proven is that of the country or state that issued the divorce decree, not the national law of the foreign spouse.
   📌 p. 7–8, 14–15
2. Article 26(2) as Exception to Nationality Rule
   ➤ Article 26(2) allows recognition of foreign divorce obtained by a foreigner that capacitated the Filipino to remarry.
   📌 p. 7–8
3. Divorce Must Be Valid Where Rendered
   ➤ A foreign divorce is only recognized in the Philippines if it is valid in the issuing country/state.
   📌 p. 14
4. No Judicial Notice of Foreign Law
   ➤ Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws—they must be proven as facts.
   📌 p. 7–8, 14
5. Proof Required: Official Publication or Attested Copy
   ➤ Foreign law must be presented through official publication or authenticated copy per Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25.
   📌 p. 16–17
6. Authentication Must Follow Diplomatic Channel
   ➤ For foreign documents, authentication by Philippine consular officers abroad is required.
   📌 p. 17
7. Notarization ≠ Proof of Foreign Law Content
   ➤ A notarized document proves execution, not veracity of contents or legal authority of foreign statutes.
   📌 p. 18–20
8. CA Erred in Requiring Proof of Peruvian Law
   ➤ The Supreme Court ruled that Enrique's Peruvian nationality was irrelevant since Kentucky issued the divorce.
   📌 p. 12–13
9. Domicile Determines Jurisdiction in U.S. Divorce
   ➤ U.S. courts have jurisdiction over divorce matters based on the party’s domicile, not citizenship.
   📌 p. 12
10. Case Remanded for Substantial Justice
    ➤ Despite procedural lapse, the SC remanded the case to allow Anido to properly prove Kentucky divorce laws.
    📌 p. 14–15

 

📚 DISCLAIMER: This video is for educational purposes only. It does not guarantee absolute legal accuracy and should not substitute formal legal advice or Supreme Court decisions. Content was created using premium AI tools.

 

Below is a detailed procedural timeline of the case Rosary Kristine I. Anido v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 253527, based on the records of the Supreme Court’s decision. This timeline outlines the key pleadings, motions, orders, and rulings from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the Court of Appeals (CA), and finally the Supreme Court (SC).

 

📅 TIMELINE OF PLEADINGS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

⚖️ 1. May 17, 2012

Marriage of Rosary Kristine Anido and Enrique Martin Gomez Pomar

• Married in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.
• This marriage is the subject of the subsequent divorce and legal proceedings.

 

⚖️ 2. November 18, 2015

Issuance of Divorce Decree by Kentucky Court (15-CI-3743)

• Enrique filed for divorce in Fayette County Circuit Court, Kentucky.
• Divorce granted.

 

⚖️ 3. February 6, 2017

Filing of Petition for Enforcement of Foreign Divorce with RTC, Quezon City

• Petitioner: Rosary Kristine I. Anido
• Relief sought: Recognition of foreign divorce and annotation on the marriage certificate.
• Basis: Article 26(2) of the Family Code.

 

⚖️ 4. March 3, 2017

Notice of Appearance by the OSG; Deputation of OCP-QC

• Office of the Solicitor General entered appearance.
• Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City was deputized to represent the State.

 

⚖️ 5. October 18, 2017

RTC Notice of Hearing Issued

• Hearing scheduled for January 30, 2018 for presentation of petitioner’s evidence.
• State, through OCP, was duly notified.

 

⚖️ 6. January 30, 2018

RTC Hearing; Presentation of Petitioner’s Evidence and Oral Offer

• Anido testified and submitted documentary evidence, including the divorce decree and alleged foreign laws.
• No objection by the State.

 

⚖️ 7. February 14, 2018

RTC Decision – Petition GRANTED

• RTC recognized the Kentucky divorce.
• Ordered annotation of the divorce on the records of the marriage.
  📌 [R-QZN-17-01806-CV, Branch 92, Presiding Judge Eleuterio Bathan]

 

⚖️ 8. March 2018

Motion for Reconsideration Filed by OSG

• Argued that foreign law was not properly proven.
• Challenged admissibility and authentication of documentary evidence.

 

⚖️ 9. April 27, 2018

RTC DENIED OSG’s Motion for Reconsideration

• Maintained that evidence was sufficient.
• Reaffirmed validity of divorce decree recognition.

 

⚖️ 10. Appeal to Court of Appeals – CA-G.R. CV No. 111303

• Filed by OSG from the RTC’s February 14 and April 27, 2018 Orders.
• Main issue: Insufficiency of proof of foreign law allowing the alien spouse to remarry.

 

⚖️ 11. September 8, 2020

Court of Appeals Decision – Appeal GRANTED, RTC Decision REVERSED

• Ruled that Anido failed to properly prove the foreign law (Kentucky and Peruvian laws).
• Lacked certification, authentication, and proper translation.
• Dismissed the petition.

 

⚖️ 12. Petition for Review on Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court under Rule 45

• Petitioner Anido elevated the case to the SC.
• Argued that she complied with evidence requirements.
• Challenged CA’s ruling.

 

⚖️ 13. Supreme Court Decision – March 6, 2025

Petition PARTIALLY GRANTED; CA Decision SET ASIDE; Case REMANDED

• SC ruled that only the law of the state issuing the divorce (Kentucky) needed to be proven—not Peruvian law.
• However, Anido failed to comply with Rules of Court regarding authentication of foreign law.
• In the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the CA for proper reception of evidence on Kentucky law.

 

🔍 Summary Explanation:

This timeline illustrates the importance of following evidentiary rules in recognition of foreign judgments. While the RTC ruled favorably, the CA reversed due to evidentiary insufficiency. The Supreme Court clarified the applicable doctrine and remanded the case for further proceedings—emphasizing substantial justice.

Let me know if you’d like this converted into a visual chart or formatted for presentation slides.