TOPIC: Recognition of Foreign Divorce in the Philippines - Part 4 of 10
IS A FILIPINO SPOUSE BARRED FROM HAVING A FOREIGN DIVORCE
RECOGNIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES WHEN THEY THEMSELVES FILED FOR IT—IF THEY FAIL TO
ALLEGE THE FOREIGN SPOUSE’S NATIONALITY AND THE LAW THAT ALLOWS REMARRIAGE?
SHELA BACALTOS
ASILO v. HON. JUDGE MARIA LUISA LESLE G. GONZALES-BETIC
G.R. No. 232269 (Formerly UDK 15799), July 10, 2024
FACTS OF THE CASE
Shela Bacaltos Asilo, a Filipino citizen, filed a Petition
for Recognition of Foreign Divorce before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 225, Quezon City. She claimed she had married an American national,
Tommy Wayne Appling, in Hong Kong in 2002. The couple later separated and
secured a divorce decree in Hong Kong in 2011. Shela claimed Tommy had already
remarried, providing documentation to support her claim, including the foreign
divorce decree, their marriage certificate, and Tommy’s second marriage
contract.
In 2014, the RTC found the petition sufficient in form and
substance and ordered its publication. During trial, Shela testified and
presented various documents as evidence. No opposition was filed, and the RTC
admitted the documentary evidence.
However, in its Decision dated August 28, 2015, the
RTC denied the petition, stating two main reasons: (1) Shela failed to
prove the Hong Kong law on divorce, and (2) she, the Filipino spouse, was the
one who obtained the divorce—contrary to the traditional reading of Article
26(2) of the Family Code, which supposedly applied only when the foreign
spouse initiated the divorce.
Her motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
Shela elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that her petition raised important
legal questions, including the applicability of Republic v. Manalo and Fujiki
v. Marinay. However, on June 20, 2016, the CA dismissed the
petition, ruling that Shela resorted to the wrong remedy. The proper
recourse was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not a Rule 65 petition.
The CA also cited procedural defects in her verification and certification of
non-forum shopping. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Shela then filed this petition for review on certiorari
before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
Can a Filipino spouse successfully have a foreign divorce
decree recognized in the Philippines when they themselves obtained the
divorce—if they fail to allege and prove the nationality and national law of
the foreign spouse that allows for such divorce and capacitation to remarry?
SUPREME COURT RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition.
While the Court ruled that a foreign divorce obtained by
a Filipino spouse can indeed be recognized—as previously established in Republic
v. Manalo—Shela’s petition failed due to a fatal procedural defect:
her initiatory pleading did not allege the foreign spouse's nationality
or his national law that recognizes divorce and capacitation to remarry.
These are ultimate facts and essential elements in a petition for
recognition of foreign divorce under Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
The Court further held that a remarriage alone by the
foreign spouse is not sufficient proof of the foreign law or recognition
of the divorce. Shela also erred by filing a Rule 65 certiorari petition
instead of an appeal under Rule 41, thereby making her remedy procedurally
improper and untimely. The Supreme Court declined to relax procedural rules
in this instance, emphasizing that Shela can refile the petition with the
proper allegations and evidence.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
"ACCORDINGLY, the Appeal by Certiorari is DENIED. The
June 20, 2016 and the February 28, 2017 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 144990 are AFFIRMED."
Should Filipino spouses continue to be required to allege
and prove foreign laws in technical terms, even when the foreign spouse has
already remarried in the Philippines—should actual consequences not suffice as
proof?
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES
- “The
nationality of the alien spouse and their national law that allows for
divorce and capacitation to remarry must be specifically alleged and
proven.”
– These are ultimate facts essential to recognition under Article 26(2) of the Family Code. - “Recognition
of a foreign divorce decree is not automatic.”
– A foreign judgment must be proven as a fact and in accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, of the Rules of Court. - “A
Filipino spouse may initiate a foreign divorce and still have it
recognized in the Philippines.”
– Affirmed in Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018. - “Certiorari
under Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 41.”
– Procedural rules must be strictly observed unless compelling equitable reasons exist.
CLASSIFICATION: Civil Law / Remedial Law
(Recognition of foreign judgment; procedural rules in
special proceedings)
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!
CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)
read full text of the case here
📚 INTRODUCTION TO
JURISPRUDENCE: Recognition of Foreign Divorce in Philippine Law
Welcome, future lawyers and bar reviewers! This content is
intended to help law students, baristas, and reviewees
grasp the most critical doctrines from a leading Supreme Court decision
on recognition of foreign divorce decrees under Philippine law.
The jurisprudence discussed is:
🔹 Case Title: Shela
Bacaltos Asilo v. Hon. Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzales-Betic
🔹 Nature: Civil
Law – Recognition of Foreign Divorce
🔹 G.R. No.: 232269
🔹 Date of
Promulgation: July 10, 2024
🔹 Parties:
Petitioner Shela Asilo (Filipino wife) vs. RTC Judge Gonzales-Betic
(Respondent)
🔍 BRIEF SUMMARY
Shela Asilo filed for recognition of a foreign divorce
decree obtained in Hong Kong. The RTC and CA denied her petition due
to procedural issues and failure to allege and prove the nationality
of her former husband and his national law that recognizes divorce. The Supreme
Court affirmed the denial.
🤔Should courts strictly
require proof of foreign law even when the foreign spouse remarries in the
Philippines?
💬 Comment your
thoughts below!
📜 10 MOST IMPORTANT
DOCTRINES
- Ultimate
Facts Must Be Alleged
- In
a petition for recognition of a foreign divorce, the nationality and
national law of the alien spouse must be alleged. (G.R. No. 232269,
10 July 2024)
- Proof
of Foreign Law Required
- Courts
do not take judicial notice of foreign laws; they must be proven by
official publication or attested copies. (Rule 132, Secs. 24-25)
- Recognition
Not Automatic
- A
foreign spouse’s remarriage does not equate to recognition of a foreign
divorce in the Philippines. (Asilo case)
- Initiatory
Pleading Deficiency Is Fatal
- Absence
of allegations on foreign law and nationality in the initiatory pleading
renders the petition fatally defective. (Asilo case)
- Certiorari
Under Rule 65 Not a Substitute for Lost Appeal
- An
appeal under Rule 41 is the proper remedy; certiorari is not available
if an appeal exists. (G.R. No. 232269)
- Foreign
Divorce by Filipino Spouse May Be Recognized
- As
clarified in Republic v. Manalo, even if the Filipino initiates
the divorce, it may still be recognized if all requisites are met. (cited
in Asilo case)
- Divorce
Recognition Falls Under Rule 108
- Recognition
of foreign divorce is a special proceeding under Rule 108 for correction
or cancellation of civil registry entries. (Asilo case)
- Remedy
Lost = Judgment Final
- Failure
to use the correct remedy (i.e., timely appeal) renders the RTC judgment
final and unreviewable. (Asilo case)
- Verification
Based on Personal Knowledge is Valid
- Verification
need not include “authentic records” if the allegations are based on
personal knowledge. (Asilo case)
- Grounds
for Certiorari Require Grave Abuse of Discretion
- Errors
of judgment by a court with jurisdiction do not warrant a petition for
certiorari. (Asilo citing Madrigal Transport Inc. v. Lapanday)
⚖️ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
(FAQs)
Q1: Can a Filipino file for divorce abroad and have
it recognized in the Philippines?
A: Yes, per Republic v. Manalo, but all legal
requisites including proof of foreign law must be satisfied.
Q2: What must be proven in a foreign divorce
recognition case?
A: The divorce decree and the foreign spouse’s
national law that recognizes the divorce and allows remarriage.
Q3: Is the remarriage of the foreign spouse enough
proof?
A: No. Remarriage alone does not constitute legal
proof of foreign law or recognition.
Q4: Can a court take judicial notice of foreign laws?
A: No. Foreign laws must be proven as facts under
Philippine rules on evidence.
Q5: What happens if the wrong legal remedy is used?
A: The case may be dismissed, and the judgment
becomes final and unreviewable.
📌 Disclaimer: This
video is for educational purposes only. It does not claim to be
infallible. Content was created using premium AI and expert legal
sources, based on G.R. No. 232269, Shela Bacaltos Asilo v. Gonzales-Betic,
July 10, 2024.
👉 Don’t forget to like,
subscribe, and comment your insights!
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/68476c54-a40c-800a-b86a-3fe5400a6f23>
No comments:
Post a Comment