PH courts can recognize divorce obtained abroad — SC

[Mike J]

I think this adds a bit of clarity to the question re: If the Philippines recognized foreign divorce for a Filipina if she was married in the Philippines.

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/921152/ph-courts-can-recognize-divorce-obtained-abroad-sc/story/

Divorces obtained abroad do not need to be decreed by foreign courts in order to be recognized in the Philippines, the Supreme Court (SC) announced on Friday.

In a statement, the SC said that courts in the country can recognize divorces obtained abroad, whether done through an administrative or legal process or by mutual agreement.

“The Court held that the type of divorce, whether administrative or judicial, did not matter. As long as the divorce is valid under the foreign spouse's national law, it will be recognized in the Philippines for the Filipino spouse,” the SC Public Information Office said.

The high court made the ruling as it decided on the case of a Filipina who married a Japanese citizen in Quezon City in 2004.

The couple later moved to Japan, where they obtained a “divorce decree by mutual agreement.”

According to the SC, the Filipina later filed a petition for the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and for the declaration of her capacity to remarry before a regional trial court (RTC).

The RTC granted the petition, but the ruling was contested by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The OSG argued that only foreign divorce decrees issued by a court can be recognized in the Philippines. 

For its part, the SC cited the Family Code, which states that Filipinos previously married to foreigners can seek judicial recognition of their divorce.

According to the Filipina, the national law of Japan recognizes divorce by agreement or judicial action.

As a result of this, the SC remanded the case back to the RTC to allow the Filipina to produce evidence as she failed to submit an authenticated copy of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

Edited September 22 by Mike J
Damn, forgot to add the URL

[BrettGC]

I can see some expats jumping on flights and filing for divorce in absentia in countries where it's quick and cheap.  Wife 1.0 filed, court date was while I was on deployment, judge granted the divorce.  I didn't even have to sign anything, Wife 1.0 just had to have proof I'd been "served", which I had prior to the deployment.  Some countries don't even require that. We sorted the financial settlement after I was back in the country outside of court. 

Edited September 20 by BrettGC

[scott h]

1 hour ago, Mike J said:

the SC remanded the case back to the RTC

I wouldn't be popping any champagne corks yet. I smell a rat. Since this is an emotionally charged issue with political ramifications involving the church. I see the Supreme court giving a wink and a nod to the progressives and at the same time kicking the can down the road by remanding it back to the lower court due to an administrative issue. Thereby putting of a real decision indefinitely.

Or maybe I have just watched to many political dramas 

[hk blues]

4 hours ago, BrettGC said:

I can see some expats jumping on flights and filing for divorce in absentia in countries where it's quick and cheap.  

Is it that easy to file for divorce in a random country we have no connection to?

Asking for a friend, of course! 

[BrettGC]

3 hours ago, hk blues said:

Is it that easy to file for divorce in a random country we have no connection to?

Asking for a friend, of course! 

Possibly in Guam, they have this weird thing with regards as long as you've been there for 7 days I think.  In any case, the UK has no fault unilateral divorce so if someone you know from the UK wanted out of a marriage badly enough, I'm sure the flight there would be worth it but there's probably a qualifying period for separation first. 

Heaps of countries are the same with some even making an industry out of it. 

[hk blues]

59 minutes ago, BrettGC said:

Possibly in Guam, they have this weird thing with regards as long as you've been there for 7 days I think.  In any case, the UK has no fault unilateral divorce so if someone you know from the UK wanted out of a marriage badly enough, I'm sure the flight there would be worth it but there's probably a qualifying period for separation first. 

Heaps of countries are the same with some even making an industry out of it. 

My divorce in the UK was one of those 'quickies' - you have to be separated for 12 months.  And, you don't have to be in the UK to process it - I was living in Hong Kong and my wife the USA.  Everything was done remotely and we both just had to sign the simple form, post it off and wait 3 months and then the divorce decree was sent to both of us.  

[graham59]

'Our' (properly documented) divorces are recognised by the Phils govt. Always have been.

It's the Filipino Citizens who have been treated as children...and still are. 

This proposed change in the law to grant the unfortunate locals their freedom, has got an awfully long way to go before finally casting off the shackles of the catholic church, and the legal gravy train, I reckon. 

[baronapart]

4 hours ago, graham59 said:

'Our' (properly documented) divorces are recognised by the Phils govt. Always have been.

It's the Filipino Citizens who have been treated as children...and still are. 

This proposed change in the law to grant the unfortunate locals their freedom, has got an awfully long way to go before finally casting off the shackles of the catholic church, and the legal gravy train, I reckon. 

Yes, The annulment racket isn't going to like it.

[Gator]

On 9/21/2024 at 3:41 AM, graham59 said:

'Our' (properly documented) divorces are recognised by the Phils govt. Always have been.

It's the Filipino Citizens who have been treated as children...and still are. 

This proposed change in the law to grant the unfortunate locals their freedom, has got an awfully long way to go before finally casting off the shackles of the catholic church, and the legal gravy train, I reckon. 

I see it as a compromise. Maybe I’m wrong but the way that I understand the ruling is that it only applies to Filipinos who were married in foreign countries and not those who were married in the Philippines. Therefore the Supreme Court is only recognizing divorce laws as they are applied in those respective countries. And it would then only apply to Filipino citizens who have registered their foreign marriage with the Philippines government. I think the number of citizens to which this ruling actually applies would be very low, as we are not talking about marriages that have taken place in the Philippines.  

[BrettGC]

30 minutes ago, Gator said:

I see it as a compromise. Maybe I’m wrong but the way that I understand the ruling is that it only applies to Filipinos who were married in foreign countries and not those who were married in the Philippines. Therefore the Supreme Court is only recognizing divorce laws as they are applied in those respective countries. And it would then only apply to Filipino citizens who have registered their foreign marriage with the Philippines government. I think the number of citizens to which this ruling actually applies would be very low, as we are not talking about marriages that have taken place in the Philippines.  

The article specifically states the case as a Filipina married to a Japanese citizen in Quezon City and then recognising the divorce subsequently obtained in Japan. So yes, married in PI. 

Edited September 22 by BrettGC