Morisono vs Morison, G.R. No. 226013 (Case Digest)

 

 

Morisono vs Morison,

G.R. No. 226013

Facts:

            Luzviminda was married to private respondent Ryoji Morisono in Quezon City. They lived together in Japan for one (1) year and three (3) months but were not blessed with a child. Luzviminda and Ryoji submitted a "Divorce by Agreement" before the City Hall of Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan, which was eventually approved on January 17, 2012. Luzviminda filed a petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree obtained by her and Ryoji before the RTC so that she could cancel the surname of her former husband in her passport and for her to be able to marry again.

                RTC denied Luzviminda's petition.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the RTC correctly denied Luzviminda's petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree she procured with Ryoji.

 

Held:

            YES. The rules on divorce prevailing in this jurisdiction can be summed up as follows:

§  first, Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce, and hence, the courts cannot grant the same;

§  second, consistent with Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code, the marital bond between two (2) Filipino citizens cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad;

§  third, an absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws; and

§  fourth, in mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

 

 

In this case, a plain reading of the RTC ruling shows that the denial of Luzviminda's petition to have her foreign divorce decree recognized in this jurisdiction was anchored on the sole ground that she admittedly initiated the divorce proceedings which she, as a Filipino citizen, was not allowed to do. In light of the doctrine laid down in Manalo, such ground relied upon by the RTC had been rendered nugatory. However, the Court cannot just order the grant of Luzviminda's petition for recognition of the foreign divorce decree, as Luzviminda has yet to prove the fact of her. "Divorce by Agreement" obtained, in Nagoya City, Japan and its conformity with prevailing Japanese laws on divorce. Notably, the RTC did not rule on such issues. Since these are questions which require an examination of various factual matters, a remand to the court a quo is warranted.