LEGAL TECHNIQUE

AND
LOGIC
EXERCISE
JURIS DOCTOR 1B
Liezel S. Babad
JD 1-B
Legal Technique and Logic

Facts:

On August 19, 2010, at the City Hall of Manila, Dana Joy Diaz, Filipino
and Masaaki Fujita, a Japanese national, entered into marriage, in
accordance with rites of the PCCCI and officiated by its minister.
They migrated to Japan and stayed there for awhile. Petitioner
discovered that her husband was having a relation with another woman
which resulted to their frequent quarrels until Masaaki eventually decided to
terminate their marriage. Masaaki initiated a Divorce Notification with which
the petitioner accepted on May 29, 2013.
And just after their divorce, Fujita went back to the Philippines and
married another Filipina named Janet Rafael on November 7, 2013.
Under the circumstances, while Fujita can remarry, herein petitioner is
still married to Masaaki in the eyes of Philippine laws and therefore could not
contract marriage with third party.

Issue:
Whether or not their divorce decree could be recognized as valid under
Philippine laws.

Assessment:

Under the Japanese laws, divorce by agreement takes effect upon

acceptance thereof by the other spouse, in this case by the petitioner. Their
marriage was effectively dissolved on May 29, 2013.
Thus, petitioner have the capacity to remarry, according to the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines which states
that, where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
In the case of Van Dorn vs Romillo, Jr., the divorce in Nevada released
private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law,
under which divorce dissolves the marriage. It was noted that aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law.
 Marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two
parties, cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one
is considered released from the marital bond while the other remains bound
to it. Such is the state of affairs where the alien spouse obtains a valid
divorce abroad against the Filipino spouse. (San Luis vs San Luis G.R. No.
133743 February 6, 2007) In this case, the petitioner sought for
consideration of legal effects and consequences, including her right to
remarry wherein under the Article 26 of Family Code shall be granted.
Raefer John D. Bernardo, JD-1B

Legal Logic

Facts:

On August 19, 2010, the petitioner Dana Joy Diaza a Filipino citizen entered
into a marriage contract with Masaaki Fujita a Japanese national. The
marriage ceremony was held at the City Hall of Manila, and was
administered by Rev. Alfonso S. Dabao Sr. After the marriage the couple
migrated to Japan. The petitioner, however, discovered that her husband was
also having a relationship with other woman which resulted in their frequent
quarrel, until their relationship become unbearable.

Masaki initiated a Divorce Notification, under the Japanese law divorce by

agreement takes effect upon acceptance by the spouses. The petitioner
without choice accepted the divorce, and their marriage was legally dissolved
under Japanese law on May 29, 2013. Thereafter, Masaaki went back in the
Philippines and remarry to another Filipina. Dana, on the other hand, remain
tied under her previous marriage and still unable to remarry since divorce is
not recognize in the Philippines.

The petitioner is praying for judicial recognition of foreign divorce for the
purpose of remarry, under article 26 of the Family code of the Philippines.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce must
be granted.

Held:

Under Philippine law divorce is not recognize in our jurisdiction, because of

the strict policy of the state in protecting the inviolable social institution of
our country. However, the law provide a strict exception to this rule,
paragraph 2, article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines provide that
where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have the
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

Moreover, Dana Joy has completely complied with the requites of paragraph
2 of article 26 based from the evidence presented. (1) First, there must be a
valid marriage between a Filipino citizen and Foreigner. As presented on their
marriage certificate Dana Joy Diaz and Masaaki Fujita, indeed validly married
in the Philippines on August 10, 2010; (2) Second, the foreign divorce must
be initiated by the foreign spouse. As presented on Annex B, Masaaki
initiated the Divorce Notification, which was authenticated by the Philippine
Consulate in Japan; and (3) Third, foreign divorce decree was validly obtain.
Clearly from the divorce certificate from the Japanese Embassy, Masaaki
Fujita is indeed validly divorce with the petitioner.

In fact, in the case of Corpuz vs Tirol Sto. Tomas (G. R. No. 186571, August
11, 2010), the Supreme Court upheld the legislative intent of article 26 for
the purpose of settling the doubt created by foreign divorce among Filipino
citizens. Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code
provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her marriage
to the alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to
remarry.

If we allow Filipino spouses to be remained married to a person who no

longer recognized them as spouses, the denial of freedom to remarry will
exposed them in misery. Common humanity and public policy forbids this
kind of consequence. Hence, the petitioners judicial declaration of foreign
divorce is granted.
Bernardo, Precious Anne D.C.
JD 1B
Legal Technique and Logic

Facts:

Dana Joy T. Diaz, herein petitioner, a Filipino, entered into a contract of

marriage with Masaaki Fujita (a.k.a. Katsuaki Fujita), a Japanese national,
on August 19, 2010.

They then migrated to Japan and stayed there. Diaz soon discovered
that Fujita was seeing another woman. This resulted in their frequent
quarrels until their relationship became unbearable for them. Fujita decided
to terminate his marriage with Diaz. He initiated a Divorce Notification as
allowed by the Civil Code of Japan. On May 29, 2013, Diaz accepted the
Divorce Notification.

Under the Japanese laws, divorce by agreement takes effect upon the
acceptance of the other spouse. Hence, Fujitas marriage with Diaz was
effectively dissolved on May 29, 2013.

Fujita then went back to the Philippines and married another Filipina
named Janet Rafael on November 7, 2013.

Because of the Divorce Decree obtained by the parties in the present

case, Fujita was allowed to remarry. Diaz, on the other hand, is still married
to Fujita in the eyes of the Philippine laws and cannot therefore remarry.

Diaz now prays that the Divorce Decree between her and Fujita be
recognized, together with all the legal effects and consequences thereof,
including her right to remarry.

Issue:

Whether or not Diazs Divorce Decree with Fujita should be recognized

in the Philippines and should thus be allowed to remarry under the Philippine
laws.

Assessment:

Yes, the Divorce Decree obtained by Diaz and Fujita in Japan should be
recognized in the Philippines. With this, Diaz should also be allowed to
remarry under the Philippine law.
 Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines
allows the remarriage of a Filipino who validly obtained a Divorce Decree in a
foreign country, to wit:

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly

celebrated and a divorce is thereafter obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall
likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

The Supreme Court, in Republic v. Orbecido, stated the twin

elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:

1 There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a

Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and

2 A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse

capacitating him or her to remarry.

The Court further stated in Orbecido, that, Nevertheless, we are

unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code
(E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to allow
a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired
foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.

In the case at bar, Fujita and Diaz validly celebrated their marriage on
August 19, 2010 in accordance with rites of the PCCI and officiated by Rev.
Alfonso Dabao, Sr. Fujita thereafter initiated a Divorce Notification in Japan.
Diaz, in return, accepted the Divorce Notification on May 29, 2013, which
was effective on that same day. Fujita was remarried to another Filipina after
several months.

Hence, their marriage was validly celebrated and Fujita and Diaz
obtained a divorce in Japan, capacitating the former to remarry.

With these, Diaz, the Filipino spouse, under the aforecited law, shall
also be released from the bondage of her marriage with Fujita, by virtue of
the Divorce Decree, and should therefore be allowed to remarry.
Antonio A. Castillo, JD-1B
Legal Logic
Prof: Atty. Ronel Buenaventura
I.
The petitioner is a Filipina divorcee, a resident of Purok 3 Baldovino
Subvidision, Brgy. Cammbungan, Daet, Camarines Norte. The petitioner was
married to Masaki Fujita (aka Katsuaki Fujita) a Japanese national on August
19, 2010, at the City Hall of Manila, and in accordance with the rites of
PCCCI officiated by Rev. Alfonso S. Dabao Sr., lawfully celebrated the
marriage of the petitioner and Masaki Fujita. attached is a copy of their
marriage certificate marked as Annex A.

Thereafter the couple moved to Japan, later however the petitioner

discovered that the Masaki Fujita was having illicit relation with another
woman which resulted in their frequent quarrels until it became unbearable
for them to live with each other.

Fujita initiated a divorce notification, as allowed by the civil code of

Japan, translated copy attached, marked as Annex B, petitioner already in
the state of rile and believe she has no other recourse, accepted the divorce
notification, a translated copy is marked as Annex C.

Under Japanese laws, divorce by agreement takes effect upon

acceptance of the other spouse, thus the petitioners marriage with Masaki
Fujita was effectively dissolve on May 29, 2013, as recorded in the Official
Family Register of Moriyama City, Shiga Prefecture, Japan.

Just after their divorce, Masaki went back to the Philippines to marry
another Filipina, Janet Rafael y Parlbucho on November 7, 2013.

Under Japanese law, Fujita is free to remarry, however the petitioner

in the eyes of the Philippine laws her previous marriage still subsist and may
not contract another marriage.

It is prayed under Art. 26 of the Family code of the Philippines, that

the decree of divorce between them be recognized and grant all legal effect,
including the right of the petitioner to remarry. Other reliefs just and
equitable are likewise prayed for.
II.
Under Article 26, par. 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines, as
amended by E.O. 227

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and

a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall have the capacity to remarry under Philippine
law.

The provision provides, if the foreign spouse obtains a valid foreign

divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry under the
Philippine law. But if the Filipino spouse secures the divorce, it will not be
recognized in the Philippines. In the case at bar, it was the foreign spouse
that initiated the divorce notice and eventually securing the decree of
divorce. Therefore the petitioner should be granted with all the legal effect of
the decree of divorce granted in Japan.
III.

Marriage is considered as the very foundation of our society, an

institution governed by rules and established by law which cannot be
rendered inoperative by stipulation. It is only fitting that this permanent
union is forbade by law to be severed by any acts of man, as stated in the
Family code of the Philippines:
That marriage is a special contract of permanent
union between a man and a woman entered in accordance
with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family
life. (Par. 2, Art. 1, Family Code of the Philippines)

The provision of the law clearly state the character of marriage as

special, although it may seem common as there are other celebrated
marriages, but each is unique in its own ways. And it has been declared by
our law that marriage is permanent, that means, no period and no event
other than death, can mitigate the dissolution of the union.

However, since there is no law in the Philippines that prohibit

interracial marriages, our compatriots are free to love, join in wedlock and
establish a family with other nationals.

We also recognize, that these foreign nationals enjoy rights granted

by their nations laws, such as divorce, which permit the foreign spouse to
petition the dissolution of their present marriage and to contract or to
remarry after their present marriage ceased to exist. It is only for the reason
of just and equitable that the lawful effects by the decree of divorce that was
validly obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, be extended to the Filipino spouse.

Although with case at bar, it is highly noticeable that there is an

upcoming pattern on the part of the Masaki Fujitas propensity of marring
Filipinas, that begets a leery intention of the true purpose of his contracting
marriages with Filipinas. This is supported by the record that just barely six
months after his divorce with the petitioner, he would travel back to the
Philippines to contract another marriage with another Filipina. Although the
petitioner did mentioned that Fujita was having an illicit relation with another
woman during the time of their marriage. However, in her petition led me to
believe or gave me an impression that the said illicit relation was happening
in Japan and not as a long distance affair. At this point it, would be prudent
to inform the Chief Executive and other law enforcement agencies, in
particular the Department of Justice to investigate if there is such a
syndicate operating that blatantly violating the laws of the Republic.

With regards to the petition of Dana Joy T. Diaz I find merit with her
prayers, since the dissolution of her marriage with Fujita was initiated by the
foreign spouse, a requirement to obtain the lawful effect of their divorce in
Japan, is in compliance with the provision of the Art. 26 of the Family code of
the Philippines. I therefore agree with the petitioner that the courts should
recognize the decree of divorce granted by the courts of Japan.
CLEMENTE, Marie Immaculate L. Legal Technique & Logic

JD 1B Assignment / Exercise

I. FACTS

On August 19, 2010, petitioner Dana Joy T. Diaz married Masaaki Fujita (aka
Katsuaki Fujita), a Japanese National, at the City Hall of Manila. The couple
migrated to Japan and stayed there for a while. Later however, Diaz discovered that
her husband was having a relation with another woman, which resulted their
frequent quarrels until their relationship became unbearable. Fujita eventually
decided to terminate their marriage.

Fujita initiated a Divorce Notification pursuant to the Civil Code of Japan,

which Diaz accepted on May 29, 2013. Under Japanese laws, divorce by agreement
takes effect upon acceptance thereof by the other spouse. Thus, Diazs marriage
with Fujita was effectively dissolved on the date she accepted the notice.

Just after the divorce, Fujita went back to the Philippines and married
another Filipina. Under the circumstances, while Fujita is already free to remarry,
Diaz in the eyes of the Philippine law is still married and prohibited to contract
marriage with a third party. Therefore, Diaz prayed that the Divorce Decree
between her and Fujita be recognized including her right to remarry.

II. APPLICABLE PROVISION

The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is the primary law on
the issue of divorce with a Filipino citizen and a foreigner.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is

validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad
 by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

If it is the Filipino spouse who initiates or files the divorce action

against the alien spouse, the subsequent divorce will not be recognized here
in the Philippines. If that Filipino gets married here again, he or she will be
liable for bigamy. However, if it is the alien spouse who initiates or files the
divorce action, Article 26 of the Family Code will apply.

III. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

Diazs petition should be granted, that the Divorce Decree between her and
Fujita be recognized including her right to remarry. Interestingly, Paragraph 2
Article 26 is intended to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse
remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer
married to the Filipino spouse. In the Van Dorn case, which involves a marriage
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, the Court held therein that a divorce
decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and
consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.
The divorce will be recognized in the Philippines if the said divorce allows the former
alien spouse to remarry, the Filipino will also have the right to remarry under
Philippine law. That is, after the foreign divorce decree is recognized by the
Philippine court. In Republic v. Orbecido III, the Court spelled out the twin elements
for the applicability of the second paragraph of Art. 26, thus: x x x [W]e state the
twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There
is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner; and 2.A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry. Both elements were present in the case, for
this reason Diaz is free to remarry after by all means of filing with a Family Court a
petition for recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
Elaine M. David JD1-B

Facts:

Dana Joy T. diaz, is of legal age, entered a marriage contract on August 19,2010
with Masaaki Fujita, who is a Japanese national. After sometime the couple decided
to migrate in Japan and the couple stay there for a while however, Dana Joy
discovered that Masaaki is having an affair, and because of that discovery the
couple had frequent fights, because Masaaki did not want to be nagged , he decided
to terminate their marriage and iniatiated a notice of divorce. Thereafter, Masaaki
went to Philippines and married another woman. The petitioner prays for their
divorce in Japan will be equally recognized here in the Philippines.

Applicable Laws:

In this particular case, the law that will be applicable is Article 26 of Family Code of
the Philippines, whic states that: All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines,
in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized,
and valid there as such, shall also be valid in thi country, except those prohibited
under Articles 35(1),(4),(5) and (6), 36,37, and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino Citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated

and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to
remarry under the Philippine Law.

Its is clear in the said case that the divorce was obtained by Masaaki in Japan, so in
short, the prayer of the petitioner will be granted because it is expressly stated in
Article 26 (2) in the Family Code of the Philippines that whenever a foreigner validly
obtained the divorce , the Filipino Spouse shall likewise have the capacity to
remarry under the Philippine Law. In the case of Corpus vs. Sto Tomas, the alien
cannot claim under the Article 26(2), only the Filipino Spouse can claim such
contention.
GARCIA, Christian Joseph E. (2016 166304)

Juris Doctor 1B

Petition to recognize divorce decree;

Facts

On August 19, 2010, in the City Hall of Manila, Dana Joy T. Diaz, a Filipino
resident, Petitioner herein, entered into a valid marriage contract with Masaaki
Fujita, a Japanese resident. They Migrated to Japan and stayed there for awhile, the
petitioner discovered that her husband is having a relation with another woman.

Masaaki initiated a Divorce Notification, as allowed by the Civil Code of Japan,

and accepted by the Petitioner. That being the case, petitioners Marriage with
Masaaki Fujita was effectively dissolved on May 29, 2013. After their divorce,
Masaaki went back to the Philippines and married another Filipina.

Herein Petitioner in the eyes if the Philippine laws, is still married to Masaaki
and could not contract marriage with third party. Petitioner averred that the
recognition of their divorce by Philippine Courts would equalize the seeming
inequality between the herein petitioner and her Japanese husband.

Petitioner prays that their divorce decree be recognized, together with all the
legal effect and consequences, including her right to remarry.

Issue
 Whether or not the petition for the recognition of decree of divorce should be
granted.

Ruling (Logical and Well-reasoned preliminary assessment)

Petition is meritorious and should be granted.

The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides that "[w]here a
marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law."

In Fujiki v. Marinay case, the court stressed that The principle in the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies because the foreign spouse, after
the foreign judgment nullifying the marriage, is capacitated to remarry under the
laws of his or her country. If the foreign judgment is not recognized in the
Philippines, the Filipino spouse will be discriminatedthe foreign spouse can
remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry.

In the case at bar, Petitioner is qualified for the recognition of her decree of
divorce, for acquiring a valid divorce which is initiated by the alien spouse
capacitating him to remarry. And granting such petition will equalize the inequality
between the petitioner and Masaaki Fujita.

Therefore, Petition should be GRANTED.

Legaspi, Mary Rose B.
JD - 1B

Facts of the Petition:

On August 19, 2010, petitioner Dana Joy T. Diaz, who is a
Filipino citizen entered into a marriage contract with Masaaki Fujita, a
Japanese national, at the City Hall of Manila in accordance with rites of the
PCCCI and officiated by its Minister.
They migrated to Japan and stayed for awhile. Petitioner
discovered that her husband was also having relation with another woman,
which resulted in their frequent quarrels, until their relationship became
unbearable.
Her husband decided to terminate their marriage and initiated a
Divorce Notification as allowed by the Civil Code of Japan. Petitioner
accepted the Divorce Notification.
Her Ex-husband went back to the Philippines and married
another Filipina which is allowed by his national law. Hence, petitioner
prayed that the Divorce Decree be recognized, together with all the legal
effects and consequences, including the right of the petitioner to remarry.

Applicable provision of law:

Article 26, paragraph 2, Family Code of the Philippines: "Where
a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated
and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law."

Issue:
Whether or not the petition should be granted.

Preliminary Assessment:
Yes. The petition should be granted. Under paragraph 2, Article
26 of the Family Code, when there is a valid marriage between a Filipino
citizen and foreigner, thereafter a valid divorce was obtained by an alien
spouse with the capacity to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity
to remarry under Philippine law.
In the case of Republic v. Orcebido, G. R. No. 154380 [2005],
the Supreme Court was unanimous in holding that paragraph 2, Article 26 of
the Family Code should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has
been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and
remarried, also to remarry.
In the present case, petitioner was validly married with a
Japanese national. Subsequently, her husband obtained a divorce with the
capacity to remarry. Thus, petitioner, the divorced Filipino spouse, should be
allowed to remarry. However, for her plea to prosper, she must show
sufficient proof of the divorce decree.
Therefore, as petitioner shows sufficient proof of the divorce
decree, petition of Dana Joy T. Diaz was granted.
Macmod, Walid Z. Legal Technique and Logic JD-1B

Narrative form of Facts:

Petitioner Dana Joy T. Diaz, of legal age, Filipina, entered into a

marriage contract with Masaaki Fujita at the City Hall of Manila. Thereafter,
they migrated to Japan and stayed there. Later, petitioner discovered that
her husband was also having a relation with another woman, which resulted
in their frequent quarrels.

Masaaki did not want being nagged and decided to seek for a divorce.
Later, petitioners marriage with Masaaki was effectively dissolved.

After their divorce, Masaaki went back to the Philippines and married
another Filipina.

Petitioner prayed that the Divorce decree be recognized.

Applicable provision of Law:

1.) Art. 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which reads:

All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with

the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there
as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under
Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. (17a)

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly

celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by Executive Order
227)

2.) Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas G.R No. 186571 August 11, 2010

Preliminary Assessment:

The petition is impressed with merits.

 Under the Family Code, a foreign divorce decree between a Filipino
citizen and an alien can be recognized here in the Philippines jurisdiction as
long as the divorce was obtained by the alien spouse. In the case of Corpuz
v. Sto. Tomas, the Supreme Court ruled that Where a marriage between a
Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry
under Philippine law. The law allows this legal remedy to avoid the absurd
situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who,
after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The
legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse.

However, a judicial process is definitely required for the recognition of

foreign divorce decree. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
laws and judgments. Hence, both the foreign divorce decree and the national
law of the alien spouse must be alleged and proved in a Philippine court in
accordance with Philippine law on evidence. Pursuant to Art. 26 of the Family
Code, the following element must concur to avail the judicial recognition of
divorce decree:

1 There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino

citizen and a foreigner; and

2 A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him

or her to remarry.

In the instant case, it may be observed that the marriage between

Masaaki and petitioner Diaz is validly celebrated and thereafter the divorce
decree was validly obtained by Masaaki in his own country capacitating him
to remarry. Consequently, the necessary elements for judicial recognition of
divorce decree is present in this case, and therefore the petition should be
granted.
Pagdanganan, Joana Heidi, P. JD1B Legal Technique and Logic

RE: Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decree

FACTS:

On August 19, 2010, at the City Hall of Manila Dana Joy Diaz, Filipino
and resident of Daet, Camarines Norte married Masaaki Fujita, a Japanese
national. After their marriage they migrated to Japan and stayed there for a
while. Later on, petitioner discovered that her husband was having an affair
with another woman, which resulted in their frequent quarrels, until their
relationship became unbearable for the two of them.

Masaaki decided to terminate their marriage by initiating a Divorce

Notification as allowed by the Civil Code of Japan. Petitioner accepts the
Divorce Notification and as a result a Divorce by Agreement was perfected
under the Japanese laws. Petitioners marriage with Masaaki Fujita was
effectively dissolved on May 29, 2013.

Masaaki went back to the Philippines and married another Filipina

since he is already released from the bondage of their marriage with the
petitioner as allowed by his national law.

However under the Philippine laws, petitioner is still married to

Masaaki and therefore could not contract marriage with another person,
unless their said divorce decree is recognized by the Philippine Courts as
allowed by local laws and jurisprudence , the petitioner would remain tied to
Masaaki, who in any eventuality, could even claim to have hereditary rights
from her. Hence the petition.
APPLICABLE PROVISION OF LAW:

Article 26 paragraph 2 of The Family Code of the Philippines, Where a

marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and
a divorce is thereafter obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to
remarry under Philippine law.

ASSESSMENT:

The petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decree should

be granted. A Filipino spouse can remarry after being divorced abroad by his
or her alien spouse, as long as the alien spouse can remarry after the
divorce, the Filipino spouse can also remarry.

The twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are

met:

1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino

citizen and a foreigner; and

2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him

or her to remarry. (Republic vs. Orbecido III, 472 SCRA 114, G.R. No.
154380 October 5, 2005)

Since, a valid marriage was contracted by spouses here in the

Philippines and thereafter the foreign divorce was instigated or petitioned by
the alien spouse and was valid under the laws of the country where it was
obtained. Hence the petition should be granted.
RESURRECCION, Kimberly R.
JD 1B

Facts:

Petitioner, Dana Joy T. Diaz, a Filipino, married Masaaki Fujita, a

Japanese national, on August 19, 2010 at the City Hall of Manila.
Subsequently, they migrated to Japan and stayed there for a while. However,
petitioner discovered that her husband was also having a relation with
another woman, which resulted to frequent quarrels. As he did not wanted to
be nagged, Masaaki decided to terminate their marriage and initiated a
divorce notification as allowed by the Civil Code of Japan, upset, petitioner
accepted the same.
After their divorce, Masaaki went back to the Philippines and for his
national law allows it, he married again a Filipina. Due to this, petitioner
prayed that their divorce decree be recognized by the Philippine court
together with all the legal effects and consequences, including her right to
remarry.

Issue: Whether or not the petition should be granted.

Assessment:

Yes. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states

that, where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise
have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

The Supreme Court ruled in a case that only Philippine nationals are
covered by the policy against absolute divorces, as it is contrary to our
concept of public policy. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to
their national law. (Vandorn vs. Romillo, Jr. 139 SCRA 139 October 8, 1985;
see also Llorente vs. CA, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000)
 In the case at bar, since the marriage between Masaaki and Dana Joy
was valid and a divorce decree was validly obtained under the Japanese law,
Dana Joy should be released from the standards of marriage of Japanese
law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. Thus, pursuant to his
national law, Masaaki is no longer the husband of petitioner capacitating the
latter to remarry pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.
 Robles, Jotham

1.)
Facts:

Dana Joy T. Diaz, 23 years of age born on February 26, 1987 , Daet,
Camarines Norte was married to Masaaki Fujita on August 19, 2010 at the
City Hall of Manila. Petitioner and her husband migrated to Japan and stayed
there for a while, petitioner discovered that her husband was also having a
relation with another woman, which resulted in their frequent quarrels, until
their relationship became unbearable for the two of them. Masaaki did not
want to be nagged so he decided to terminate their marriage. He initiated a
Divorce Notification, as allowed by the Civil Code of Japan. Being already
upset with their relationship, petitioner accepted the Divorce Notification on
May 29, 2013.

Under Japanese laws, divorce by agreement takes effect upon

acceptance thereof by the other spouse, in this case by the petitioner. Thus
petitioners marriage with Masaaki was effectively dissolved on May 29,
2013.

Just after that divorce, Masaaki went back to the Philippines and
married another Filipina on November 7, 2013. Under the circumstances,
while Masaaki is already released from the bondage of their marriage with
the petitioner as allowed by his national law, and thus already free to
remarry herein petitioner in the eyes of the Philippine laws, is still married to
Masaaki and could not contract marriage with third party; Unless their said
divorce decree is recognized by the Philippine Courts as allowed by local laws
and jurisprudence, the petitioner would remain tied with Masaaki.

2.) The petitioner prays for the recognition of the divorce decree here
in the Philippines, including the right to remarry.

Divorce can take place if the spouse from another country seeks it in
their own home country. The foreigners country must accept the divorce
for it to be valid. In the Family Code of the Philippines, paragraph 2 of
Article 26 explains that legal marriages between a Filipino national and a
non-native are genuinely recognized. A divorce must be accurately
 attained overseas by the non-native spouse which is the only way to allow
remarriage.

In order for a Filipino to remarry, he or she must have been in a

marriage that is recognized by Filipino law, involve a marriage between a
Filipino and a non-native, and the non-native must have obtained a
legally binding divorce while overseas. In order for the divorce to be
legally binding, it must be filed in court and accepted there. If this
process is followed, both parties are free to remarry.

Until recently, this applied only to mixed couples of Filipino marriages.

The rule has broadened and now includes Filipinos who have become
naturalized in another country and seek a legally binding divorce.

3.) Whether or not the petition should be granted

Yes, the petition should be granted.

The petition sought is for the purpose of remarrying, giving

another chance to have a family and in order to do that petitioner should be
granted an official recognition of her divorce here in our country.
Jay Mark A. Santos (2016-166335)
Juris Doctor 1-B

A PETITION TO RECOGNIZE A DIVORCE DECREE OF

DIANA DIAZ AND MASAAKI FUJITA

Facts:

This case was stemmed on August 19, 2010 when Diana Joy Diaz; a Filipino citizen,
petitioner herein, and Masaaki Fujita; a Japanese national got married.

They migrated to Japan and there stayed for a while, however the petitioner discovered
her husbands infidelity which resulted in their frequently quarrels. Masaaki initiated a
Divorce Notification which is allowed by the Civil Code of Japan and on May 29, 2013
their marriage was dissolved by the acceptance of the Divorce Notification by the
petitioner in accordance with Japanese Law.

After the divorce, Masaaki went back to the Philippines and married another Filipina
named Janet Rafael y Parlbucho on November 7, 2013. The Petitioner herein prohibited
to contract marriage with the third person because in the eyes of the Philippine Laws,
she is still married to Masaaki. She also contends that recognition of their divorce by the
Philippine Courts would equalize the seeming inequality between her and her Japanese
husband.

Petitioners prays that their divorce be recognize, together with all the legal effects and
consequences thereof including the right of the petitioner to remarry.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition must be granted

Logical and Well-Reasoned Preliminary Assessment:

Base on the facts and pieces of evidence presented by the petitioner, the petition
should be granted.

According of Article 26 of the Family Code provides that:

All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in
the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in
this country, except those prohibited under Articles 25(1), (4), (5), (6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

In view of the foregoing, the elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as
follow:

1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner; and

2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court in (Corpus V. Sto Tomas GR.No. 186571,
August 11, 2010) stressed that the legislative intent of Article 26 of the family code is
for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his/her marital status, settling the
doubts created by the divorce decree. Essentially the second paragraph of art 26 of the
family code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her marriage
to the alien spouse considered dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry.

Without the second paragraph of Article 26, the judicial recognition of the foreign decree
of divorce, whether in a proceeding instituted precisely for that purpose or as related
issue in another proceeding would be no significance to the Filipino spouse since our
laws do not recognized divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond. Furthermore
because of the inclusion of the second paragraph it provides the direct exemption to the
rule of Article 17 of the Civil Code to the policy against absolute divorce cannot be
subverted by judgment promulgated in a foreign country, as a result the dissolution of
the marriage between a Filipino and an alien now recognized.

In (Fujiki v. Marinay G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013) it explained the rationale behind
Article 26 of the family code which is based on the Courts Decision in Van Dorn v.
Romillo which declared that the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against her
own country if the ends of justice are to be served.

It also explains that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family code is only a
corrective measure to address the anomaly that results from the marriage between a
Filipino whose laws do not allow divorce and a foreigner whose laws allow divorce. The
anomaly consists in the Filipino spouse being tied to the marriage while the foreign
spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country. The correction is made by
extending in the Philippines the effect of the foreign divorce decree, which is already
effective in the country where it was rendered.

In the case at bar, the petitioner and his husband Masaaki Fujita complied with the
following requisites, they contracted a valid marriage and they obtained also a valid
divorced who initiated by the husband in accordance with the Japanese Laws, which is
the lex nationali of the husband. Furthermore recognizing the petition can equalized the
seeming inequality between her and her Japanese husband.

Therefore the petitioners pray that their divorce be recognize, together with all the legal
effects and consequences thereof including the right of the petitioner to remarry should
be granted.
Tumalad, Jun S. Legal Technique and Logic Atty. Ronel U. Buenaventura
JD 1-B February 22, 2017

1.) Facts of the Petition

Dana Joy T. Diaz, of legal age, Filipino contracted a marriage with

Masaaki Fujita, a Japanese National on August 19, 2010 at the City Hall of
Manila, Philippines and was officiated by Rev. Alfonso S. Dabao, Sr.

After then, they migrated to Japan as husband and wife; and stayed
there for a while. However, Dana Joy discovered that her husband Masaaki
was also having a relation with another woman. And it resulted to an
unbearable and bitter relationship.

Because of that, Masaaki initiated a Divorce Notification duly notarized

and authenticated by a Philippine Consul in Japan. And upon acceptance of
Dana Joy of the Divorce by Agreement, their marriage was effectively
dissolved on May 29, 2013.

On November 7, 2013, Masaaki contracted a marriage to Janet

Rafaelly Parlbucho, a Filipina, and solemnized here in the Philippines.

In view of this, Dana Joy filed a petition praying for the recognition by
the Philippine Courts of the Divorce Decree between her and Masaaki.

2. Applicable provisions of law relied upon by Dana Joy

As a general rule, foreign divorces obtained by Filipino citizens will be

considered void and are not recognized under Philippine law. This is in
consequence of the absence of any law in the Philippines recognizing
divorces. Under Art. 15 of the Civil Code, laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

Pursuant to Art. 26 (2) of the Family Code creates an exception to the

foregoing rules. And it provides that when a marriage between a Filipino
citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As
amended by E.O. 227)
 In the case of Van Dorn vs. Romillo [134 SCRA 139] noted that the
marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A
husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law.

For Philippine courts to recognized a foreign judgment relating to the

status of a marriage, a copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in
evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Section 24 and 25, in relation
to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court. (Noveras vs. Noveras, 733
SCRA, 528 (2014).

3. WHETHER OR NOT the petition should be granted.

Yes, the Petition of Dana Joy should be granted. Dana Joy claims that
the following documents such as Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce
Notification and Divorce certificate duly issued by Consul Yoshihisa Joto
dated May 29, 2013 under the Japanese laws as a sufficient evidence
showing the foreign law governing her status as a divorcee.

In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 (2)

of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in
case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry.

In the case of Fujiki v. Marinay, et al., GR No. 1960049, June 26, 2013,
the Court said that If the foreign judgment is not recognized in the
Philippines, the Filipino spouse will be discriminated the foreign spouse can
remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry.

Therefore, the petition of Dana Joy is meritorious and the Divorce

Decree between her and Masaaki shall be recognized including the right of
Dana Joy to remarry as the law provides.
VALDERAMA, Sharmaine Devie Legal Technique and Logic
2016-166369 23 February 2017
JD1B

FACTS:

On 19 August 2010, petitioner Dana Joy Diaz entered into a marriage

contract with Masaaki Fujita (aka Katsuaki Fujita), a Japanese national.
Thereafter, they migrated to Japan. However, Diaz later discovered that her
husband was having a relationship with another woman. Diaz and Fujita
frequently quarrelled until their relationship became unbearable for the two,
leading Fujita to terminate their marriage. He initiated a Divorce Notification,
as allowed by the Civil Code of Japan. Diaz accepted the Notification on 29
May 2013, which effectively dissolved their marriage under Japanese laws.
After the divorce, Fujita went back to the Philippines and married another
Filipina on 7 November 2013. Diaz now prays for the Recognition of the
Foreign Decree of Divorce to free herself from the marriage in accordance
with Philippine laws.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Petition for Recognition of Foreign Decree of

Divorce should be granted.

RULING:

YES. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code states:

2. When a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly

celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to
remarry under Philippine law.

There are three requisites, before a Filipino spouse can remarry after
being divorced by a foreign spouse, that can be inferred from the above
quote, namely:

1 That there is a validly celebrated marriage between a Filipino citizen

and an alien
2 That a valid divorce has been obtained by the alien spouse, in
accordance to his or her national law
3 That said divorce capacitated the alien spouse to remarry
 In the case of Fujiki v. Marinay (G.R. No. 196049, 26 June 2013), it
was ruled that the effect of Art. 26, par. 2 is not to nullify a marriage but
simply to extend the effect of a foreign decree of divorce to Philippine
jurisdiction. It presupposes the existence of a prior judgment in a foreign
jurisdiction.

To prove the validity of the divorce, the Supreme Court ruled in the
case of Ando v. DFA ( G.R. No. 195432, 27 August 2014), that the evidence
of law requires that both the divorce decre and the national law of the alien
be alleged and proven like any other fact; the Court does not take judicial
notice of the laws promulgated in another country (Republic v. Orbecido,
G.R. No. 154380, 5 October 2005). In the present petition, petitioner Diaz
brought all the necessary documents to prove that:

1 there was a valid marriage between Fujita and her (the Marriage
Certificate)
2 that a valid divorce decree was obtained in accordance with the
aliens national law (the decree of divorce and a copy of the Civil
Code of Japan)
3 and that the divorce capacitated Fujita to remarry (Certificate of All
Records)

As shown in Fujitas Certificate of All Records, he has already

remarried shortly after obtaining the Decree of Divorce to dissolve his
marriage with Diaz. Meanwhile, Diaz is still left legally married to Fujita in
the eyes of the Philippine laws. However, Diaz must not be left married to
Fujita while he is already free from all marital responsibilities if the ends of
justice were to be served, as stated in the landmark case of Van Dorn v.
Romillo (G.R. No. L-68470, 8 October 1985). The Court must then recognize
the Foreign Decree of Divorce to remedy this inequality.

WHEREFORE, the petition should be GRANTED.