Allowing Absolute Divorce in the

Philippines
Divorce is a controversial topic, except that its often discussed with hushed voices. Many
are just waiting for the right opportunity to end their respective marriages, and the reasons
are diverse physical abuse (against the spouse and/or the children), sexual infidelity,
irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities, gross irresponsibility, loss (and
transfer) of affection, among others. Unfortunately, these grounds are not enough to severe
the marital bond through annulment. In lieu of divorce, married persons resort to annulment
and according to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), there is an alarming increase in
the number of annulment cases in the Philippines. The number of annulment cases filed in
courts, which never breached the 7,000-mark prior to 2006, rose to 7,138 (2006) and 7,753
(2007).
Existing Philippine Laws regarding Divorce
Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce, but divorce was available in certain
periods in Philippine history. Divorce was allowed under the Divorce Law of 1917 (Act No.
2710) and during the Japanese occupation, pursuant to Executive Order No. 141 (1943). As
the law stands today, however, a marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even
by a divorce obtained abroad. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner (or
former Filipinos), Article 26 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.
It is not really accurate to say that there is absolutely no divorce in the Philippines. Under
Presidential Decree No. 1083, also known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines, divorce is allowed in certain instances, but this law applies only when both
parties are Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is
solemnized in accordance with Muslim law in any part of the Philippines. For the rest of
Filipinos, therefore, divorce is not available.
Efforts to Legalize Divorce in the Philippines

In 2005, party-list representative Liza Masa of Gabriela filed a divorce bill. According to Rep.
Masa, the annulment process has been expensive for most Filipinos and has not been
responsive to the needs of women, particularly those suffering from marital abuse. In 2001,
similar bills were filed in the Senate (Bill No. 782), introduced by Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon,
and House of Representatives (Bill No. 878), introduced by Honorable Bellaflor J. AngaraCastillo. In 1999, Representative Manuel C. Ortega filed House Bill No. 6993, seeking for the
legalization of divorce. The highlights of the explanatory note of House Bill No. 6993, in
support for divorce, are:
Not all marriages succeed as a permanent union. An increasing number of married
individuals find themselves subjected by their marriage partners to physical violence,
grossly abusive conduct and other acts of or offenses that rather than promote blissful,
harmonious conjugal and family life impair, debase or destroy the legitimate ends of the
marriage relationship. The bill seeks to give spouses which are shacked by an irretrievably
broken marriage the freedom to remarry and possibly succeed in attaining a stable and
fulfilling family life.
Divorce is not a novel legal right. The Family Code sanctions relative divorce (a mensa
et thoro). Legal separation is a recognized remedy for victims of failed marriages. Our civil
laws on marriage justify and allow the separation of married individuals but does not confer
them the legal right or remedy to extricate themselves from the ordeal of a broken
marriage.
Divorce is not exclusive to contemporary times. Before the Spanish colonial rule in the
early 16th century, absolute divorce had been widely practiced among our ancestral tribes
the Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadang of Nueva Vizcaya, the Sagada and Igorot of the
Cordilleras, the Manobo, Bila-an and Moslems of Visayas and Mindanao islands, to name a
few.
There were prior divorce laws. In 1917, Act 2710 allowed divorce on the grounds of
adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the part of the husband. During the
Japanese Occupation, a new law on absolute divorce, E.O. No. 141, was promulgated
providing for ten grounds for divorce. These laws are no longer in effect.
Based on the increasing number of failed marriages which confines many of our citizens to a
perpetual state of marital limbo, it has become morally and socially acceptable for many
Filipinos to grant spouses of broken marriages the legal right to remarry. The present
grounds for legal separation which are recognized in our society as justifiable bases for

relative divorce should be re-enacted as lawful grounds for absolute divorce. In addition, it is
recommended that irreconcilable marital differences be included in our present civil laws
as a justifiable cause for absolute divorce because not all circumstances and situations that
vitiate the institution of marriage could be specifically categorized and defined by our
lawmakers. Spouses living in a state of irreparable marital conflict or discord should be
given the opportunity to present their marital contrarieties before the courts and have such
differences adjudged as substantial grounds to dissolve or sever the legal bond of marriage.
In addition to these reasons, there are criticisms that the existing laws on annulment are
anti-poor, as the high cost needed to pursue a case for annulment prevents the poor from
securing one. This, however, is the very reason cited by those who oppose divorce the
high cost is intended to discourage the people from trifling with marriage. Allowing divorce
would serious weaken the institution of marriage. Anyone could decide to get married
without thinking twice because they can get out of the marriage easily with divorce. If the
current increase of annulment cases is alarming, imagine how the allowance of divorce
would greatly increase the figure. Other arguments against the legalization of divorce are
contained in the Position Paper of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) against these
bills. The highlights are:
1. The proposal to legalize absolute divorce with the right to remarry violates relevant
international instruments on human rights, particularly Article 16(3) of the United Nation
Declaration of Human Rights.
2.The innocent spouse and the children in most cases may suffer economic difficulties.
Aside from being abandoned by the guilty spouse, the innocent spouse and children, in most
cases, will suffer untold economic difficulties. The divorced spouses who will remarry will
have to maintain another family of their own.
3. The human rights of the innocent spouse is violated. The guilty spouse in the divorce case
is allowed to abandon or neglect his obligation to provide company and care of the innocent
spouse and the children, thus violating Article 68 of the Family Code which reads: The
husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and
render mutual help and support.
4. Irrespective of any religious beliefs, divorce of spouses with right to remarry constitutes a
grave offense against a natural law. Divorce is unnatural and immoral as it causes disorder
in the family and society. Because of its contagious effect in society, it becomes a plague on

society. A divorce invites another divorce. The innocent spouse who has not contravened
any law is unlawfully deserted.
5. Absolute divorce is destructive of the family as a social institution mandated under the
Constitution. One of the basic policies of the State, as declared in the principles of the
Philippine Constitution reads: The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the young for civic inefficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the support of the government.(Article 11,
Section 12) The relevant constitutional provisions will have to be amended before the
divorce bills will be enacted into law.
6. Absolute divorce violates the concept of marriage, a permanent union of man and
woman. The Family Code defines marriage as a permanent union of man and woman (Art.
1). The Civil Code also provides for the presumption of the solidarity of the family and the
indissolubility of marriage bonds (Art. 220).
Absolute divorce destroys the very concept of family as an inviolable social institution. The
purpose of the proponents of the Senate and House Bills that it will give an opportunity for
spouses to separate from an intolerable spouse and by entering into a new marriage is not
altogether an assurance that the new marriage will be a happy and permanent one. The
experience in countries where divorces are allowed and easily obtained, such as the United
States, is that people divorces have experienced multiple divorces and have remarried
several times in their selfish desire to get rid of unwanted spouses by intentionally creating
the cause of the divorce.
There was little interest in our previous post calling for arguments regarding the legalization
of divorce in the Philippines. Maybe no one reads this site, although it could also be
reflective of the fact that people are still not comfortable discussing divorce in the open.
The informal poll, on the other hand, revealed that 79% favors divorce. Lets continue the
poll below.

Divorce bill unconstitutional

Any measure filed in Congresswhether pro or anti-divorceviolates the charter, a Nationalist
Peoples Coalition stalwart said on Friday. Returning Isabela Rep. Rodolfo Albano III said the

state policy on marriage and the inviolability of marriage are found in the 1987
Constitution and the Article 1 of the Family Code, respectively. You have to amend the
Constitution first in order, Albano told the Manila Standard. Section 2 of Article XV of the
Constitution provides that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State, he noted. The mere filing of those bills was
unconstitutional. Proposals on divorce were revived at the House of Representatives after
Marikina Rep. Marcelino Teodoro filed his so-called anti-divorce bill (HB 37) to strengthen
the family as the nations foundation by making sure the bond of marriage remains intact
unless on grounds prescribed by existing law on the matter. Teodoros measure was to
counter Gabriela Rep. Luzviminda Ilagans divorce bill. In the 15th Congress, Ilagan filed HB
1799 on five grounds for divorce, including irreconcilable differences that have caused the
irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Albano said both proposals were not legally tenable
while underscoring the Family Code, stating that marriage is the foundation of the family and
an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law,
and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations
during the marriage. Malacaang distanced itself from the measure being pushed by its ally,
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. Presidential Communications Development Secretary Ramon
Carandang said the Palace was not even thinking about the bill.

Divorce law unlikely

By Jess Diaz (The Philippine Star) | Updated June 17, 2014 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines - Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Farias said yesterday Congress can approve a bill
allowing divorce in the country, but if it becomes a law, the Supreme Court will surely strike it down as
unconstitutional.
A divorce law could be easily challenged as unconstitutional before the Supreme Court, he said.
Farias said Article XV Section 2 of the Constitution titled The Family provides: Marriage, as an
inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.
He said the Constitution unequivocally declares that marriage is an inviolable social institution and that
the state, including Congress, shall protect it. So how could the State or Congress pass a law
destroying or violating marriage? he said.
Farias said the constitutional provision on the inviolability and sanctity of marriage should first be
amended before Congress can enact a law allowing divorce.
He made the statement as womens party-list group Gabriela announced that it would file again the
divorce bill that previous Congresses have refused to pass.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

The group said allowing divorce would give married couples another remedy that they can avail
themselves of if their differences become irreconcilable.

Authors say divorce bill

wont violate PHL
Constitution
Published June 1, 2011 11:21am
By ANDREO CALONZO, GMA News

Authors of the divorce bill in the House of Representatives on

Wednesday maintained the measure they are pushing will not
violate the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Gabriela Womens party-list Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan, one of the
authors of House Bill 1799, said the bill does not clash with the
states principle of protecting the sanctity of family life, as stated in
Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution.
The provision says: The State recognizes the sanctity of family life
and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and
the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right
and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency
and the development of moral character shall receive the support of
the government.
"This proposal does not violate the sanctity of the family. It may
even strengthen the sanctity of marriage. People will be aware that
there are vows and responsibilities to be fulfilled, but reality is, some
marriages fail," Ilagan said in the day's scheduled hearing.

The House committee on revision of laws began on Wednesday

morning initial deliberations on the Philippine divorce bill, days after
European country Malta approved the introduction of divorce in the
staunchly Catholic state via a referendum.
Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, however, insisted that HB
1799 is unconstitutional, since it "opens the floodgates for all to get
divorce."
"Children will grow up with only one parent. Thats the worst
punishment we can give to our children," Rodriguez said during the
hearing.
Ilagan, however, said the measure may help children of couples with
failed marriages to get out of the "unhappy" situation.
"It may be more harmful for children if these unhappy couples stay
together. We are only introducing an option," she said.
For her part, lawyer Evalyn Ursua, one of the resource persons
during the hearing,
backed Iligans claim that HB 1799 is consistent with the
Constitution.
"There is no constitutional prohibition on it [divorce]. The
Constitution has no intent to keep failing marriages together," she
said. RSJ, GMA News

- See more at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/222224/news/nation/authorssay-divorce-bill-won-t-violate-phl-constitution#sthash.oh6Sp1hC.dpuf

Divorce unconstitutional, says anti-RH lawyer

By David Dizon, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at | Updated as of 01/09/13 4:14 AM

MANILA, Philippines A lawyer who has challenged the Reproductive Health (RH) law before the Supreme Court
believes legalizing divorce in the Philippines is unconstitutional.
Atty. James Imbong, son of Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines legal counsel Jo Imbong, said a divorce
law would have a tremendous effect on Philippine society by weakening marriages and families.
As long as we have the Constitution that we have now, definitely divorce is not there to strengthen the family. The
natural effect of divorce -- as the proponents say, divorce makes the life of the former wife or spouse better but the
immediate effect there is the family is broken because you dont have the natural parents, he told ANCs Headstart.
Imbong said not every trend outside of the Philippines should be followed. This, amid reports that aside from the
Vatican, the Philippines is the only country in the world that does not have a law on divorce.
He said people in unhappy marriages can have their marriages annulled or undergo legal separation.
Our Constitution states that the family is the foundation of our nation. I am not saying we dont care about the wife
who is battered or the children that are abused by the father, the broken marriage. There are more foundational
principles that we have to preserve even if there are broken marriages, he said.
5 grounds for divorce
In the interview, Gabriela Rep. Luz Ilagan said the party-list groups push for a divorce law is a response to the clamor
of many Filipino women who are seeking another legal remedy to problems with their marriages.
The party-list lawmaker said many spouses do not want their marriages annulled because one has to be declared
psychologically incapacitated for the plea to be approved. She added majority of people cannot afford annulment
because it is expensive.
Ilagan said other spouses also do not want legal separation because it bars them from marrying again.
The lawmaker listed 5 possible conditions for granting divorce in the Philippines under House Bill No. 1799 or An Act
Introducing Divorce in the Philippines:
1.

If the couple has been separated at least 5 years and there is no more chance of reconciliation.

2.

If the couple has been legally separated for at least 2 years at the time of the filing for divorce.

3.

Psychological incapacity

4.

Abandonment, marital infidelity or domestic violence or any of the grounds for legal separation

5.

Irreconcilable differences

Imbong, however, noted that it would be very easy to simulate grounds for divorce under the proposed bill.
He said his experience working at the Office of the Solicitor General showed him how some legal practitioners and
psychologists would try to use abuse the grounds needed to grant annulment or legal separation.

He also rejected the reasoning that other Filipinos should have the same privileges as Muslims, which are allowed to
divorce under the sharia court.
The Constitution allows us to recognize the customs, traditions and cultural heritage of the region of the Muslims. We
have personal Muslim laws. This is not a grant of divorce simply because they lobbied for it, they made studies. This
is older than us. This is their culture. It is a matter of political wisdom that the Constitution and our government is
recognizing the tradition of divorce. We dont have that, he said.
In the interview, Ilagan said there were a total of 8,283 cases filed for nullification of marriages in 2010. This is nearly
double the 4,520 cases of nullity filed in 2001.
Imbong said wives who have cheating spouses can always file for annulment or legal separation. Told that the
annulment process could easily cost P300,000-P500,000, he said: Thats besides the point. Just because it is legally
expensiveWe are talking about a law that grants a right to people rich or poor.

Constitution protects sanctity of marriage

Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Farias yesterday asked divorce advocates in the Lower Chamber to first work to amend
the Constitution before moving to legalize divorce in the country.
Farias said if Gabriela party-list Reps. Luzviminda Ilagan and Emmi de Jesus are determined to pursue the passage
of the House Bill (HB) 4408 otherwise known as the divorce bill, Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which
protects the sanctity of marriage, must be amended.
As I opined in one of the hearings of a similar bill in the previous Congress, a divorce law could be easily challenged
as unconstitutional, he said.
Citing Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, Farias said marriage is an inviolable social institution and
shall be protected by the State.
Farias is doubtful that HB 4408 would be passed and enacted into law, saying that it could face a legal battle
because of its infirmities.
It is unconstitutional. So how could the State pass a law destroying or violating marriage? The Constitution has to be
amended first, he pointed out.
Even House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. maintained that the measure would not prosper this 16th Congress,
stressing that it is not included in the list of their legislative priorities.
The militant Gabriela womens group has been pursuing the passage of the divorce bill since the 13th Congress.
Under HB 4408, divorce will be granted to the following: when petitioner who has been separated de facto from his or
her spouse for at least five years and reconciliation is highly improbable; when petitioner who has been legally

separated from his or her spouse for at least two years and reconciliation is improbable; and when any of the grounds
for legal separation under paragraph (a) of Article 55 of the Family Code has caused the irreparable breakdown of the
marriage.
When one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations; and
when the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused irreparable breakdown of the marriage are
also among the grounds for divorce as stated in the bill.

Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/constitution-protects-sanctity-of-marriage/#ZCzH4dCDsvmw1gqb.99

Divorce bill unconstitutional

http://yats.us.cloudlogin.co/clearwaterphilippines/wordpress/2011/06/divorce-bill-unconstitutional/
Thursday, June 2, 2011
MANILA The proposed measure seeking the legalization of divorce in the country may not be
approved after several lawmakers expressed their opposition during a House committee hearing
Wednesday.
Cagayan de Oro Representative Rufus Rodriguez said House Bill 1799 filed by Gabriela Representatives
Emmi de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan is against the spirit and text of the 1987 Constitution.
Rodriguez cited Article 15, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states: Marriage, as an inviolable
social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.
It will not be enacted because couples will surely have differing views, Ilocos Norte Representative
Rodolfo Farias quipped.
If there is a need for a divorce, the Constitution has to be amended first, he added.
Independent pollster Social Weather Stations (SWS), however, showed Wednesday that public support
for divorce for separated couples vastly improved over the past six years.
The non-commission survey of SWS, conducted between March 4 and 7, revealed that one in two
Filipinos are now backing the measure.
amon Casiple, executive director of the Institute for Political and Economic Reform, told Sun.Star that
divorce is not yet a mature issue, thus there is possibility that the figures may change.
The Philippines looms to be the lone country without a divorce after residents of tiny European state
Malta voted to legalize the controversial measure strongly opposed by the Catholic Church.
The divorce bill in the country will have to be approved at the House committee on revision of laws
before members of the House of Representatives debate on it in the plenary.
The legislation has been filed since the 13th Congress by then-Gabriela congresswoman Liza Maza.
But lawyer Jo Imbong, legal counsel of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP),
asserted that divorce is against the Constitution.
The absence of an absolute divorce in the country has actually kept marriages together, he said.
How many divorces can one have? How many spouses can one abandon? Divorce begets divorce. Is it
correct to claim that absolute divorce is the last resort? Imbong said.
Pro-marriage bill

Imbong also decried why members of Congress propose legislation that would nullify marriage, but no
measures have been proposed to strengthen marriages.
Lawyer Evalyn Ursua, a professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law, meanwhile, said
the Filipinos cannot continue to oppose the divorce law simply because they are allergic to the term
divorce.
She pointed out that the possible existence of a divorce law in the country will not be a reason for a
failed marriage since several factors, including forced migration and poverty, have caused the
separation of most couples.
No prohibition on divorce will stop failed marriages; failed marriages happen every dayOur duty to
our people is to give remedies that respect their religious views. Whether they are Catholic or not,
they should have a choice, Ursua added.
Ilagan urged her colleagues to pass a measure, which could give couples in abusive and irreparable
marriages the option of divorce.
3 remedies
The Family Code that governs marriage and family relations in our country provides three remedies to
marriages.
These are declaration of nullity, annulment and legal separation.
House Bill 1799 introduces another remedy, the remedy of divorce.
The authors of the divorce bill said their proposal is not modeled after divorce systems of other
countries, calling it divorce, Filipino- style.
Under the measure, couples who may apply for divorce should have been separated for five years and
those already legally separated for two years. (Kathrina Alvarez/With Virgil Lopez/Sunnex)
Source: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/06/02/divorce-bill-unconstitutional158847
Enjoyable place for traveler to hang out near Manila for family bonding is Clearwater Beach Resort
Highly recommended summer vacation destination outside Manila is Clearwater Beach Resort in Clark,
a safe and convenient tourist spot that offers natural ambience for visitors to enjoy the outdoors with
no stress.
Holy Week gives hard-working Manila residents a break from the stressful life at work. Many residents
of Manila decide to go out of town to the North, to Subic, Angeles City, Pampanga and Clark
Philippines in search for a peaceful and tranquil lake and beach resort hotel for the family to spend
some quality time together.
Philippines Travel Guide just unveiled recommendations and tips for Holy Week and Easter Holidays in
Philippines. The report covers highly recommended resorts and hotels in North Luzon, nice getaway
destinations for families with children, safe and convenient place for tourists to relax and unwind, good
restaurants, resto bars, pubs and fine dining establishments in Pampanga, frequently visited places as
well as historical sites in Angeles City, Pampanga, Clark Philippines.
The best getaway destination vacation spot near Manila is the safe and accessible private resort
Clearwater Beach Resort in Clark Pampanga, a 13-hectare property with lake, beach, picnic grounds
and small number of cottages. Parents enjoy a good round of golf in one of the best golf courses in
Pampanga while children enjoy the outdoor picnic facilities of the best hotel near Manila, Philippines.

Clark is already a popular destination for golfers from Manila. Clark Freeport offers some of the best
golf courses in Pampanga and outshines many golf clubs and golf courses elsewhere in the Philippines.

Absolute divorce is a declaration by a court that a marriage has been dissolved. Hence, absolute
divorce is a judicial dissolution or termination of the bonds of matrimony. It occurs because of marital
misconduct or other statutory cause arising after a marriage ceremony, with the result that the status
of the parties is changed from coverture to that of single persons. An absolute divorce can only be
obtained by a judgment of the court finding that all of the legal requirements have been met.
Remarriage is legally impossible until an absolute divorce judgment has been entered.

Philippines Stands All but Alone in Banning Divorce

Posted on June 18, 2011 by Carlos H. Conde
- See more at: http://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banningdivorce/#sthash.PcomGBJf.dpuf
By CARLOS H. CONDE
Published: June 17, 2011
The New York Times
MANILA When citizens of the small Mediterranean nation of Malta voted in a referendum last month to legalize
divorce, they reignited debate in the Philippines, one of the last countries, along with Vatican City, where divorce is
still banned.
Days later, the issue surfaced at a hearing in the Philippine House of Representatives on a long-dormant bill.
The global reality is that divorce has been recognized as a legitimate option for couples, particularly for women, who
are trapped in unhappy, even violent, unions, said Luz Ilagan, a congresswoman representing the Gabriela Womens
Party and co-author of the bill. If they can do it in Malta, we can do it here. Let us not remain in the Dark Ages.
But the re-emergence of the divorce proposal has inflamed opponents in this overwhelmingly Roman Catholic
country and riled the church authorities, who have called it part of an orchestrated war against the Filipino family.
Oscar V. Cruz, a retired archbishop who is now the leading church voice against the bill, said Filipino Catholics should
not be ashamed that they are global holdouts on divorce.
That is a distinction that we should all be very proud of, Archbishop Cruz said. It says that we are not one of those
who believe the family can be destroyed.
Divorce is not an alien concept in the Philippines; it was legal during the U.S. and Japanese occupations in the early
part of the 20th century. However, it was prohibited with the enactment of the 1949 Civil Code.
The bill to legalize divorce was first filed by Ms. Ilagans party in 2005 but was generally ignored. The party refiled the
bill twice after that, most recently in July 2010. But it did not come up for discussion in a congressional committee

until this month, together with other proposals to amend the Family Code, which was passed in 1987 to supplant
sections of the Civil Code concerning marriage.
Even with the greater attention to the Philippines isolation on this issue after the Malta vote, the bill is not expected
to be approved soon. Catholic leaders have vowed to campaign hard against it. Opponents in Congress say they will
fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Rufus Rodriguez, a conservative congressman, called the bill
unconstitutional and divorce unnecessary.
President Benigno S. Aquino III, who has clashed with the Catholic Church over other legislation the Reproductive
Health Bill, which seeks to guarantee access to birth control information and methods but which the church has
assailed as pro-abortion has distanced himself from the divorce bill.
It is not a priority, and I dont see it becoming a priority even in the near future, he said recently. The sanctity of
families is very important to us.
Archbishop Cruz, the former bishop, rued what he saw as a pattern of anti-family measures, with the Reproductive
Health Bill being debated in Congress and now the divorce bill.
What they will do next? he asked in an interview. Allow same-sex marriage here?
The Philippines, he said, faces so many problems and yet we are bogged down by all these attacks against the family.
But proponents of the bill, while recognizing the difficulty of passing it, are undeterred.
Many Filipinos, especially women, are trapped in abusive and unhealthy relationships, and the remedies afforded
them are inadequate, said Ms. Ilagan.
The introduction of divorce in the Philippines will provide an additional option to women who seek to get out of
abusive and unhappy marriages, said Lana Linaban, secretary general of the Gabriela Womens Party.
The Family Code currently provides three options for spouses who want to get out of their marriage: legal separation,
annulment or a declaration of nullity of marriage. Lawmakers who advocate the legalization of divorce say those are
inadequate.
In a legal separation, they note, spouses cannot remarry because the marriage is not dissolved. An annulment, which
requires the testimony of psychiatrists that one party is psychologically too incapacitated to sustain the marriage, is
typically too complicated and costly for most people to pursue. A declaration of nullity requires a court to find that the
marriage was never valid to begin with because of factors like fraud.
According to government records, thousands of Filipinos have filed for separation, mostly for infidelity, physical
abuse and abandonment. And the numbers are growing. According to the Office of the Solicitor General, 7,753
petitions for legal separations, annulments and declarations of nullity of marriage were filed in 2007, compared with
4,520 in 2001.
A survey done in March and released this month by the Social Weather Stations, an independent polling company
based in Manila, found that 50 percent of respondents favored legalizing divorce, up from 43 percent in a similar
survey in 2005. Thirty-three percent were opposed and 16 percent undecided, with a margin of error of 3 percentage
points.

Lets not be hypocritical about this, Ms. Ilagan said. The church itself grants annulments.
She calls her bill divorce, Filipino-style because of its stringent requirements for applicants, among them that
petitioner and spouse have been legally separated for at least five years.
There wont be any Britney Spears marriages under our divorce law, said Ms. Ilagan, referring to the singers
marriage to her high school sweetheart in 2004, which lasted less than three days.
A version of this article appeared in print on June 18, 2011, in The International Herald Tribune with the headline:
Philippines Stands All but Alone in Banning Divorce.
- See more at: http://carlosconde.com/2011/06/18/philippines-stands-all-but-alone-in-banningdivorce/#sthash.PcomGBJf.dpuf

1986 Philippine Constitution and Divorce

http://ovc.blogspot.com/2013/01/1986-philippine-constitution-and-divorce.html
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as
a basic autonomous social institution. (Article 2, Section 12)

Let it be formally and expressly said that while someone must be good for something, not
everyone however is fit for marriage intents and purposes. This is a down-to-earth reality that is
squarely premised on the inherent nature of and obligations intrinsic to marriagesuch as the
requirements of mental composition, emotional constitution and physical make-up of the
concrete man and/or woman concerned. One thing is the plain desire of getting married but
definitely something else is to have the fitness, the capacity or aptitude for getting married.

It is understandable wherefore that more and more couples do not get married at allbut
simply unite and separate at will. In fact, more and more married men and women get married
and eventually come to part ways at willwith or without having children. Thus it is too that
more and more children from broken families become confused, angry and/or bitter even as
they grow in years and realize their predicament of growing without the parenting presence of
their fathers and/or mothers.

And yet, there are individuals who furthermore even want to introduce and legalize divorce in
the countryas if the fact of divorce and the divorce mentality would promote the right
understanding and proper living of the reality of marriage. The truth of the matter is that
divorce promotes divorce just as the possibility of divorce already weakens the resolve to get

married for a lifetimein accord with their own human dignity and pursuant to the inherent
rights of the children born of their union.

Divorce is not merely a direct contradiction of the standard Marriage Vows, but also a standing
contradiction of the Family Code of the Philippines and furthermore a blatant contradiction of
the Constitution of the Philippines. Hence, Filipinos who want divorce introduced and legalized
in the country, say but one and the same thing: Change the working of the Marriage Vows!
Change the Philippine Constitution! Change the Family Code of the Philippines! How
convenient! How gross!

Thus it is that in the context of a divorce provision, the constitutional principle of the sanctity
of family life is but a big joke. That the above likewise constitutional resolve to protect and
strengthen the family is simply a big lie. And that the equally constitutional consideration of
the family as a basic autonomous social institution is but a blatant farce. What a pity! What a
disaster!

Divorce
Filed under: Editorial |
http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=12018

THERE is no mistaking that while someone must be good for something, not everyone however is fit for
marriage intents and purposes. This is a down-to-earth reality that is squarely premised on the inherent
nature of and obligations intrinsic to marriagesuch as the requirements of mental composition,
emotional constitution and physical make-up of the concrete man or woman concerned. One thing is the
plain desire of getting married but definitely something else is to have the fitness, the capacity or aptitude
for getting married.
It is understandable wherefore that more and more couples do not get married at allbut simply unite
and separate at will. In fact, more and more married men and women get married and eventually come to
part ways at willwith or without having children. Thus it is too that more and more children from broken
families become confused, angry or bitter even as they grow in years and realize their predicament of
growing without the parenting presence of their fathers and mothers.
And yet, there are individuals who even want to introduce and legalize divorce in the countryas if the
fact of divorce and the divorce mentality would promote the right understanding and proper living of the
reality of marriage. The truth of the matter is that divorce promotes divorce just as the possibility of

divorce already weakens the resolve to get married for a lifetimein accord with their own human dignity
and pursuant to the inherent rights of the children born of their union.
Divorce is not merely a direct contradiction to the standard Marriage Vows, but also a standing
contradiction of the Family Code of the Philippines and a blatant contradiction of the Constitution of the
Philippines. Hence, Filipinos who want divorce introduced and legalized in the country, say but one and
the same thing: Change the working of the Marriage Vows! Change the Philippine Constitution! Change
the Family Code of the Philippines.
Thus it is that in the context of those pushing for the legislation of divorce, the constitutional principle of
the sanctity of family life becomes but a big joke. That the constitutional resolve to protect and
strengthen the family is simply a big lie. And that the equally constitutional consideration of the family as
a basic autonomous social institution is but a blatant farce. Perhaps there is really a need to brace up for
what looks like a looming disaster.

Three faces of evangelization

TO better understand the New Evangelization, let us first place it within the comprehensive context of the
Churchs mission of Evangelization. In its precise sense, Evangelization is the missio ad
gentes directed to those who do not know Christ. In a wider sense, it is used to describe ordinary
pastoral work, while the phrase New Evangelization designates pastoral outreach to those who no
longer practice the Christian faith(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Note on Some
Aspects of Evangelization, December 3, 2007, 12).
The New Evangelization, therefore, is primarily addressed to the baptized in the Christian West who are
experiencing a new existential and cultural situation, which, in fact, has imperiled their faith and their
witness.This is a situation which Pope Benedict XVI has described as an interior desert which has
virtually eliminated any question of God (XIII Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of
Bishops, Instrumentum Laboris, 86). It is a crisis bearing in itself traces of the exclusion of God from
peoples lives, or a generalized indifference toward the Christian faith itself, to the point of attempting to
marginalize it from public life(Benedict XVI, Address to the Pontifical Council for Promoting New
Evangelization, May 30, 2011).
But in fact the cultural situation so described applies as well to certain parts of Africa, Asia-Oceania, and
South America. Referring to Africa, Pope Benedict XVI observed that the situation in the continent call
Christians to reawaken their enthusiasm for being members of the Churchto live the Good News as
individuals, in their families and in society and to proclaim it with fresh zeal to persons near and far (PostSynodal Apostolic Exhortation Africae Munus 160, 2011).
While the Christian West must deal with the challenge of secularism, materialism, and relativism leading
to the abandonment of faith, the same problem to a lesser degree is posed to the younger Churches,
especially those sectors that are highly influenced by great social and cultural changes. These, too, are
fertile ground for the New Evangelization (Instrumentum Laboris 89).

More specifically, following the lead of Blessed Pope John Paul II (Redemptoris Missio, 37-38) the New
Evangelization has to be directed to the cultural, social, political, economic civic, scientific and
technological, communications and religious dimensions of life. All these have been deeply influenced by
the globalizing secularist and materialist culture.
The pastoral situation calls on the whole Church, the faithful, to participate in overcoming the separation
of the Gospel from life and reconstructing, in the everyday activities of the home, work and society, the
unity of life which finds its inspiration in the Gospel and, in the same Gospel, the strength to realize it
fully (cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici 30, 1988).

Lack of divorce law nothing to be proud ofPia Cayetano

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/681159/lack-of-divorce-lawnothing-to-be-proud-of-pia-cayetano#ixzz404Go8lia
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

MANILA, PhilippinesThe absence of a divorce law in the Philippines is nothing to

be proud of, according to Sen. Pia Cayetano who considers the lack of a divorce
provision in the countrys laws to be discriminatory.
We consider that a discriminatory practice because many women are forced to stay in
a marriage that is harmful to them, either physically or emotionally. I speak of it from
a womens perspective, but it doesnt mean that it cannot apply also to men, said
Cayetano, who chairs the Senate committee on women, family relations and gender
equality.
The senator said she was considering holding hearings on divorce but was not sure her
colleagues in Congress would embrace such a bill, even though a recent Social
Weather Stations (SWS) survey showed that majority of Filipinos want to legalize
divorce.
The influential Catholic hierarchy, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the
Philippines, is strongly opposed to a divorce law.
According to Cayetano, there was nothing to be proud of in the fact that the
Philippines, except for the Vatican, is the only country in the world that still does not
allow divorce.

It doesnt say anything for us. What does it mean? That we are self-suffering? That
we allow women, or men for that matter, to stay in horrible relationships and possibly
not even be good parents to their children simply because our law does not recognize
that they should live separate lives? she said.
Those not in favor of divorce need not avail themselves of it, but they should not
deprive other Filipinos of the right to divorce, the senator said.
Cayetano said no divorce bill has been filed in the Senate, but there are bills to expand
legal separation and the definition of annulment, and she can use these to initiate the
deliberations on divorce.
Earlier, Cayetanos committee discussed laws discriminatory against women,
including the Family Code and its lack of a divorce provision. The senator said she
would look into whether these earlier discussions could be made to extend into a
hearing on divorce or if a new resolution needed to be filed.
There could be a redefinition of how to terminate or change the status of a marriage,
she said.
My question really was: How far will this go? But I am happy to be part of it and to
introduce it, she said.
In the House, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said he did not think Congress would
pass a divorce bill even if majority of Filipinos want it.
I dont think it has any chance to pass the 16th Congress, said Belmonte, referring
to the divorce bill filed in the House by Gabriela party-list members Luzviminda
Ilagan and Emmi de Jesus.
Belmonte cited the Catholic Churchs opposition to divorce as the main stumbling
block to such a proposal supported by 60 percent of Filipinos as shown in the SWS
survey.
Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Farias said the Constitution should be amended first
because a divorce law would violate the Charter.
Farias cited Article XV of the Constitution in which the state recognizes the family
as the basic foundation of the nation.

1-BAP party-list representative Silvestre Bello III, a former justice secretary, said a
divorce law would be seen as destroying the family in a country dominated by
Catholics.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/681159/lack-of-divorce-lawnothing-to-be-proud-of-pia-cayetano#ixzz404H1EBAf

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Filipino-Style Divorce, Anyone?

Is divorce set to become legal in the Philippines? For the sake of women
trapped in failing marriages, lets hope so.
By Mong Palatino
June 16, 2011

There are only two countries in the world without a divorce law: Malta and the
Philippines. Both are Catholic-dominated nations governed by politicians who are afraid
to antagonize the bishops who seem to be more popish than the pope in their dogmatic
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. But Malta is expected to finally enact a divorce law
after its citizens recently approved the measure through a referendum. What now for the
Philippines?
A divorce bill is pending in Congress, but its authors are less worried that Malta would
beat the Philippines in legislating divorce than the disturbing fact that Filipino women
have few and limited options to get out of failed marriages.
Under Philippines laws, there are only three remedies available to separate couples or
terminate a marriage. These are legal separation, declaration of nullity and annulment.
Legal separation allows couples to physically separate, but doesnt allow them to remarry, while a declaration of nullity makes the children in that marriage illegitimate.
The most popular option therefore used by estranged couples to end a marriage is by
invoking Article 36 of the Family Code, which is sometimes referred to as the de facto
divorce law in the Philippines. The provision allows a marriage to be voided if one of the
parties is proven to be psychologically incapacitated to perform marital obligations. But
it requires a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation, not to mention lawyers fees, which
makes it a costly solution.

The proposed divorce law would address the limitations of these existing legal remedies
by expanding the grounds of separation. Divorce is granted if these grounds are met: De
facto separation from his or her spouse for at least five years at the time of the filing of
the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable; Legal separation for at least two
years at the time of the filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable;
When any of the grounds for legal separation have caused irreparable breakdown of the
marriage; When one or both spouses are psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations; and when the spouses suffer from irreconcilable
difference that have caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage.
The five valid grounds listed above are there to discourage and prevent no-fault divorces
or Las Vegas-style divorces. The proposed divorce bill also has some interesting
provisions that might be unique to the Philippines, like asking couples to seek
reconciliation before petitioning for divorce, extending legal and personal assistance to
poor couples who want a divorce, and prescribing a six-month period for the courts to
settle divorce cases. Divorces obtained by Filipino citizens abroad will be deemed valid
as well.
The intended beneficiaries of the bill arent rich couples who can afford expensive
annulment proceedings, but poor women who are trapped in dead-end marriages.
According to government figures, which should be considered conservative, an average
of 22 annulment cases are filed everyday all over the country. In 2010, the number of
annulment cases was 40 percent higher than 10 years ago.
Its crucial to note that in 2007, the Office of the Solicitor General reported that 92
percent who filed for annulment petitions were Roman Catholics. As expected, 61
percent of petitioners were females. During the same year, the police said that a woman
is battered every one hour and 50 minutes in the Philippines.
Critics of the divorce bill aver that divorce is alien to Philippine culture and that its a
bad Western legacy. They are wrong, since absolute divorce was popularly practiced
among ancestral tribes in the country prior to the arrival of Spanish colonizers in the
16th century. Divorce was also available during the American period starting 1917. It
was only in 1950, when the new Civil Code took effect, that divorce was disallowed in the
country.
Opponents of the bill also argue that passing a divorce law would be unconstitutional
since the 1987 Constitution explicitly mentions the need to protect the sanctity of
marriage. But the same Constitution is silent on divorce, thereby not prohibiting its
legalization.
Divorce wouldnt necessarily destroy the foundation of the family, as has been shown by
Italy and Spain, two predominantly Catholic countries with low rates of divorce. If a
couple are happy, they wouldnt file for divorce anyway. But its a reality that many are

suffering in abusive and irreparable marriages. Why deny them the chance to regain
their liberty and happiness?
The chances of legislating divorce in the Philippines is slim today since Congress has yet
to finish deliberations on the equally, if not more controversial, Reproductive Health
Bill. But its the duty of the government to protect the rights of all its citizens, whether
Catholic or not. And this duty should include, among other things, the granting of the
right of individuals, especially women, to end a bad marriage and seek a new life.

Philippines Divorce Law?

The Philippines, one of a tiny number of countries to still outlaw divorce, is now
engaged in a serious legislative debate as to whether to legalize divorce. The
committee on revision of laws has just held its first hearing on House Bill 1799 (An Act
Introducing Divorce in the Philippines). One Representative insisted that the divorce bill
contravenes a provision in the Constitution concerning the inviolability of marriage and
the states mandate to protect it, insisting that the Constitution would need to be
amended prior to any bill purporting to legalize divorce. Another Representative
asserted that if divorce is unconstitutional, then annulment and legal separation which
are allowed under Philippine law, would also be unconstitutional. Another argument, citing
American practices such as Elizabeth Taylors six divorces, was that having a divorce law would open
the floodgates for marriages and families to be broken . . . by mere irreconcilable differences.

A lawyer and law professor, Evalyn Ursua, informed the committee that the country
already has a de facto divorce law in the provision for annulment, but she explained that
poor couples cannot avail themselves of this because it is expensive and timeconsuming. She said that an absolute divorce bill would address the problems of
Filipinos abroad. Many Filipinos who work overseas return to the Philippines and find
out that their spouse already has another partner. Some obtain dual citizenship to be
able to get a divorce abroad because its not available in the Philippines. This is
pursuant to the statutory provision 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.

Family Law: No Divorce in the

Philippines BUT
True, absolute divorce is not allowed in the Philippines owing to the
sanctity and inviolability of marriage as a social institution. Marriage is the
foundation of the Filipino family. No less than the 1987 Philippine
Constitution recognizes the sanctity of family life and declares it a matter of
state policy to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. Hence, even divorce decrees obtained by Filipino citizens
abroad are not binding and recognized in our jurisdiction.

HOWEVER, the rule is not absolute as it admits three exceptions, namely:

1. Divorce between two foreign citizens, if valid in their national
laws even if the marriage was celebrated in the Philippines;
2. Divorce between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner as, under
Article 26(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 validly obtained abroad by the foreigner spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise
have capacity to remarry under Philippine law; and
3. Divorce between a Filipino citizen and a former Filipino citizen,
where both parties were Filipino citizens at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, but one of them subsequently becomes
naturalized as a foreign citizen and the latter obtains a valid divorce
decree abroad capacitating him or her to remarry; in such a case, the
Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law (see Republic vs. Orbecido III [2005]).

Note that the divorce decree must be obtained abroad by the foreigner
spouse or by the former Filipino citizen spouse, and NOT in any case by the
Filipino spouse. Likewise, there must be a showing that the divorce decree
gave the foreigner spouse legal capacity to remarry because in some
jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited or prohibited (Bayot vs. Bayot
[2008]).

For Filipino citizens, on the other hand, who seek to dissolve their
marriage for purposes of remarriage, Philippine law grants them three
remedies in proper cases, to wit:
1. File a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, in case
of void marriages;
2. File a Petition for Annulment of Marriage, in case of voidable or
annullable marriages; and
3. File a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death, in case the
present spouse has well-founded belief that his or her spouse who has
disappeared for four consecutive years, or two years where there was
danger of death, is dead.

Divorce is Recognized in the Philippines

Issue:: Divorce is not applicable because of Art. 15 of the Civil Code.
Argument in favor of non-recognition of Divorce:
The Civil Code provides that:

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or the status, condition and legal capacity of perso
are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.

Petitioner in this instance is legally incapacitated to enter into a divorce proceedings in another count
In this connection, the Supreme Court held that:

It is therefore a serious question whether any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the Philippi
islands will be recognized in this jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and under conditions for which t
words of the Philippine Islands would grant a divorce. The lower court in granting relief as prayed
frankly stated that the serving of the divorce, the contracting of another marriage and the bringing in
the world innocent children brings about such a condition that the court must grant relief. The hardshi
of the existing divorce law of the Philippine islands are well known to the members of the legislature. It
of no moment in this litgation what the personal views of the writer on the subject of divorce may be. It
the duty of the courts to enforce the laws of divorce as written by the legislature if they are constitution
Courts have no regret to say that such laws are too short or too liberal.

Litigants by mutual agreement cannot compel the courts to approve their own actions or permit t
personal relations of the citizens of these Islands to be affected by decrees of foreign courts in a mann
which our government believes is contrary to public order and good morals. Holding the above view
becomes unnecessary to discuss the serious constitutional questions presented by appellant in his fi
assignment of error. (Barreto Gonzales v. Gonzalez; 58 Phil 67).
Argument: Divorce is Recognized in the Philippines

Par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code allows the Filipino spouse to remarry in cases where his or h
foreigner spouse has obtained a valid divorce. The decision is contrary to law because Art. 15 of t
Civil Code is not the applicable law in this instant case. The applicable provision is found in the seco
paragraph of Art. 26 of the Family Code that states that:

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in t
country where they are solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, exce
those prohibited under Articles 35(1),(4), (5), (6), 36, 37 and 38.

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

This is the case of a Filipino wife who was married to a Japanese husband, the latter subsequen
secured a divorce in Japan, based on Japanese law.

Alicia V. Sempio-Dy, in her book Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines,explained t
background behind the second paragraph of Art. 26:

Under the second paragraph of the above Article, where a Filipino is married to a foreigner and t
latter thereafter obtains a valid divorce abroad capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spou
shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under the Philippine law.

The provision was not originally approved by the Civil Code Revision Committee but it w
presented and approved at a Cabinet meeting after Pres. (Corazon) Aquino had already signed t
Family Code as Exec. Order No. 209. Hence, the President promulgated another Executive Order N
227-amending Art. 26 of the Code by including this provision as a second paragraph therein.

The idea of the amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as being still married to h
or her alien spouse, although the latter is no longer married to the Filipino spouse because he or s
had obtained a divorce abroad which is recognized by his or her national law.

The amendment will also solve the problem of many Filipino women who, under the Civil Code, a
still considered married to their alien husbands even after the latter have already validly divorced the
under their (the husbands) national laws and perhaps have already married again. (Emphasis supplied

Par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code is the controlling law in this instant case, being a specific provision a
not Art. 15 of the Civil Code which is a general provision.

It is also a more recent law, since the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988 whereas the Civil Co
took effect on August 30, 1950.
Supreme Court jurisprudence affirms that a divorce obtained abroad may be recognized in the
Philippines to enable the Filipino spouse to remarry.

In fact, even before the enactment of the Family Code, the Supreme Court already recognized divorce
the 1985 case of Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr. (G.R. No. L-68470, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 139, 143). :

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippi
nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to o
concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, t
divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American la
under which divorce dissolves the marriage. As stated by the Federal Supreme Court of the Unit
States in Atherton vs. Atherton, 45 L. Ed. 794, 799:

The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of compete
jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free the
both from the bond. The marriage tie when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either.
husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides,
the nature of a penalty. that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is s
absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage.

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He wou
have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control ov
conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercis
jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his ow
representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be considered s
married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of t
Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect a
fidelity, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her he
with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country
the ends of justice are to be served.

In a subsequent case, Llorente vs. Ca (G.R. No. 124371, 23 November 2000, 345 SCRA 592, 601
the Supreme Court again stated:

In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. we held that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of t
Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same bei
considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. In the same case, the Court ruled th
aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.

Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals that once proven th
respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling
Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from him.

In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,we recognized the divorce obtained by the respondent in his country, t
Federal Republic of Germany. There, we stated that divorce and its legal effects may be recognized
the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law
the status of persons.

For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed. We hold
that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in th
jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the succession to the estate of
the decedent) are matters best left to the determination of the trial court.

In Garcia vs. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, the Supreme Court said:

At the outset, we lay the following basic legal principles as the take-off points for our discussio
Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A marria
between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Articles
and 17 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Fam
Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is "validly obtained abro
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry."

The latest landmark decision involving par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code is that of Republic of t
Philippines vs. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005, in which the Supreme Court rul
that a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse (who is formerly a Filipino) and who h
acquired a foreign citizenship, may also remary.
The Supreme Court said:

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.

The Supreme Court required that for a foreign divorce decree to be recognized by the Philippine cour
the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign la
allowing it.