Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    14. COFLICT GALAPON v. REPUBLIC GR243722

    Uploaded by

    Dong Yen

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    14. COFLICT GALAPON v. REPUBLIC GR243722

    Uploaded by

    Dong Yen
    3 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    3 views2 pages

    14. COFLICT GALAPON v. REPUBLIC GR243722

    Uploaded by

    Dong Yen

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    RAMOS, HARLENE P.

    Subject: CONFLICT OF LAWS – UPHSL


    Professor: ATTY. DARWIN R. BAWAR

    CASE 14

    CYNTHIA A. GALAPON, PETITIONER,


    V.
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT
    January 22, 2020
    G.R. No. 243722 (Formerly UDK-16060)
    Ponente: Justice Caguioa

    FALLO:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated


    February 27, 2017 and Resolution dated September 29, 2017 rendered by the Court
    of Appeals, Eleventh Division and Former Eleventh Division, respectively, in CA-G.R.
    CV No. 106950 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

    Accordingly, the Decision dated July 3, 2015 issued by the Regional Trial Court of
    Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, Branch 88 in Special Proceedings No. SD(14)-417
    is REINSTATED. By virtue of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code and the
    Certification of the Cheongju Local Court dated July 16, 2012, petitioner Cynthia A.
    Galapon is declared capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.

    SO ORDERED.

    FACTS OF THE CASE:


    Cynthia Galapon, a Filipino citizen, and Noh Shik Park, a South Korean
    national, got married in Manila, on February 27, 2012, but divorced by mutual
    agreement in South Korea on July 16, 2012, by the Cheongju Local Court. Cynthia
    filed before the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, a Petition for the Judicial
    Recognition of a Foreign Divorce, which the case was ordered to be heard and its
    notice was published in The Daily Tribune once per week for three consecutive
    weeks. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Notice of Appearance for the
    Republic of the Philippines with the assistance of the Provincial Prosecutor of Baloc,
    Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.

    Abigail Galapon represented her sister Cynthia and claimed that her sister
    could not personally testify due to the expiration of her Korean visa. Abigail alleged
    that Park intended to marry his former girlfriend, thus he threatened Cynthia’s life
    and forced her to agree to the divorce. The RTC granted the Recognition Petition,
    but the OSG filed a Petition for Reconsideration arguing that (1) the case should
    have been filed at the RTC of Manila City and (2) absolute divorce is not applicable
    in the case.

    The Petition for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC of Santo Domingo,
    Nueva Ecija, thus the OSG elevated the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA). The
    CA (1) held that courts cannot motu propio dismiss an action on the ground of
    improper venue. However, (2) it upheld that absolute divorce cannot be granted
    since it was through a mutual agreement and not initiated by the foreign spouse as
    stated in Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
    1
    RAMOS, HARLENE P.
    Subject: CONFLICT OF LAWS – UPHSL
    Professor: ATTY. DARWIN R. BAWAR

    ISSUE:
    Whether the Court of appeals erred in denying the recognition of the divorce
    decree obtained by Cynthia and her foreign spouse.

    HELD:
    Yes. Article 26 of the family code 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 this 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 capacity to remarry under
    Philippine law.

    In the recent case of Manalo the Court extended the scope [of] Article 26 (2)
    and removed the distinction between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce
    proceeding and a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated the
    proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both
    instances, it is extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign
    divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by
    operation of the latter’s national law.

    The fact that the couple obtained divorce through a mutual agreement does
    not assail Article 26(2) of the Family Code which states that a Filipino spouse can
    remarry whenever the foreign spouse obtained divorce capacitating him or her to
    remarry. Pursuant to the majority in the Manalo case, Article 26 (2) applies to mixed
    marriages where the divorce decree is:
    1. obtained by the foreign spouse
    2. obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and
    3. obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.

    Hence, the divorce decree obtained by Park, with or without Cynthia’s


    conformity, falls within the scope of Article 26 (2) and merits recognition in this
    jurisdiction.

    AGREE/DISAGREE:
    I agree with the SC decision. In the recent case of Manalo, the Court en banc
    extended the scope of Article 26 (2) to even cover instances where the divorce
    decree is obtained solely by the Filipino spouse. Pursuant to the majority ruling in
    Manalo, Article 26 (2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is: (i)
    obtained by the foreign spouse; (ii) obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign
    spouse; and (iii) obtained solely by the Filipino spouse. Based on the records,
    Cynthia and Park obtained a divorce decree by mutual agreement under the laws of
    South Korea. The sufficiency of the evidence presented by Cynthia to prove the
    issuance of said divorce decree and the governing national law of her husband Park
    was not put in issue. Thus, the Court ruled that as confirmed by Manalo, the divorce
    decree obtained by Park, with or without Cynthia’s conformity, falls within the scope
    of Article 26 (2) and merits recognition in this jurisdiction.

    You might also like