Nationality principle in recognition of foreign divorce

"xxx.

Under the Nationality Principle, the petitioner
cannot invoke Article 36 of the Family Code
unless there is a German law that allows her to do so

A fundamental and obvious defect of Angelita's petition for annulment of marriage is that it seeks a relief improper under Philippine law in light of both Georg and Angelita being German citizens, not Filipinos, at the time of the filing thereof. Based on the Nationality Principle, which is followed in this jurisdiction, and pursuant to which 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,[7] it was the pertinent German law that governed. In short, Philippine law finds no application herein as far as the family rights and obligations of the parties who are foreign nationals are concerned

In Morisono v. Morisono,[8] we summarized the treatment of foreign divorce judgments in this jurisdiction, thus:

The rules on divorce prevailing in this jurisdiction can be summed up as follows: first, Philippine laws do not provide for absolute divorce, and hence, the courts cannot grant the same; second, consistent with Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code, the marital bond between two (2) Filipino citizens cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce obtained abroad; third, an absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple who are both aliens may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws; and fourth, in mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. [Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis]

Accordingly, the petition for annulment initiated by Angelita fails scrutiny through the lens of the Nationality Principle.

Firstly, what governs the marriage of the parties is German, not Philippine, law, and this rendered it incumbent upon Angelita to allege and prove the applicable German law. We reiterate that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws; hence, the existence and contents of such laws are regarded as questions of fact, and, as such, must be alleged and proved like any other disputed fact.[9] Proof of the relevant German law may consist of any of the following, namely: (1) official publications of the law; or (2) copy attested to by the officer having legal custody of the foreign law. If the official record is not kept in the Philippines, the copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept; and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.[10] Angelita did not comply with the requirements for pleading and proof of the relevant German law.

And, secondly, Angelita overlooked that German and Philippine laws on annulment of marriage might not be the same. In other words, the remedy of annulment of the marriage due to psychological incapacity afforded by Article 36 of the Family Code might not be available for her. In the absence of a showing of her right to this remedy in accordance with German law, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

Xxx."


[G.R. No. 202039, August 14, 2019

ANGELITA SIMUNDAC-KEPPEL, PETITIONER, VS. GEORG KEPPEL, RESPONDENT.

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65677