Divorce and Dual Citizenship A. Background of The Study

DIVORCE AND DUAL CITIZENSHIP
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
The Philippines, aside from Vatican City, is the only State in the world without a law
on absolute divorce. However, despite this, it recognizes divorce obtained abroad as shown in
the numerous decisions of the Supreme Court, albeit such allowances are always subject to
legal parameters. Pursuant to the “nationality theory” where the civil status of a person is
governed by his/her national law, case law provides that absolute divorce obtained abroad by a
Filipino citizen against his/her Filipino spouse is of no legal effect, there being no absolute
divorce in the country. But considering that the government now allows dual citizenship
whereby a Filipino can retain or re-acquire his/her Philippine citizenship and at the same time
maintain his/her acquired foreign citizenship, a query arises on whether an absolute divorce
obtained abroad by a Filipino with dual citizenship against a Filipino citizen must also be
given recognition in the Philippines.
Against this backdrop, the writer will establish that absolute divorce, even though
taking roots from Philippine legal history, is inexistent and prohibited under the present
Philippine legal system. This notwithstanding, an absolute decree of divorce obtained abroad
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided that the marriage is between a Filipino citizen
and an alien, and that the legal requirements, as established by law and jurisprudence, are
1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the study
1. History of divorce in the Philippines
followed. Corollary, the author will also introduce the law which allows former Filipino
citizens, who were naturalized in a foreign country, to retain or re-acquire their Filipino
citizenship which would restore them in the civil and political rights accorded to natural-born
Filipino citizens under existing Philippine laws. Applying the laws adverted to above and
juxtaposed with one against the other, this paper aims to present and resolve the problem of
conflicting application of the law on dual citizenship and the prohibition against absolute
divorce in the Philippines.
The legal issues arising from this subject matter will then be presented, following the
objective of the study and the desired contribution to legal research in the Philippines.
1. HISTORY OF DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES
Despite the lack of laws on absolute divorce in the Philippines at the present time,
remnants evidencing the existence of “divorce” in the past can be seen throughout Philippine
history.
The laws on the subject of divorce may conveniently be traced in the following
historical periods: Pre-Spanish, Spanish, American, Japanese Occupation, Liberation and
Independence governed by the Civil Code and the present period under the Family Code of the
Philippines.
2
DIVORCE
DIVORCEAND
ANDDUAL
DUALCITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP
I. INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background ofOF
A. BACKGROUND theTHE
studySTUDY
1. History of
1. HISTORY OFdivorce
DIVORCEin theIN
Philippines
THE PHILIPPINES
b. The spanish
A. THE PRE-SPANISH PERIODperiod
B. THE SPANISH PERIOD
c. The american period
a. The Pre-Spanish Period
Several of the Spanish pioneers have mentioned in their writings the customs relating
to marriage and divorce which were in vogue in the Philippines at the time of the Spanish
conquest.1 Legaspi, writing from the Philippines about the year 1570, said that marriage
among the natives is a kind of purchase or trade, which the men make, for they pay and give
money in exchange for their women. After marriage, whenever the husband wishes to leave
his wife, or to separate from her, he can do so by paying her a sum of money. Likewise the
woman can leave her husband, or separate from him, by returning double the amount of what
he gave to her during the marriage. While there is no divorce mentioned, this practice is akin
to divorce where the divorced party an amount, which may be likened to alimony, the amount
given as financial support upon divorce.
b. The Spanish Period `
When the Spaniards colonized the Philippines, the law then governing the subject of
divorce was to be found in the Siete Partidas2. The Partidas, like all other Spanish laws on the
1
Fisher F.C (1926). Marriage and Divorce in the Philippine a Monograph by F.C. Fisher.
Retrieved from
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/philamer/akm6701.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
2
Ibid.
3
I. INTRODUCTION
1. HISTORY OF DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES
D. THE JAPANESE PERIOD
subject, declared the bond of marriage indissoluble thus ruling out the concept of absolute
divorce during the Spanish Regime. If at all the word divorce is used, it merely refers to
separation from bed and board or separation a mensa et thoro.
In 1903, while the Supreme Court ruled in one case that there was no law in force in
the Philippine Islands under which complete or absolute divorce could be granted on any
grounds, however, the Partidas in force in the Philippines, authorized a judicial separation
upon proof of the commission of adultery by either the husband or the wife.3
c. The American Period
On March 11, 1917, the Philippine legislature enacted Act No. 2710 (An Act to Establish
Divorce). This is the law on absolute divorce (the Old Divorce Law),4 which recognizes two
grounds only, namely: (1) adultery on the part of the wife; and (2) concubinage on the part of
the husband.5
d. The Japanese Period
3
Benedicto vs. De La Rama, G.R. No. L-1056, December 8, 1903
4
Paras E.L. (2002), Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Volume One Persons and Family
Relations; Manila, Philippines; Rex Bookstore
5
Section 1, Act 2710 states:
Section 1. A petition for divorce can only be filed for adultery on the part of the wife or
concubinage on the part of the husband, committed in any of the forms described in
article four hundred and thirty-seven of the Penal Code.
4
I. INTRODUCTION
1. History of divorce in the Philippines
e. The Civil Code and Family Code of the Philippines
During the Japanese occupation, there was a new absolute divorce law under Executive
Order No.141, which enlarged the grounds provided for under Act 2710, as provided under
Section 2 thereof. The grounds are as follows:
1. Adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the part of the husband committed
under any of the forms described in the Revised Penal Code;
2. Attempt of one spouse against the life of the other;
3. A second or subsequent marriage contracted by either spouse before the former marriage
has been legally dissolved;
4. Loathsome contagious diseases contracted either spouse;
5. Incurable insanity which has reached such a stage that the intellectual community between
the spouses has ceased;
6. Impotency on the part of either spouse;
7. Criminal conviction of either spouse of a crime in which the minimum penalty imposed is
not less than six (6) years imprisonment;
8. Repeated bodily violence by one against the other to such an extent that the spouses cannot
continue living together without endangering the lives of both or of either of them;
9. Intentional or unjustified desertion continuously for at least one year prior to the filing of
the action;
10. Unexplained absence from the last conjugal abode continuously for three consecutive
years prior to the filing of the action;
5
11. Slander by deed or gross insult by one spouse against the other to such an extent as to
make further living together impracticable.
This was effective until October 23, 1944, when General Douglas MacArthur, by
proclamation, reestablished the Commonwealth Government. Said proclamation in effect
repealed E.O. No. 141 and revived Act No. 2170.
e. The Civil Code and Family Code of the Philippines
The New Civil Code (NCC), which took effect on August 30, 1950,6 effectively
repealed any absolute divorce legislation in the Philippines. But, during the time of then
President Ferdinand Marcos, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1083 was enacted, which
provided for the creation of Shari’a courts in the Philippines and allowed divorce among
Muslims, or when the husband is a Muslim and the marriage was celebrated under Muslim
rites. To date, this law is the only effective divorce law in the Philippines that remains in full
force and effect.7
On August 3, 1988, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 109, otherwise known as the Family
Code of Philippines, took effect. It allowed the filing of a petition for Declaration of Nullity on
the ground of psychological incapacity8 that must have existed upon the celebration of the
marriage although it may have manifested itself after the marriage,9 thus rendering the
marriage void ab initio. This has been argued as an implicit form of divorce as it has the same
effect of dissolving the marriage between the parties, albeit restricted to only one ground – the
all encompassing psychological incapacity.
6
Raymundo vs. Peñas, 96 Phil. 311
7
De Borja F.M. (n.d). Divorce in the Philippines: A Legal History. Retrieved from
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/divorce-in-the-philippines-a-legal-history-45701
8
Article 36, Family Code of the Philippines
9
See supra note 4.
6
I. INTRODUCTION
2. The recognition of absolute divorce
2. THE RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
The Philippines does not have any law on absolute divorce, but it recognizes foreign
decrees of divorce obtained abroad subject to legal parameters. The Family Code of the
Philippines, specifically, paragraph 2 of Article 26, provides the legal basis for this
recognition.
Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code provides:
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 law10.
Under this provision, Philippine courts are empowered to correct a situation where the
Filipino spouse is still tied to a marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry after
obtaining a foreign divorce. As such, Philippine courts have the jurisdiction to extend the
effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines to the extent that the foreign judgment does not
contravene domestic public policy.11 Section 48 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:
Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. — The effect of a
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render
the judgment or final order, is as follows:
10
Article 26 Paragraph 2 of the Family Code as amended by E.O. No. 227, dated July 17, 1987
11
Fujiki vs. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
7
I. INTRODUCTION
2. The recognition of absolute divorce
XXX
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by
a subsequent title.
XXX
Furthermore, in order that a divorce obtained abroad may be recognized in the
Philippine jurisdiction, it must be shown that: (1) The divorce decree is valid according to the
national law of the foreigner spouse; (2) Both the divorce decree and the governing personal
law of the alien spouse must be proven. Since Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of
foreign laws and judgment, the law on evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the
national law of the alien must be alleged and proven like any other fact.12
Emphasis, however, must be given to the fact that citizens of the Philippine are
covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to the
country’s concept of public policy and morality,13 not to mention the Philippine Catholic
faith’s dogma, such that recognition of the decree of absolute divorce obtained abroad is not
applicable if both parties are Filipinos.14
This is in consonance with the nationality theory under Article 15 of the New Civil Code
of the Philippines, which provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
12
Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010
13
Enriquez Vda De Catalan vs. Catalan-Lee, G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012.
14
See supra note 4.
8
DIVORCE AND
DIVORCE ANDDUAL
DUALCITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP
I. INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
A. Background ofOF
theTHE
studySTUDY
2. THE
2. The
RECOGNITION
recognition of absolute
OF ABSOLUTE
divorce DIVORCE
3. The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad.15
To reiterate, an absolute divorce decree secured by a Filipino married to another
Filipino is contrary to the Filipino concept of public policy and morality and shall not be
recognized in the Philippine jurisdiction16.
Also, Article 26 (2) of the Family Code only contemplates a marriage where one of the
parties is a Filipino, and another is an alien--that is, a mixed marriage, regardless of who
between them obtained the foreign divorce decree.17 The reckoning point is not the citizenship
of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but rather their citizenship at the
time the divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry18.
3. THE CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF 2003
On August 29, 2003, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9225, also
known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. This law enables former
Filipino citizens who have since become naturalized in a foreign country to retain or reacquire
their Filipino citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. This law allows former
15
Article 15, NCC
16
Llorente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000; Bayot vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 155635, November 7, 2008
17
Manalo vs. People of the Philippines CA-G.R. CV-No. 100076, April 24, 2018
18
Republic vs. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
9
I. INTRODUCTION
Filipino citizens to repatriate themselves by taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines without, however, renouncing their present citizenship,19 thus resulting to dual
citizenship.
Since the beneficiaries of R.A. No. 9225 are natural-born Filipino citizens, and they
are restored to their full civil and political rights,20 they can exercise and enjoy simultaneously
the same rights and privileges accorded to Filipino citizens and those accorded by the foreign
State to which they are also a citizen. These rights, however, have their concomitant liabilities
and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the laws of the foreign country
in which the Filipino citizen is also a citizen.
While the application of the laws of two or more states may result in a situation where
a person becomes a citizen of two or more countries and may resultantly pose conflict of laws,
the problem relative to dual or multiple citizenships can hardly arise because citizenship is a
matter that is exclusively determined by the laws of the country to which one belongs.21 To
demonstrate, in our jurisdiction, it is only Philippine courts which will determine who are
those who are considered as Filipino citizens and those who are not. However, they may not
19
Pe Benito G.A. (2016). Conflict of Laws; Manila, Philippines; Rex Book Store.
20
Philippine Consulate General. (n.d.). Retention/Re-acquisition of Philippine Citizenship.
Retrieved from http://www.newyorkpcg.org/the-consulate/our-services/dual-citizenship
21
Article 2, The Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws, April 12, 1930.
10
I. INTRODUCTION
3. THE CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND REACQUISITION ACT OF

2003
ordinarily rule that a person is, for example, a Chinese or a German citizen; they may only
decree that said person, is NOT a Filipino22.
Thus, a Filipino dual citizen23, if determined as such, is only a Filipino under Philippine
laws, regardless of any other acquired foreign citizenship.
In summary, this background of the study seeks to apprise and educate the readers on
legal principles relevant to the prohibition on absolute divorce in the Philippines, the
recognition of foreign decrees of absolute divorce in mixed marriages, and the retention and
re-acquisition of the natural-born Filipino status through R.A. No. 9225 of Filipinos who have
since acquired foreign citizenship; all of which are inter-related and pertinent to the main issue
of “Whether or not an absolute divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino with dual citizenship
against a Filipino spouse may also be given recognition in the Philippines”.
22
See supra note 4.
23
Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083. May 26, 1999
Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes
of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship:
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus
soli;
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers
country such children are citizens of that country;
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens,
unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
There may be other situations in which a citizen of the Philippines may, without performing any act, be
also a citizen of another state; but the above cases are clearly possible given the constitutional
provisions on citizenship.
11
I. INTRODUCTION
It is the objective of the study to provide answers to this legal issue through the analysis
of the jurisprudence interpreting Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, and the harmonization of
these interpretations with the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act, as well as the
application and analysis of other relevant laws and jurisprudence.
Ultimately, the researcher desires for this work to be a research aid in filling in the
gaps in the application of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, more particularly as to
its application to a marriage between a Filipino and a Filipino with dual citizenship.
I. INTRODUCTION
12
B. Thesis statement
B. THESIS STATEMENT
By analyzing the existing and relevant laws and jurisprudence on the interpretation of
Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines, a prohibition on absolute
divorce between Filipino spouses can be seen. Thus, a Filipino dual citizen, who is a Filipino
in the eyes of Philippine laws albeit embracing foreign citizenship and enjoying full civil and
political rights, cannot validly obtain an absolute divorce abroad against a Filipino spouse and
have it recognized in the Philippines.
I. INTRODUCTION
C. Statement of relevance of the Thesis
13
C. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE OF THE THESIS
Laws are defined as rule of conduct, just and obligatory, promulgated by legitimate
authority, and of common observance and benefits24. Among these laws are civil and political
laws.
Civil law is defined as the mass of precepts which determines and regulates those
relations of assistance, authority and obedience existing among members of a family as well as
among members of society for the protection of private interest.25 While Political law is that
branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the government
organs of the state and defines the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory.
In enacting these laws, no legal language or phrase, howsoever a legal drafter may be
vigilant, visionary and skilled craftsman, can be perfect and be capable to take forever into its
ambit all the future contingencies and circumstances. Sometimes, a provision may not, in
terms of its phraseology or pragmatic operation, aptly fit into overall legislative intent of the
Act or match with its other provisions or provisions of other Acts”26.
I. INTRODUCTION
24
Jurado D.P. (2009). Civil Law Reviewer. Manila, Philippines. Rex Book Store.
25
Ibid.
26
Vhibut K. & Aynalem F. (2009). Legal Research Method Teaching Material. Retrieved from:
https://chilot.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/legal-research-methods.pdf
14
As such, this Thesis is relevant for it highlights the gap and conflict between existing
and effective civil and political laws of the Philippines. More specifically, the provision of the
Philippine civil law recognizing absolute divorce [Article 26(2), Family Code of the
Philippines] and R.A. 9225 which involves a matter of political law, that is, dual citizenship.
There is a gap and conflict as to the application of the second paragraph of Article 26
of the Family Code of the Philippines to a marriage involving a Filipino and a Filipino dual
citizen, who availed the benefits of R.A. 9225. And adding to the problem is the dearth of
Philippine jurisprudence which will help clarify the subject matter.
To emphasize, the study reveals a possible way for Filipinos, who availed of, or who
intends to avail the benefits of R.A. 9225, to violate existing Philippine law on marriage,
particularly the prohibition on absolute divorce between Filipino spouses.
According to the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) of the Department of
Foreign affairs, from 1981-2016, there have been a total of Two Million, Two Hundred
Eighty-One Thousand, Three Hundred Sixty-Four (2,281,264) registered Filipino emigrants
(see Appendix C: NUMBER OF REGISTERED FILIPINO EMIGRANTS BY MAJOR
COUNTRY OF DESTINATION: 1981 - 2016). The average age of Filipino emigrants is 31
(see appendix D: NUMBER OF REGISTERED FILIPINO EMIGRANTS BY AGE GROUP:
1981 - 2016). Figures also show that almost
I. INTRODUCTION
15
900,000 are married, proximately 7,000 are separated, and nearly 10,000 are divorced (see
appendix E: NUMBER OF REGISTERED FILIPINO EMIGRANTS BY CIVIL STATUS: 1988
- 2016).
These figures show the number of possible applicants who have, or who will avail of
the dual citizenship law. Incidentally, these figures also reveal the possible violators of the
prohibition against absolute divorce.
It is a Constitutional duty of the State to protect the family and marriage. Section 1 and
2, Article 15 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:
SECTION 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development.
SECTION 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State.
Thus, urgent review by the authorities of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code of the Philippines as it applies to Filipino dual citizens must be done in order to
prevent or deter acts aimed at violating the Philippine law on marriage.
I. INTRODUCTION
16
I. INTRODUCTION
D. Scope and delimitation
After all, Filipino citizens are bound to defend the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities
of the Philippines.
D. SCOPE AND DELIMITATION
17
This study is limited to finding out the application of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the
Family Code to Filipino citizens who availed of the benefits under R.A. No. 9225, thereby
retaining their natural-born Filipino status.
Also, the study assumes a situation where a Filipino dual citizen is married to a Filipino
citizen under the New Civil Code, or the Family Code and thereafter obtains an absolute divorce
decree abroad and works to have the said divorce decree recognized in the Philippines.
Furthermore, the study is limited to the analysis of relevant jurisprudence interpreting
Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code and jurisprudence dealing with the subject of
absolute divorce, and the analysis of R.A. No. 9225 and its effect on the status of the
citizenship of its beneficiary.
E. METHODOLOGY
18
I. INTRODUCTION
D. METHODOLOGY
The researcher will use both descriptive and analytical method27 in conducting the
study. As such the author will collect, compare and analyze relevant jurisprudence, statutes
and other relevant legal resources.
In order to map out the different interpretations and applications of Article 26,
paragraph 2 of the Family Code, copies of jurisprudence related to the subject matter will be
collected from either of the following repositories: Supreme Court Reports Annotated
(SCRA), E-SCRA and other competent sources of Philippine jurisprudence.
For the analysis of R.A No. 9225, a copy of the law will be secured, and to determine
the status, and rights and obligations of Filipino dual citizens, relevant jurisprudence, books
and legal articles will be collected and analyzed.
Lastly, legal writings and books of authorities in Philippine civil and political law will
also be consulted.
II. Discussion
A. Study of relevant laws and jurisprudence
27
Descriptive research, as its name suggests, describes the state of affairs as it exists at
present. It merely describes the phenomenon or situation under study and its characteristics. It
reports only what has happened or what is happening. It therefore does not go into the causes
of the phenomenon or situation. The methods commonly used in descriptive research are
survey methods of all kinds, including comparative and co-relational methods, and fact-
finding enquiries of different kinds. While in analytical research, the researcher uses his facts
or information already available and makes their analysis to make a critical evaluation of the
material.
Vhibut K. & Aynalem F. (2009). Legal Research Method Teaching Material. Retrieved from:
https://chilot.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/legal-research-methods.pdf
19
II. DISCUSSION
A. STUDY OF RELEVANT LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE
This discussion is divided into the review of the law and relevant jurisprudence
involving Article 26 (2) of the Family Code and the review of the law and relevant
jurisprudence involving R.A. No. 9225.
A review of the laws related to divorce reveals that in the Philippines, no absolute
divorce is allowed. Furthermore, a review of the jurisprudence relative to Article 26 (2) of the
Family Code presents the following marital situations: (1) marriage between two Filipinos; (2)
marriage between Filipinos but one of which was eventually naturalized in a foreign country
and thereafter obtained absolute divorce; and (3) marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner.
Whereas, a review of R.A. No. 9225 shows how Filipino citizenship may be retained
and reacquired by former natural-born Filipinos, as well as the rights accorded and attaching
obligations to a Filipino as provided under said law, enforced by jurisprudence and existing
laws. Relevantly, the Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws28 will also be
discussed.
II. Discussion
a.1. Discussion on Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines
a.1.1. Divorce in the Philippines; Recognition of absolute divorce
28
Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, April 12,1930.
20
A.1. Discussion on Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines
a.1.1. Divorce in the Philippines; Recognition of Absolute Divorce
Referring back to the legal history discussed under the background of the study, there
is no absolute divorce law presently enforced in the Philippines. Neither was there any under
the New Civil Code on family law which preceded the Family Code of the Philippines. Only
relative divorce or legal separation (divorce a mensa et thoro), where the marriage is not
dissolved but the spouses are merely separated from bed and board, prevails in the Philippines.
The law governing legal separation is provided for in Articles 55 to 67 of the Family Code of
the Philippines.
Furthermore, Article 17 of the New Civil Code provides that the policy against
absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country. The
inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code provides the direct
exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the dissolution of the marriage
between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse29.
Recognizing the reality that divorce is a possibility in marriages between a Filipino and
an alien, President Corazon C. Aquino, in the exercise of her legislative powers under
29
21
II. Discussion

theFreedom Constitution30, enacted Executive Order No. (EO) 22731, amending Article 26 of
the Family Code to its present wording, as follows:
Art. 26. 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.
Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, EO 227 effectively
incorporated into the law the Court’s holding in Van Dhorn vs. Romillo32 and Pilapil v. Ibay-
Somera 33. In both cases, the Court refused to acknowledge the alien spouses’ assertion of
marital rights after a foreign court’s divorce decree between the alien and the Filipino. The
30
Proclamation No. 3, issued on March 25, 1996.
31
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 227, July 17, 1987”: “AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES”
32
G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
33
G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989
22
II. Discussion
II. Discussion
Court, thus, recognized that the foreign divorce had already severed the marital bond between
the spouses.34
The Supreme Court in Van Dhorn vs. Romillo said that:
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of
the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as
an American citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner,
as her husband, in any State of the Union. What he is contending in this case
is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being
contrary to local law and public policy.
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil
Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute
divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and
morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized
in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. 6 In this
case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from
the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.
XXX
34
23
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the
husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as
petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is
bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised
jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is
estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right
over the alleged conjugal property.” [Emphasis Supplied]
The High Court also, by citing Van Dhorn vs. Romillo, ruled in Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera that:
Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery, as well as four
other crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written
complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long since been established, with
unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not
merely a formal, requirement. While in point of strict law the jurisdiction of the court
over the offense is vested in it by the Judiciary Law, the requirement for a sworn
written complaint is just as jurisdictional a mandate since it is that complaint which
starts the prosecutory proceeding and without which the court cannot exercise its
jurisdiction to try the case.
24
II. Discussion
A.1. DISCUSSION ON ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE

PHILIPPINES
A.1.1. DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES; RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
A.1.1.
Now, theDIVORCE IN THE
law specifically PHILIPPINES;
provides RECOGNITION
that in prosecutions OF ABSOLUTE
for adultery DIVORCE
and concubinage
the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse, and
nobody else.
XXX
In these cases, therefore, it is indispensable that the status and capacity of the
complainant to commence the action be definitely established and, as already
demonstrated, such status or capacity must indubitably exist as of the time he initiates
the action. It would be absurd if his capacity to bring the action would be determined
by his status before or subsequent to the commencement thereof, where such capacity
or status existed prior to but ceased before, or was acquired subsequent to but did not
exist at the time of, the institution of the case. We would thereby have the anomalous
spectacle of a party bringing suit at the very time when he is without the legal
capacity to do so.
XXX
In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his
country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal
effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is
concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status
of persons.
25
II. Discussion

PHILIPPINES
A.1.1. DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES; RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
Thus, in the recent case of Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr., et al., after a divorce was
1. RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IS NOT ALLOWED IN FILIPINO-
FILIPINOgranted
MARRIAGEby a United States court between Alice Van Dornja Filipina, and her
American husband, the latter filed a civil case in a trial court here alleging that
her business concern was conjugal property and praying that she be ordered to
render an accounting and that the plaintiff be granted the right to manage the
business. Rejecting his pretensions, this Court perspicuously demonstrated the
error of such stance, thus:
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States
of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American
citizen. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any
State of the Union. ...
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil
Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces
the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality.
II. Discussion
26
However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. …
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of
petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband
entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. ...
Under the same considerations and rationale, private respondent, being no
longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the
adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he
filed suit. [Emphasis supplied]
This provision was not originally approved by the Civil Code Revision Commitee, but
it was presented and approved at a Cabinet meeting after President Aquino has already signed
the Family Code as Executive Order No. 209. Hence, the President promulgated another
executive order- No.227 - amending Article 26 of the Code by including this provision as
second paragraph therein35.
The amendment will also solve the problem of many Filipino women whi, under the
Civil Code, are still considered married to their alien husbands even after the latter have
already validly divorced them under his national law and perhaps have already married again.
35
Sempio-Diy A.V. (1995). Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines. Quezon City,
Philippines. Joer Printing Services.
27
a.1.2. Jurisprudence Interpreting Article 26, Paragraph 2, Family Code of the
Philippines (Table 1):
28
II. Discussion
a.1.2. Jurisprudence Interpreting Article 26, Paragraph 2, Family Code of the Philippines
1. Recognition of absolute divorce is not allowed in Filipino-Filipino marriage
1. Recognition of Absolute Divorce is not allowed in Filipino-Filipino Marriage [Corpuz vs.
Sto. Tomas;36 Juliano-Llave vs. Republic of the Philippines37]
Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas
This case involves a marriage between a Filipino and a former Filipino citizen
(naturalized Canadian), where the former Filipino successfully obtained an absolute divorce
36
See supra note 33.
37
Juliano-Llave vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011
29
decree against the Filipino spouse, and thereafter sought to have such decree recognized in the
Philippines, invoking second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. The Court, in
concluding that the provision is a substantial right only available to Filipino citizens38,
provides that it does not however strip the foreigner spouse of his/her legal standing
considering that the foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the
party with legal interest to petition for its recognition in this jurisdiction. The Supreme Court
resolved to remand the case to the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent
with the Canadian divorce law. Nevertheless it still emphasized in its decision that Philippine
family laws do not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino citizens. The Supreme Court
more specifically said:
The Family Code recognizes only two types of defective marriages:
void and voidable marriages. In both cases, the basis for the judicial
declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists
before or at the time of the marriage. Divorce, on the other hand,
contemplates the dissolution of the lawful union for cause arising after
the marriage. Our family laws do not recognize absolute divorce
between Filipino citizens.
38
Legarda, et al., (2014). Family Law in the Philippines. Philippines. Kalayaan Press Mktg, Ent., Inc.
30
II. Discussion
II. Discussion
a.1.2. Jurisprudence Interpreting Article 26, Paragraph 2, Family Code of the
Philippines
1. Recognition of absolute
1. Recognition divorcedivorce
of absolute is not allowed in Filipino-Filipino
is not allowed marriage
in Filipino-Filipino marriage
Juliano-Llave vs. Republic of the Philippines
Similarly, in the case of Juliano-Llave vs. Republic of the Philippines (2011) which
involved a marriage celebrated under civil and Muslim rites, the Supreme Court stated that
divorce is not recognized in the Civil Code. In this case, Senator Tamano, in contracting a
second marriage with Estrella, indicated in his civil status that he is divorced. Yet, the first
wife Zorayda filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage between her husband
Sen. Tamano and his second wife for being bigamous.
The Court, in declaring that the second marriage is void, stated that the marriage
between the late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda was celebrated in 1958 and solemnized under civil
and Muslim rites. The only law in force governing marital relationships between Muslims and
non-Muslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950, where it is provided therein that only one
marriage can exist at any given time, thus implying that divorce is not recognized.
Furthermore, citing Van Dhorn vs. Romillo39, the High Court declared that:
39
Van Dhorn vs. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
31
II. Discussion

PHILIPPINES
A.1.2. JURISPRUDENCE INTERPRETING ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 2, FAMILY

CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
2. RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IS ALLOWED IN MARRIAGE

BETWEEN FILIPINO-FORMER FILIPINO
“It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil
Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same
being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. “
2. Recognition of Absolute Divorce is Allowed in marriage between Filipino-Former Filipino
(Naturalized in Foreign County) [Republic vs. Orbecido III40]
In this 2005 case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Orbecido III (2005), the Supreme
Court concluded that paragraph 2 of Article 26 applies to a case where at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, the parties were both Filipino citizens, but one of the spouses later
on acquired foreign citizenship by naturalization, then initiated a divorce proceeding and
obtained a favorable decree. The High Court said:
“Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason,
we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving
parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but
40
See supra note 10; Tenchavez vs. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965
32
II. Discussion

PHILIPPINES
A.1.2. JURISPRUDENCE INTERPRETING ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 2, FAMILY

2. RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IS ALLOWED IN MARRIAGE

BETWEEN FILIPINO-FORMER FILIPINO
later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce
decree.
The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a
foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to
sanction absurdity and injustice. Where the interpretation of a statute according to its
exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear
purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason,
disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A statute may therefore be
extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within
its spirit or intent.
If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent 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, then the instant case must be deemed as
coming within the contemplation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26.
In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2
of Article 26 as follows:
33
II. Discussion
2. Recognition of absolute divorce is allowed in marriage between Filipino-Former

Filipino
3. Recognition of absolute divorce is allowed in Filipino-Foreigner marriage
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 reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of
the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.” [Emphasis supplied]
3. Recognition of Absolute Divorce is Allowed in Filipino-Foreigner Marriage [Bayot vs.
Court of Appeals41; Republic vs. Manalo42]
In Bayot vs. Court of Appeals (2008) and Republic vs. Manalo (2018), the Supreme
Court held that a foreign divorce between a foreigner and a Filipino spouse can be recognized
in the Philippines.
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
41
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155635, November 7, 2008
42
Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018
34
II. Discussion
A.1. DISCUSSION ON ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF

THE PHILIPPINES
A.1.2. JURISPRUDENCE INTERPRETING ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 2,

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
3. RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IS ALLOWED IN FILIPINO-

FOREIGNER MARRIAGE
Here, Rebecca, an American citizen, obtained a divorce decree on February 22, 1996
in the Dominican Republic against her Filipino spouse. However, Rebecca herself filed a
petition in Philippine courts for declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage with her
Filipino spouse, with a prayer for support pendente lite. Her Filipino spouse filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the petition was barred by a prior judgment of divorce. However,
Rebecca, in opposing the motion, insisted that she is a Filipino Citizen as affirmed by the
Department of Justice (as holder of an ID certificate of recognition of Filipino citizenship) and
as such, there is no valid divorce to speak of.
In deciding the case, the Court underscored three legal premises. First, a divorce
obtained abroad by an alien married to a Filipino national may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided that the decree of divorce is valid according to the national law of the
foreigner.43 Second, the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the divorcing parties at birth
or at the time of marriage, but their citizenship at the time the divorce is obtained abroad.
Third, an absolute divorce secured by a Filipino married to another Filipino is contrary to our
concept of public policy and morality and cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.
43
Garcia v. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
35
The findings of the Supreme Court determined that the DOJ recognition obtained by
Rebecca was issued on June 8, 2000 only, thus she was not yet recognized as a Filipino citizen
at the time of her divorce in 1995. Resultantly, being an American citizen, she was bound by
the national laws of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce. In so
ruling, the Court has taken stock of the ruling in Garcia v. Recio,44 wherein it was held that a
foreign divorce can be recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce decree is proven as
a fact and valid under the national law of the alien spouse. Be this as it may, the fact that
Rebecca was clearly an American citizen when she secured the divorce and that divorce is
recognized and allowed in any of the States of the Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign
divorce decree, duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing said decree, is sufficient.
Republic vs. Manalo
In this case, as opposed to the case of Bayot vs. Court of Appeals, it was the Filipino wife who
initiated and obtained an absolute divorce decree against her Japanese husband. The Court
then, in disregarding other precedents45 declaring that only the alien spouse can obtain
44
Ibid.
45
See supra note 40.
36
II. Discussion
II. Discussion
A.1. DISCUSSION ON ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF
THEa.1.PHILIPPINES
Discussion on Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines
A.1.2.
a.1.2. JURISPRUDENCE
Jurisprudence INTERPRETING
Interpreting ARTICLE
Article 26, Paragraph 2, 26, PARAGRAPH
Family Code of the2,Philippines
FAMILY
3. RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IS ALLOWED IN FILIPINO-
FOREIGNER MARRIAGE
the decree, stated that the absolute divorce obtained by the Filipino wife against the foreigner
husband may be recognized in the Philippines, holding that:
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of “a divorce xxx validly obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.” Based on a clear and plain reading
of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad.
The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who
initiated the proceedings wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not
distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the
foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is bound by the words of the statute; neither
can we put words in the mouths of the lawmakers. “The legislature is presumed to
know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and to have
expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the stature. Verba legis
non est recedendum, or from the words of a stature there should be no departure.
37
II. Discussion
Additionally, the Supreme Court even reiterated the purpose of paragraph 2 of Article
26, which is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the
alien spouse who, after the foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was
rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
The High Court further said that the nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines is not an absolute and unbending rule. It emphasized that a Filipino
who is married to another Filipino is not similarly situated as a Filipino who is married to a
foreign citizen. There are real, material and substantial differences between them. Ergo, they
should not be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and liabilities imposed. The Court,
however, reiterated that the divorce decree obtained abroad by a Filipino against another
Filipino is null and void.
II. Discussion
38
a.2. Discussion on Republic Act No. 9225 also known as Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003
a.2.1. Citizenship; Loss and Reacquisition; Repatriation
Citizenship is the status of being a member in a state, of which a person is vested with
rights and obligations accorded to its subjects. It denotes a link between a person and a state.
Such membership underscores the symbiotic relationship of the state, which on the one hand
gives protection to the citizen, and the citizen, on the other hand is duty bound to support the
state.46
In the Philippines, citizens may be categorized as either (1) natural born or (2)
naturalized Filipino citizens47.
46
Villareal E.M.,II. (2017). Political and Constitutional Law For Students, Barristers and
Lawyers; Manila, Philippines; Rex Bookstore.
47
Ibid
39
II. Discussion
A.2. DISCUSSION ON REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225 ALSO KNOWN AS CITIZENSHIP

RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF 2003
A.2.1. CITIZENSHIP; LOSS AND REACQUISITION; REPATRIATION
Also, the Philippine Constitution states that “Philippine Citizenship may be lost or
reacquired48 in the manner provided by law49”.
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 provides that citizenshio is lost by:
(1) Naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) Express renunciation of citizenship;
(3) Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a
foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more: Provided,
however, That a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in
any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country;
(4) By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a
foreign country: Provided, That the rendering of service to, or the acceptance of
such commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and the taking of an
48
Section to of CA 63, as amended provides that citizenship may be reacquired:
(1) By naturalization: Provided, That the applicant possess none of the disqualification's prescribed
in section two of Act Numbered Twenty-nine hundred and twenty-seven,3
(2) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corp: Provided, That a woman who lost her
citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in accordance with the
provisions of this Act after the termination of the marital status;4 and
(3) By direct act of the National Assembly.

49
Section 3, Article VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution
40
II. Discussion
oath of allegiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Republic of the
Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of
the following circumstances is present:
(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of
alliance with the said foreign country; or
(b) The said foreign country maintains armed forces on Philippine territory with
the consent of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the Filipino
citizen concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said
commission, and taking the oath of allegiance incident thereto, states that he
does so only in connection with his service to said foreign country: And
provided, finally, That any Filipino citizen who is rendering service to, or is
commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign country under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), shall not be permitted to
participate nor vote in any election of the Republic of the Philippines during the
period of his service to, or commission in, the armed forces of said foreign
country. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign country, he
shall be automatically entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil and political
rights as a Filipino citizen;
(5) By cancellation of the of the certificates of naturalization;
41
II. Discussion

A.2.1. CITIZENSHIP; LOSS AND REACQUISITION; REPATRIATION
(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the
Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon
or amnesty has been granted; and
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the
laws in force in her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.
One of the ways to reacquire a lost Philippine Citizenship is through repatriation.
Repatriation is the process of reacquiring previous citizenship. This means that a
naturalized Filipino citizen who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a
naturalized citizen. Likewise, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his
Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born citizen. As
distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the
taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in
the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided50.
50
Bengson vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
42
II. Discussion

A.2.2. R.A. 9225, CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF

2003
There are several laws on repatriation51, and one of which is R.A. 9225. Under this
law, former natural-born Filipinos, who became citizens of another country, may re-acquire or
retain their former natural-born status.
a.2.2. R.A. 9225, Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
R.A. No. 922552 declares that natural-born citizens of the Philippines who became
citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship. This is
a law about dual citizenship53. Subject, further, to full compliance with the rules provided
51
Commonwealth Act No. 63 as amended “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED”;
Republic Act No. 2630 “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP BY PERSONS WHO LOST SUCH CITIZENSHIP BY RENDERING SERVICE TO,
OR ACCEPTING COMMISSION IN, THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES”;
Republic Act No. 8171”AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN
WHO HAVE LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF
NATURAL-BORN FILIPINOS.”
52
Republic Act No. 9225, “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003”,
supplemented by Memorandum Circular No. AFF-05-002
53
AASJS vs. Datumanong, G.R. No 160869, May 11, 2007
43
II. Discussion

A.2.2. R.A. 9225, CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF

2003
for in R.A. No. 9225, such as the taking of the necessary oath of allegiance and registration of
the same which shall be the final acts to retain/reacquire Philippine citizenship.54
Section 3 of R.A. 9225 provides:
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. — Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby
deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic:
“I _________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, and I hereby declare
that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself
voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”
54
44
II. Discussion
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become
citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid
oath.
The Act does not require one to renounce his or her other citizenship55. According to
its principal author, Senator Franklin Drilon, the law allows Filipinos abroad to progress
economically and socially in their adopted countries, without being placed under the pain of
being stripped of their Philippine citizenship once they become naturalized citizens of their
countries and, in the process, be considered aliens in their own land56.
Furthermore, R.A. 9225 would largely benefit millions of Filipinos who have become
citizens in foreign countries. According to the Commission on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) of
the Department of Foreign affairs, from 1981-2016, there have been a total of Two Million,
Two
Hundred Eighty-One Thousand, Three Hundred Sixty-Four (2,281,264) registered Filipino
emigrants (see Appendix C: NUMBER OF REGISTERED FILIPINO EMIGRANTS BY
MAJOR COUNTRY OF DESTINATION: 1981 - 2016). The United States have been the main
destination with a proximate
55
Philippine Consulate General of Chicago. (n.d.). Dual Citizenship. Retrieved from
http://www.chicagopcg.com/dual-faq.html#dual6.
56
Tax Treatment of Dual Citizens Under Republic Act (R.A) No.9225 Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003 or Dual Citizenship Law. NTRC Tax Research Journal. Volume XVII6.
Retrieved
from:http://www.ntrc.gov.ph/images/journal/2005/j20051112Tax%20Treatment%20of%20Dual%20Ci
tizens%20Under%20Republic%20Act%20No.%209225-%20Citizenship%20Retention%20&%20Re-
Acquisition%20Act%20of%202003%20or%20Dual%20Citizenship%20Law.pdf
45
of 1.4 million migrants. The average age of Filipino emigrants is 31 (see appendix D: NUMBER
OF REGISTERED FILIPINO EMIGRANTS BY AGE GROUP: 1981 - 2016). Figures also show
that almost 900,000 are married, proximately 7,000 are separated, and nearly 10,000 are
divorced (see appendix E: NUMBER OF REGISTERED FILIPINO EMIGRANTS BY CIVIL
STATUS: 1988 - 2016).
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws
of the Philippines.
Section 5 of R.A. 9225 provides:
SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. — Those who retain or re-acquire
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions:
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements
under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise
known as “The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003” and other existing laws;
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and
existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a
46
II. Discussion
II. Discussion
A.2. DISCUSSION ON REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225 ALSO KNOWN AS
a.2. Discussion onRETENTION
CITIZENSHIP Republic Act AND
No. 9225 also known as Citizenship
RE-ACQUISITION Retention and Re-
ACT OF 2003
A.2.2. R.A. 9225, CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT
OFa.2.2.
2003R.A. 9225, Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior
to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to
the country where they took that oath;
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines
cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they
are naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed
forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.
This law, however, only applies to natural-born citizens of the Philippines who acquired
foreign citizenship by naturalization. It does not apply to Filipino citizens with dual
47
II. Discussion

A.2.2. R.A. 9225, CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF 2003
A.2.2.1. RESTORATION OF RIGHTS
citizenship by birth, i.e., a child born in the United States when either parent was still a
Filipino citizen at the time.57 Clearly, what R.A. No. 9225 allows is dual citizenship for
natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country.58
a.2.2.1. Restoration of Rights
Once Philippine citizenship is re-acquired/retained, the Filipino citizen will again
enjoy full civil and political rights59 and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing Philippine laws. R.A. No. 9225 itself says that individuals with
dual citizenships must comply with existing laws for them to enjoy full civil and political
rights60.
Among these rights are the right to travel with a Philippine passport; right to own real
property in the Philippines; right to engage in business and commerce as a Filipino; and the
57
Ibid.
58
AASJS vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869 May 11, 2007
59
Section 5, R.A.No. 9225; Commission on Filipinos Overseas/Philippine Consulate General,
Los Angeles, CA . A primer on the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.
Retrieved from: http://www.philippineconsulatela.org/consular-services-2/dual-citizenship-ra-
9225
60
Tan vs. Crisologo, G.R. No. 193993, November 8, 2017
48
II. Discussion

A.2.2.1. RESTORATION OF RIGHTS
right to practice one’s profession, provided that a license or permit to engage in such practice
is obtained from the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), or the Supreme Court in the
case of lawyers.61
One may also freely exercise the right to vote in regular elections or as an absentee
voter in national elections,62 save for the right to be voted into office, which is subject to
constitutional limitations. Section 5 (2), R.A. No. 9225 provides:
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions:
XXX
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the
qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and
existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath.
XXX.
61
See supra note 53.
62
Velasco vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 180051, December 24, 2008
49
Certain Rights Limited to Filipino Citizens, but may be exercised by Dual Citizens by
virtue of R.A. 9225:
50
II. Discussion
51
a.2.2.1. Restoration of rights
1. Land ownership
1. Land ownership
Section 7, Article XII, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “Save in cases
of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain”63.
The capacity to acquire private land is dependent on the capacity "to acquire or hold
lands of the public domain." Private land may be transferred only to individuals or entities
"qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain”.
Only Filipino citizens or corporations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by
Filipinos are qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Thus, as the rule now
stands, the fundamental law explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos from acquiring or holding title
to private lands, except only by way of legal succession or if the acquisition was made by a
former natural-born citizen64.
II. Discussion
63
Section 7, Article XII, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
64
Borromeo vs. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310 February 24, 2009
52
1. Land ownership
However, having re-acquired Filipino citizenship under R.A. 9225, one is deemed to
have re-acquired his/her right to own land as a Filipino citizen without prejudice to his/her
citizenship in a foreign country. The limitations imposed on former Filipinos no longer apply
to him/her65.
It is important to note that natural-born Filipinos who have acquired foreign citizenship
are also entitled to own or acquire lands in the Philippines. Article XII, Section 8, of the
Philippine Constitution provides that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his
or her Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, but subject to limitations
provided by law. Section 7 of the same Article entitles former Filipinos to own and acquire
lands through hereditary succession, i.e. by virtue of inheritance. The laws on land ownership
by natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship are governed by Batas
II. Discussion
1. Land ownership
65
Commission on Filipinos Overseas/Philippine Consulate General, Los Angeles, CA. (n.d.).
A primer on the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. Retrieved from:
http://www.philippineconsulatela.org/consular-services-2/dual-citizenship-ra-9225
53
2. Right to vote
Pambansa Blg. 185 (BP 185), which was enacted in March 1982, and Republic Act 8179 (RA
8179), which amended the Foreign Investment Act of 1991.66
2. Right to Vote67
Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Philippine Constitution68 provides that “Suffrage may
be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least
eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year, and
in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding
II. Discussion
2. Right to vote
66
Land Ownership by Foreigners / Former Filipino Citizens. (n.d.). Retrieved from:
http://www.philippine-embassy.org.sg/laws-and-guidelines/land-ownership/
67
In Lewis vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 162759, August 4, 2006, it was held that those who retain or re-
acquire Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225, may exercise the right ti vote under the system of
absentee voting in R.A. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
68
Section 1, Article V of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
54
the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the
exercise of suffrage.” This clearly shows that only Filipino citizens can exercise the right to
vote.
Following are the qualifications to register and other requirements for the exercise of the
right to vote69:
Qualifications to Register
Any Filipino citizen who is not yet a registered voter, may apply for registration,
provided he/she possesses the following qualifications:
Regular Voters
At least eighteen (18) years of age;
A resident of the Philippines for at least one (1) year and in the place wherein he/she
proposes to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the elections.
Disqualifications to Register
The following are disqualified from filing applications for registration:
II. Discussion
2. Right to vote
69
Commission on Elections, Retrieved from:
https://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=VoterRegistration/WhatisVoterRegistration/RegistrationRequi
rements )
55
Any person who has been sentenced by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not
less than one (1) year, such disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
amnesty;
Any person who has been adjudged by final judgment by a competent court or
tribunal of having committed any crime involving disloyalty to the duly-constituted
government, such as, rebellion, insurrection, violation of the firearms laws, or any
crime against national security unless restored to his (or her) full civil and political
rights in accordance with law; and
Insane or incompetent person as declared by competent authority unless subsequently
declared by proper authority that such person is no longer insane or incompetent.
The records of registered voters who possess the above disqualifications will be
deactivated.
Documentary Requirements
A person has to establish his (or her) identity upon filing his (or her) application. The
following are valid identification documents:
II. Discussion
2. Right to vote
56
Employee's identification card (ID), with the signature of the employer or authorized
representative;
Postal ID ; PWD Discount ID; Student's ID or library card, signed by the school
authority; Senior Citizen's ID; Driver's license; NBI clearance; Passport; SSS/GSIS
ID; Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP) ID; License issued by the Professional
Regulatory Commission (PRC); Certificate of Confirmation issued by the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) in case of members of ICCs or IPs; and
Any other valid ID.
In the absence of any of the above-mentioned identification documents, the applicant
may be identified under oath by any registered voter of the precinct where he (or she)
intends to be registered, or by any of his (or her) relatives within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity. No registered voter or relative shall be allowed to
identify more than three (3) applicants.
Community Tax Certificates (cedula) and PNP clearance shall not be honored as
valid identification documents for purposes of registration.
II. Discussion
2. Right to vote
57
If the applicant fails to establish his (or her) identity by any of the aforementioned
methods/documents, he (or she) shall not be issued an application form, nor shall his
(or her) pre-accomplished application form be accepted.
But R.A. 9225 expressly provides that former Filipinos who re-acquired or retained
their Filipino citizenship can also exercise their right of suffrage.
The law states that a person who re-acquires his/her Filipino citizenship may vote in
elections in the Philippines provided that he/she complies with the residency requirement and
other requirements under existing Philippine election laws thereof. Subject to compliance of
the requirements he/she may also vote abroad in Philippine national election ( president, vice-
president, senators and party-list representatives), under the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
200370.
II. Discussion
3. Right to exercise profession
3. Right to Exercise Profession
70
58
Section 14, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution declares that “the practice of all
profession in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by
law”71. The provisions clearly set the standard with regard to the practice of profession, as
well as the exception thereto. As a general rule, the practice of all professions in the country is
exclusively reserved to Filipino citizens, except when there is a law which provides otherwise.
This basic constitutional rule is aimed at protecting the welfare of Filipino professionals and
has been the long -standing rule upon which enactment of laws and regulations relating to the
practice of profession is based72. The exception is “save in cases prescribed by law”.
Foreigners may exercise profession73 in the Philippines subject to certain requirements74.
II. Discussion
4. Privilege to stay in the Philippines without visa requirement
71
Paragraph 2, Section 14, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
72
SEC-OGC Opinion No. 16-04, February 16, 2016
73
Subject to 10th Regular Foreign Investment Negative List (FINL)
74
Board of Medicine vs. Yasuyuki Ota, G.R. No. 166097, July 14, 2008:
Section (j) of P.D. No. 223 also defines the extent of PRC's power to grant licenses, i.e., it may, upon
recommendation of the board, approve the registration and authorize the issuance of a certificate of
registration with or without examination to a foreigner who is registered under the laws of his country,
provided the following conditions are met: (1) that the requirement for the registration or licensing in
said foreign state or country are substantially the same as those required and contemplated by the laws
of the Philippines; (2) that the laws of such foreign state or country allow the citizens of the Philippines
to practice the profession on the same basis and grant the same privileges as the subject or citizens of
such foreign state or country; and (3) that the applicant shall submit competent and conclusive
documentary evidence, confirmed by the DFA, showing that his country's existing laws permit citizens
of the Philippines to practice the profession under the rules and regulations governing citizens thereof;
59
As such, despite having re-acquired Filipino citizenship, one does not automatically
gain the right to practice his/her profession in the Philippines. To be able to do so, he/she must
apply with the proper Philippine authority (Professional Regulations Commission and other
accrediting bodies) for a license or permit to engage in such practice75. Section 5 of RA 9225
says that “Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.”76
4. Privilege to stay in the Philippines without visa requirement
Dual citizens under R.A. 9225 may stay in the Philippines indefinitely provided that
upon his/her arrival in the Philippines, he/she will present before the Philippine Immigration
Officer a valid foreign passport and the Dual Citizenship Documents. However, there is an
exception to this. When a dual citizen will travel with his/her foreign husband/wife/child, the
dual citizen, and the foreign husband/wife/child are entitled to a visa-free entry to the
75
76
Section 5 of RA 9225
60
DIVORCEAND
DIVORCE ANDDUAL
DUALCITIZENSHIP
CITIZENSHIP
II.II.Discussion
Discussion
A.A.Study
Studyofofrelevant
relevantlaws
lawsand
andjurisprudence
jurisprudence
a.2.Discussion
a.2. DiscussionononRepublic
RepublicAct
ActNo.
No.9225
9225also
alsoknown
knownasasCitizenship
CitizenshipRetention
Retentionand
andRe-
Re-
acquisitionAct
acquisition Actofof2003
2003
a.2.2.R.A.
a.2.2. R.A.9225,
9225,Citizenship
CitizenshipRetention
Retentionand
andRe-acquisition
Re-acquisitionAct
Actofof2003
2003
a.2.2.1.Restoration
a.2.2.1. Restorationofofrights
rights
4.3.Privilege
Right toto
exercise
stay inprofession
the Philippines without visa requirement
Philippines for a period of one (1) year from arrival in the Philippines, among other privileges,
provided they all have round trip/return tickets with the same return flight schedule77.
To add, a dual citizen, being regarded as a natural-born Filipino, will not be treated as
an alien who may be called upon by authorities as overstaying alien, neither will he/she will be
treated as former natural-born Filipino78 who was naturalized in foreign country.
As ruled by the Supreme court in Tiu Chun Hai and Go Tam vs. The Commissioner of
Immigration79, the law which governs deportation of overstaying aliens is Commonwealth Act
No. 613, Sec. 38 (a) (7), which is as follows:
SEC. 38. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the
Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the
purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a
determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for
deportation as charged against the alien:
77
Retrieved from: http://www.philippineconsulatela.org/consular-services-2/dual-citizenship-ra-9225
78
Former Filipinos who have acquired citizenship from a country can avail of the one year visa-free
balikbayan stay.
Retrieved from: https://www.philippine-embassy.org.sg/the-philippines-2/travel-to-the-philippines/

79
Tiu Chun Hai and Go Tam vs. The Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-10009 ,
December 22, 1958.
61
II. Discussion

A.2.2.2. LIABILITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
xxx xxx xxx
(7) Any alien who remain in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or
condition under which he was admitted as a non-immigrant; . . .
As we have stated in the case of Ong Se Lun vs. Board of Immigration
Commissioners, 95 Phil., 785, the presence in the Philippines of an overstaying
Chinese is a matter of privilege and they are not entitled to the same rights and
privileges as resident aliens. XXX
a.2.2.2. Liabilities and responsibilities
Filipino dual citizens by virtue of R.A. No. 9225 must comply with existing laws for
them to enjoy full civil and political rights.80 As expressly provided for in the law, they shall
be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
80
See supra note 56.
62
II. Discussion

A.2.2.2. LIABILITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Philippines81. As such, they must observe loyalty to the Philippines, pay taxes82, and obey the
laws and duly constituted authorities of the land83.
Section 3 of R.A. 9225 more specifically provides:
“Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens
of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship
upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
II. Discussion
81
Section 5, R.A. 9225
82
Under the NIRC of 1997, individual taxpayers are classified into resident citizens, nonresident
citizens, resident aliens, and non-resident aliens. Among them, only resident citizens are required to
pay income tax for income derived from sources within and without the Philippines. Other individual
tax payers are taxable only on income derived from sources within the country. However, R.A. 9225
fails to specifically provide for the taxability of dual citizens. [Tax Treatment of Dual Citizens Under
Republic Act (R.A) No.9225 Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 or Dual Citizenship
Law. NTRC Tax Research Journal. Volume XVII6.
Retrieved
from:http://www.ntrc.gov.ph/images/journal/2005/j20051112Tax%20Treatment%20of%20Dual%20Ci
tizens%20Under%20Republic%20Act%20No.%209225-%20Citizenship%20Retention%20&%20Re-
Acquisition%20Act%20of%202003%20or%20Dual%20Citizenship%20Law.pdf]
83
63
"I _____________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal
orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I
hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation
upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become
citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath.” [Emphasis supplied]
This oath is a declaration that those who availed of R.A. 9225 will support and defend
the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines, will recognize and accept
the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto.
II. Discussion

64
a.2.2.3. The Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws
And further declare that they imposed this obligation upon them voluntarily without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.
Having restored to their natural-born Filipino status, the Philippine laws attaches to
Filipino dual citizens. As such, Article 15, of the New Civil Code on nationality principle,84
which states that “[l]aws 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,” equally applies to them.
Section 2 of The Hague Convention on conflict of Nationality Laws states that: “[A]ny
question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be
84
Art. 15. 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.
65
II. Discussion

CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF 2003
A.2.2. R.A. 9225, CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION

ACT OF 2003
A.2.2.3. THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON CONFLICT OF

NATIONALITY LAWS
determined in accordance with the law of that State.” 85 This provision was enunciated in the
case of Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Callano ,86 wherein it was provided that the
status of natural-born Filipinos must be governed by Philippine law wherever they may be, in
conformity with Article 15 of the New Civil Code. Thus, the question of whether a Filipino
85
Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Callano, G.R. No. L-24530, October 31, 1968
For, the settled rule of international law, affirmed by the Hague Convention on Conflict of
Nationality Laws of April 12, 1930 and by the International Court of Justice, is that "Any
question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular state should be
determined in accordance with laws of that state." (quoted in Salonga, Private International
Law, 1957 Ed., p. 112.) There was no necessity of deciding that question because so far as
concerns the petitioners' status, the only question in this proceeding is: Did the petitioners lose
their Philippine citizenship upon the performance of certain acts or the happening of certain
events in China? In deciding this question no foreign law can be applied. The petitioners are
admittedly Filipino citizens at birth, and their status must be governed by Philippine law
wherever they may be, in conformity with Article 15 (formerly Article 9) of the Civil Code
which provides as follows: "Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
conditions and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad." Under Article IV, Section 2, of the Philippine Constitution, "Philippine
citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law," which implies that the
question of whether a Filipino has lost his Philippine citizenship shall be determined by no
other than the Philippine law.
86
Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Callano ,G.R. No. L-24530, October 31, 1968.
66
II. Discussion

CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF 2003
A.2.2. R.A. 9225, CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION

ACT OF 2003
A.2.2.3. THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON CONFLICT OF

NATIONALITY LAWS
has lost87 his Philippine citizenship shall be determined by no other than the Philippine law,
ditto with its reacquisition—that is, after observing the requirements under R.A. No. 922588.
The issue on dual citizenship was also settled in the case of AASJS vs. Datumanong,89
where the legislative intent behind the enactment of R.A. No. 9225 was highlighted, with the
Court saying that the issue on dual citizenship is transferred from the Philippines to the foreign
country, as can be gleaned from the comments of Representative Locsin:
[T]he proposed law aims to facilitate the reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship by speedy means. However, he said that in one sense, it
addresses the problem of dual citizenship by requiring the taking of an
oath. He explained that the problem of dual citizenship is transferred
II. Discussion
87
Section 1, Commonwealth Act No. 63.
Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. - A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship
in any of the following ways and/or events:
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;

(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;
Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000

88
Tan vs. Crisologo, G.R. No. 193993, November 8, 2017
89
AASJS vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007
67
from the Philippines to the foreign country because the latest oath that
will be taken by the former Filipino is one of allegiance to the
Philippines and not to the United States, as the case may be. He added
that this is a matter which the Philippine government will have no
concern and competence over.
68
II. Discussion
B. KEY FINDINGS
B. KEY FINDINGS
The study reveals that absolute divorce between Filipino citizens is prohibited
considering that there is no law on absolute divorce under existing Philippine laws. Also,
Filipinos are bound by the nationality principle enshrined in Article 15 of the New Civil Code
of the Philippines, which provides that the family rights and duties, the status, condition and
legal capacity of Filipinos are governed by Philippine laws even though living abroad.
Furthermore, the recognition of foreign divorce is applicable only in mixed
marriages, that is, one between a Filipino and a foreign spouse, subject to conditions, as
provided under Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines. It is not applicable to
Filipino spouses considering the Philippines’ prohibition on absolute divorce and the
application of the nationality principle.
Corollary, it is provided under R.A. No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Re-
acquisition and Retention Act of 2003, that natural-born Filipino citizens who become citizens
of another country shall be deemed to have re-acquired or retained their natural-born status,
thus becoming dual citizens who enjoy the rights under Philippine laws, and bound by the
liabilities thereof.
69
II. Discussion
III. Conclusion and recommendation
B. KEY FINDINGS
A. Conclusion
The rights enjoyed by Filipino dual citizens are the same rights conferred to other
natural-born Filipino citizens, and are likewise bound by the same liabilities. These rights are
not similarly enjoyed by former Filipino citizens and foreigners. It is thus inferred that, as
natural-born Filipino citizens, dual citizens under R.A. 9225 are also governed by Philippine
laws, and bound by the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Philippine Code regardless
of whether they are within or outside of the Philippine territory. As such, the Philippine law’s
prohibition on absolute divorce equally applies to them.
III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

70
III. Conclusion AND RECOMMENDATION
A. CONCLUSION
A. CONCLUSION
Jurisprudence shows that absolute divorce is prohibited among Filipino spouses, and
any divorce obtained abroad cannot be recognized in the Philippines. If at all, the recognition
of a foreign decree of divorce under paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code of the
Philippines can only be availed of by Filipinos who are married to foreigners, or married to a
former Filipino citizen who eventually acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization.
Former Filipino citizens who acquired foreign citizenship by naturalization, however,
can retain or reacquire their natural-born status if they undergo the process prescribed under
the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9225). A Filipino dual
citizen who observed all the requirements of the law remains a Filipino in the eyes of
Philippines laws, as he is governed by his national law, the Philippine law wherever he may
be, albeit possessing other foreign citizenship. Concomitantly, he also enjoys full civil and
political rights accorded to natural-born Filipino citizens and mandated to perform the same
obligations and duties imposed upon the same.
Applying the laws adverted to above, juxtaposed with one against the other, the legal
issue on “[w]hether an absolute divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino with dual citizenship
against a Filipino citizen may also be given recognition in the Philippines” is brought to the
fore.
Following the result of the study and the discussion on the relevant laws and
jurisprudence regarding the subject matter, the researcher supports the argument that an
71
II. Conclusion AND RECOMMENDATION
B. RECOMMENDATION
absolute divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino dual citizen against a Filipino spouse will not
be recognized in the Philippines considering the following propositions:
If a Filipino, who acquired the status of dual citizenship by virtue of R.A. No. 9225, is
a Filipino in accordance with Philippine laws, then he is bound by his national law—the
Philippine law, wherever he may be;
If he is bound by Philippine laws wherever he may be, then he is bound by the
Philippine’s prohibition on absolute divorce between Filipino spouses;
If he is bound by the Philippines’ prohibition on absolute divorce between Filipino
spouses, then he cannot validly obtain absolute divorce abroad against his Filipino spouse and
have it recognized under Philippine laws, absolute divorce not being recognized between
Filipinos under the Philippine laws and jurisdiction.
In sum, a Filipino who acquired the status of a dual citizen by virtue of R.A. No. 9225,
being considered a Filipino under Philippine laws, cannot validly obtain absolute divorce
abroad against his/her Filipino spouse and have it recognized under Philippine laws, absolute
divorce not being recognized under its laws and jurisdiction; provided that his status as dual
citizen is already existing at the time of acquisition of a divorce decree.
B. RECOMMENDATION
Amidst the findings that a Filipino dual citizen is considered a natural-born Filipino in
the eyes of Philippine laws and as such, should be governed by Philippine laws wherever he or
she may be, so that divorce is prohibited, the question as to whether such citizen may validly
obtain a foreign divorce abroad against a Filipino spouse will remain until the Supreme Court
72
has, in a jurisprudence, further interpreted Article 26 (2) of the Family Code of the
Philippines, to resolve the legal issue herein set-forth, or until the law allowing divorce in the
Philippines is passed.
For the sake of greater certainty it is recommended that Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, which governs the law on recognition of foreign divorce, be
amended to harmonize with the provisions of R.A. 9225 thereof, stating clearly whether
former Filipinos who re-acquired or retain their natural-born Filipino status shall or shall not
be allowed to obtain foreign divorce. This amendment should also cater all other
interpretations rendered by the High Court in several of its decisions involving recognition of
foreign divorce. Thus, include the valid application of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family
Code of the Philippines to Filipino marriages where one of the spouses was eventually
naturalized in a foreign country, and incorporate that a Filipino spouse married to a foreigner
may also obtain a decree of absolute divorce abroad, and may validly have the absolute
divorce decree recognized in the Philippines.
Article 26, Paragraph 2 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” should be amended in
the following manner:
“Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, or a Filipino
who thereafter was naturalized in a foreign country, is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by either of the spouses capacitating the foreigner, or the
Filipino who thereafter was naturalized in a foreign country, to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall also have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. This provision, however, is not
applicable to a marriage between a Filipino and a Filipino dual citizen, notwithstanding the
73
fact that the former’s foreign national law will capacitate him to remarry after a divorce was
obtained abroad in accordance with the said foreign law.”
74

Divorce and Dual Citizenship A. Background of The Study

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Divorce and Dual Citizenship A. Background of The Study

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DIVORCE AND DUAL CITIZENSHIP

A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

given recognition in the Philippines.

A. Background of the study

1. History of divorce in the Philippines

divorce in the Philippines.

1. HISTORY OF DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

historical periods: Pre-Spanish, Spanish, American, Japanese Occupation, Liberation and

a. The Pre-Spanish Period

given as financial support upon divorce.

b. The Spanish Period `

A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

1. HISTORY OF DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

D. THE JAPANESE PERIOD

separation from bed and board or separation a mensa et thoro.

c. The American Period

d. The Japanese Period

A. Background of the study

1. History of divorce in the Philippines

e. The Civil Code and Family Code of the Philippines

Section 2 thereof. The grounds are as follows:

under any of the forms described in the Revised Penal Code;

2. Attempt of one spouse against the life of the other;

has been legally dissolved;

4. Loathsome contagious diseases contracted either spouse;

the spouses has ceased;

6. Impotency on the part of either spouse;

not less than six (6) years imprisonment;

years prior to the filing of the action;

make further living together impracticable.

proclamation, reestablished the Commonwealth Government. Said proclamation in effect

repealed E.O. No. 141 and revived Act No. 2170.

e. The Civil Code and Family Code of the Philippines

force and effect.7

all encompassing psychological incapacity.

A. Background of the study

2. The recognition of absolute divorce

2. THE RECOGNITION OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE

Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code provides:

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 law10.

judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render

the judgment or final order, is as follows:

A. Background of the study

2. The recognition of absolute divorce

Furthermore, in order that a divorce obtained abroad may be recognized in the

applicable if both parties are Filipinos.14

3. The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003

To reiterate, an absolute divorce decree secured by a Filipino married to another

recognized in the Philippine jurisdiction16.

3. THE CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-ACQUISITION ACT OF 2003

A. Background of the study

3. The Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003

in which the Filipino citizen is also a citizen.

A. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

3. THE CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND REACQUISITION ACT OF

decree that said person, is NOT a Filipino22.

laws, regardless of any other acquired foreign citizenship.

against a Filipino spouse may also be given recognition in the Philippines”.

A. Background of the study