The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that in seeking recognition of a foreign divorce in the Philippines, a Filipino spouse only needs to prove the law of the country where the divorce was granted—not the law of the foreign spouse’s nationality.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division remanded a case to the Court of Appeals (CA) to allow a Filipina to properly present proof of Kentucky divorce laws.

The Filipina, a medical doctor, married a Peruvian citizen in New Jersey, USA. The couple later moved to Kentucky, where her husband obtained a divorce decree from a local court. Seeking recognition of the divorce in the Philippines, the Filipina filed a petition before a Regional Trial Court (RTC), submitting the divorce decree along with internet printouts of Kentucky and Peruvian marriage laws.

The RTC granted her petition, but the CA reversed the ruling, citing lack of properly authenticated proof that the divorce complied with Kentucky law and that Peruvian law allowed her husband to remarry.

On appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code, a Filipino may remarry if the foreign spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad that also allows them to remarry. In such cases, what must be proven is the law of the jurisdiction where the divorce was granted. Since the divorce in this case was issued in Kentucky, only Kentucky law needed to be established—not Peruvian law.

The Court emphasized the principle of comity of nations, which allows judicial acts such as foreign court rulings to be recognized in other jurisdictions out of mutual respect. The SC noted that U.S. courts, including those in Kentucky, may grant divorces based on legal residence, even to non-U.S. citizens.

Additionally, the Court reiterated that the Filipino spouse must prove that the foreign spouse is permitted to remarry, either through the divorce decree or relevant foreign law.

The SC explained that in earlier cases where the divorce occurred in the foreign spouse’s home country, proof of that country’s national law was necessary. But here, because the divorce was granted in Kentucky, only Kentucky law is relevant.

However, the Court found that the Filipina failed to meet the evidentiary requirements under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court, as she merely submitted printouts. Foreign laws must be proven through official publications or certified copies.

The case was returned to the CA to give the petitioner the opportunity to properly comply with these requirements.