12/12/2025
In Anido v. Republic (G.R. No. 253527, October 21, 2024), the Supreme Court ruled that when a Filipino seeks recognition of a foreign divorce under the Family Code, the applicable foreign law that must be proven is the law of the country or state that issued the divorce decree—not the national law of the foreign spouse.
The Court held:
1. Anido only needed to prove Kentucky law, because the divorce decree was issued by a Kentucky court, and Enrique (the foreign spouse) was domiciled in Kentucky at the time of the divorce.
2. Peruvian law is immaterial, even though Enrique is a Peruvian citizen, because jurisdiction and validity of the divorce depend on the law of the state that granted the decree.
3. Under Article 26(2), what must be shown is that the divorce was validly obtained abroad and that it capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry, based on the law of the jurisdiction that issued the decree.
4. The ruling emphasized comity of nations, holding that Philippine courts should not re-litigate or review the merits of foreign judgments; they may only check for lack of jurisdiction, lack of due process, fraud, or violation of public policy.
5. Errors in how the foreign court applied its own conflict-of-laws rules cannot be collaterally attacked in Philippine proceedings.
6. Past cases applying the national law of the foreign spouse were situations where the divorce was granted by the same country of citizenship; this case is different because Enrique was Peruvian but the divorce was issued in Kentucky.
Holding: To recognize the divorce, Anido only needed to prove the relevant Kentucky divorce laws, since Kentucky issued the decree and had jurisdiction based on Enrique’s domicile there.