Amendments to Rule 39, Rule 131, and Rule 132 of the Rules of Court in Relation to Foreign Divorces (Re: Proposed Rule on Recognition of Foreign Divorce or Judgment of Nullity or Annulment of Marriage)

[ Digital p. 1 of 6 ] 3R-epublic .of tlJe t)IJilippines $>Upreme ([ourt ~aguio QCitp EN BANC A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC (Re: Proposed Rule on Recognition of Foreign Divorce or Judgment of Nullity or Annulment of Marriage) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged; WHEREAS, among the objectives of the Supreme Court's Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations is to improve the public's access to justice; WHEREAS, the Court recognizes that proof of foreign law in cases involving Article 26(2) of the Family Code is required only to establish that the foreign divorce is absolute, or has the effect of capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry; WHEREAS, the principle of comity of nations and the presumption of validity of a foreign judgment under Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court place the burden of repelling the foreign judgment on the adverse party; WHEREAS, the Court recognized the need to mitigate the time, effort, and costs required for a Filipino spouse to prove foreign laws on divorce in relation to judicial recognition proceedings involving Article 26(2) of the Family Code, in line with the Court's objective of improving access to justice; WHEREAS, the Court constituted a Sub-Technical Working Group on the Concerns of Overseas Filipino W okers Regarding the Recognition of Foreign Divorce Decrees/Reports (Sub-TWG) under the Committee on Family Courts and Juvenile Concerns Technical Working Group (TWG) to study and recommend measures to address this issue, among other things; [ Digital p. 2 of 6 ] Resolution 2 A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC October 7, 2026 WHEREAS, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa subsequently joined the Sub-TWG meetings to support its efforts, particularly by assisting the Sub-TWG in navigating the myriad of legal requirements contained in the Civil Code, Family Code, Civil Registration Laws, the Rules of Court, and relevant jurisprudence; WHEREAS, upon the suggestion of Justice Caguioa, the representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DF A), the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the Office of the Solicitor General, and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila were invited as resource persons of the Sub-TWG in view of their administrative and institutional roles in matters involving the recognition of foreign divorces and/or change in one's civil status; WHEREAS, during several meetings held by the Sub-TWG with the DFA, it was noted that obtaining authenticated copies of foreign laws on divorce proved challenging because (i) there is difficulty in compiling the foreign laws on marriage, especially where family law is scattered across several jurisdictions; (ii) there is often no official custodian authorized to certify the foreign law; and (iii) providing an English translatiori of foreign law is not a function of the foreign ministry; WHEREAS, on July 1, 2026, the Court, through a resolution in A.M. No. 26~06-42-SC, approved the Memorandum of Agreement among the TWG, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), and the DFA for the establishment of a central repository of updated and authenticated foreign laws on divorce and nullity or annulment of marriage; WHEREAS, Justice Caguioa later surfaced the fact that the Philippines and the Vatican are the only countries in the world whose laws do not allow absolute divorce. Consequently, almost all foreign divorce decrees presented in court for judicial recognition would likely be issued pursuant to foreign laws which allow absolute divorce; WHEREAS, based on a l,etter addressed by Justice Caguioa to the Court, the Court saw the need to amend the Rules of Court to make it easier for the Filipino spouse to be able to assert the right granted under Article 26(2) of the Family Code by reducing the difficulty in obtaining proof of foreign. law and mitigating the time, effort, and resources required to prove the applicable foreign law; WHEREAS, based on the same letter, the Court saw that there is also a need to amend the Rules on Evidence in order to recognize the admissibility and probative value of foreign laws that are included in OCA's repository; [ Digital p. 3 of 6 ] '. Resolution 3 A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC October 7, 2026 NOW, THEREFORE, acting on the recommendation of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguiioa, in consultation with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Jhosep Y. Lopez, and the Sub-TWG, the Court, sitting en bane, resolves to APPROVE the Amendments to Rule 39, Rule 131, and Rule 132 of the Rules of Court in Relation to Foreign Divorces, as follows: :RULE 39 Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments • SECTION 48-A. Effect of foreign divorces . •_, A foreign divorce between a Filipino and a foreigner, without restriction or qualification, issued by a tribunal or administrative authority, of a foreign country, having jurisdiction or authority to render or grant the same, is presumptive evidence that the foreign spouse is capacitated by the divorce to remarry under the applicable foreign law. If the said divorce is in an unofficial language but is accompanied by a transl:ation into English duly issued by and attested to under oath as correct by a translator, such translation shall be presumed to be a true and correct translation of the sam.e. This presumption may be controverted by the adverse party through a contrary translation. • Both the presump1tion of capacity to remarry and the correctness of the English translation may be controverted as provided in the Rules of Evidence. The divorce may be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of no1ice to the party, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. (Amendments in boldface and underscored) RULE 131 Burden ofProof Burden of Evidence and Presumptions [ Digital p. 4 of 6 ] Resolution 4 A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC October 7, 2026 SECTION 3. Disputable presumptions. - The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (ll) That a foreign divorce between a Filipino and a foreigner, without restriction or qualification, capacitates the foreign spouse to remarry under the applicable foreign law. (Amendments in boldface and underscored) RULE 132 Presentation of Evidence B. AUTHENTICATION AND PROOF OF DOCUMENTS SECTION 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred to in paragraph ( a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public document under such treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph ( c) of Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or convention, subject to reciprocity granted to public documents originating from the Philippines. For documents ong1nating from a foreign country which is not a contracting party to a treaty or convention [ Digital p. 5 of 6 ] - -- ----- -------- • Resolution 5 A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC October 7, 2026 referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his or her office. A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document itself from this formality . . In opposing a divorce under .Section 48-A of :Rule 39, the oppositor may, arnong other modes allowed by the Rules, prove a foreign law on divorce, including its corresponding English translation, if any, by presenting in evidence a certified true copy of the same issued by the Office of the Court Administrator based on its repository of such foreign laws. This. is without prejudice to the submission of proof that the said law has been modified, amended, or repealed, oir that such English translation is inaccurate. (Amendments in boldface and underscored) The foregoing amendments shall take effect after 15 calendar days from posting on the Supreme Court Website. October 7, 2026. [ Digital p. 6 of 6 ] Resolution 6 A.M. No. 25-03-14-SC October 7, 2026 Senior Associate Justice (On official leave) RAMON PAULL. HERNANDO AMY . Associate Justice Associate Justice ------ HEN RODI A A s e--: ust1 ce 0 SAMUEL H. G~ RICA .ROSARIO Associate Justice 1i-t:'- JHOSEP'~&PEZ Associate Justice Associate Justice ~~---- JO ASP.MARQUEZ iate Justice FILOMENA D. SINGH Associate Justice ~ MARIA CECILIA M. CAPUNPON Deputy Clerk of Court OCC-En Banc. Supreme Court