Atty. Prestone Alicum

22/09/2026

DIVORCED ABROAD BUT STILL MARRIED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

Many people think that once a divorce is granted abroad, it is already automatically recognized in the Philippines. Legally, that is not always the case.

Under Philippine law, divorce is generally not available to Filipino citizens. However, there is an important exception under Article 26 of the Family Code. If a Filipino is married to a foreigner, and the foreign spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad, the Filipino spouse may file a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce before the Philippine courts so that the divorce may be recognized here in the Philippines.

Without judicial recognition, the Filipino spouse may still appear “married” in Philippine records despite the foreign divorce already existing abroad. This can affect remarriage, property rights, inheritance, immigration documents, and even business or travel transactions.

Maria, a Filipino citizen, married John, an American citizen. They later separated and John obtained a divorce in the United States. Even if the divorce is already valid in the US, Maria cannot simply remarry in the Philippines immediately. She still needs to file a Petition for Recognition of Foreign Divorce before the Regional Trial Court so that the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and civil registry records will reflect her updated civil status.

Once granted by the court, the Filipino spouse may regain the legal capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

On the other hand, Annulment is different from divorce.

Annulment applies to marriages that are considered defective or invalid from the beginning due to grounds recognized by law such as psychological incapacity, lack of parental consent, fraud, force or intimidation, incapacity to consummate the marriage, or serious sexually transmissible disease existing at the time of marriage.

Unlike recognition of foreign divorce, annulment is generally filed by Filipino spouses whose marriages were celebrated under Philippine law and where no foreign divorce is involved.

Simple Comparison

* Recognition of Foreign Divorce → applicable when one spouse is a foreigner and a valid divorce was obtained abroad.

* Annulment → applicable when parties seek to declare the marriage void or voidable under Philippine law.

These legal remedies involve court proceedings, documentary requirements, and proper presentation of evidence. Proper legal guidance is important to ensure compliance with procedural and jurisdictional requirements.

For legal assistance involving Recognition of Foreign Divorce, Annulment, Family Law, and Civil Status concerns, consult with competent legal counsel to properly assess your case and available remedies.

21/09/2026

19/09/2026

TANONG:
Atty., Maaari ko bang ibenta ang lupa na iginawad sa akin ng DAR?

💡 Sagot:
Hindi basta-basta maaaring ibenta ang lupang iginawad ng DAR. May mga restriksyon at kundisyon sa pagbebenta, paglilipat, o pagsasangla ng awarded land na itinakda ng batas.

📌 Tandaan:
Huwag agad pumirma ng Deed of Sale o anumang kasunduan tungkol sa lupa nang hindi muna sinusuri ang iyong sitwasyon at mga dokumento.

13/09/2026

12/09/2026

The (SC) clarified that the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has no jurisdiction over a dispute unless both parties involved are indigenous peoples (IP) from the same group.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division dismissed a petition to compel a judge to set aside its decision in an ejectment case against the spouses claiming to be members of the IP community. The spouses had claimed that under Republic Act No. 8371 or the 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘙𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘈𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 1997 (IPRA), customary laws and practices should govern in resolving disputes involving them.

The case stemmed from an unlawful detainer case filed by Kristoffer R. Co Uy (Co Uy) against Elvin and Jocelyn Sending (the Sendings), seeking to have them vacate a property registered in his name.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals (CA) all ruled in favor of Co Uy and ordered the Sendings to vacate the property.

After attaining finality, and during the enforcement of the decision, the Sendings questioned the jurisdiction of the MCTC. They claimed that they were members of the IP group 𝘓𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘥 𝘒𝘒𝘒-𝘈𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘏𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦. They asserted, for the first time, that customary laws, traditions, and practices should be used to resolve the property dispute, in accordance with IPRA. Under the IPRA, the NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving the rights of IPs.

The spouses brought the case to the SC after their motion to suspend the ex*****on of decision was denied by the MCTC. They argued that the Higaonon Tribe and the Dadantulan Tribal Court, not the MCTC, should have jurisdiction over their case.

The SC disagreed and clarified that under Section 66 of IPRA, the NCIP has jurisdiction over disputes involving IP rights only when all parties belong to the same indigenous group. If any party is not a member of the same IP community, jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts.

Here, Co Uy was not a member of any indigenous group. The SC explained that subjecting him to the customary laws of an IP community violates the fundamental principles of fair play and due process.

The SC also noted that the Sendings simply claimed they were IPs but failed to provide supporting evidence. They did not explain their customs, political structures, institutions, decision-making processes, or any other proof showing they were truly members of an IP community.

The SC stressed that a final judgment cannot be easily set aside, especially when the parties were given opportunity to present their side, and the decision was reached after careful review of the case.

The SC found that the petitioners invoked the NCIP’s authority simply to avoid the ex*****on of the final judgment against them. They raised their claim of being IP members only during the ex*****on stage, despite having participated in the barangay proceedings and the courts, casting doubt on the credibility of their claim.

The SC ordered the spouses to vacate the subject property within 30 days from receipt of the Decision.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172796

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/271354-spouses-elvin-sending-datu-gibo-and-jocelyn-sending-bae-orange-vs-kristopper-rahda-co-uy-atty-jocelyn-pesquera-henry-p-canete-jr-and-hon-ameli-amor-r-estrada-presiding-judge-of-t/

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/271354-concurring-opinion-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

08/09/2026

‼️BACK TO REGULAR OPERATIONS‼️

We are pleased to announce that Atty. Prestone Alicum Law Office is now back to its regular operations.

We are ready to assist you once again with your legal concerns and provide the same dedicated and professional service.

Thank you for your patience, understanding, and continued trust.

We look forward to serving you.⚖️

07/09/2026

Nagpasya ang na hindi maaaring kumpiskahin ang ebidensiya ng credit card hacking sa ilalim ng isang search warrant na nagbibigay-pahintulot lang sa paghahanap ng mga ilegal na droga at mga kagamitang may kaugnayan sa droga, maliban na lang kung nakita ang mga ito “in plain view” habang isinasagawa ang paghahalughog.

Sa isang Desisyong isinulat ni Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, pinawalang-sala ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema ang isang akusado sa paglabag sa Republic Act No. (RA) 8484, o Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998. Ipinagbabawal sa Section 9(e) ng batas ang pagmamay-ari ng mga pekeng access device, kabilang ang mga pekeng credit card.

Nakatanggap ang National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) ng impormasyon na sangkot ang akusado sa mga ilegal na aktibidad na may kaugnayan sa droga at computer hacking, partikular sa panloloko gamit ang credit card. Para beripikahin ang ulat, inatasan ng NBI ang impormante na bumili ng methamphetamine hydrochloride o shabu mula sa akusado. Kinumpirma kalaunan ng laboratory test na shabu nga ang nabili.

Kumuha ang NBI ng search warrant para sa paglabag sa RA 9165 o ang Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 na nagbibigay-pahintulot sa paghahanap ng shabu at iba pang bagay na may kaugnayan sa droga.

Sa isinagawang paghahalughog sa tirahan ng akusado, nakumpiska ng mga ahente ng NBI ang ilang bagay, kabilang ang mga computer, ATM card, laptop, money counter, dry seal, at isang card-skimming device. Nakakuha rin sila ng dalawang American Express credit card na nakapangalan kay “V S Tan.” Kalaunan, kinumpirma ng isang manager ng American Express na peke ang mga card dahil hindi tumutugma ang mga numero ng mga ito sa rekord ng orihinal na may-ari ng account.

Hinatulang guilty ng Regional Trial Court at Court of Appeals ang akusado base sa mga ebidensiya na nakumpiska sa pagpapatupad ng search warrant.

Isinantabi ng Korte Suprema ang hatol at ipinaliwanag na sa pangkalahatang tuntunin, maaari lamang kumpiskahin ng mga awtoridad ang mga bagay na partikular na nakasaad sa search warrant. Isang eksepsiyon dito ang plain view doctrine na nagpapahintulot sa mga opisyal na kumpiskahin ang ebidensiyang natuklasan nila habang legal silang nasa isang lugar.

Para maipatupad ang plain view doctrine, dapat may legal na dahilan ang mga opisyal para mapunta sa lugar kung saan natagpuan ang ebidensiya; dapat aksidente o hindi sinadya ang pagkakatuklas dito; at dapat agad na malinaw na maaaring may kaugnayan ang bagay sa isang krimen.

Unang rekisito lang ang natugunan dito, ayon sa Korte Suprema. Ang search warrant ay para lamang sa mga ilegal na droga at mga kagamitang may kaugnayan sa droga. Hindi nito pinahihintulutan ang pagkumpiska ng mga credit card o iba pang access device.

Bukod dito, hindi natuklasan ang mga ebidensiya “in plain view.” Nasa loob ng bag ang mga credit card na hindi makikita kung hindi binuksan ang bag. Wala ring indikasyon na peke ang mga card at natukoy lang na peke ito nang beripikahin ng American Express.

Bagama’t legal ang pagpasok ng mga taga-NBI sa tirahan ng akusado, hindi aksidente ang pagkakatuklas nila sa mga credit card. May paunang impormasyon sila na nag-uugnay sa akusado sa umano’y credit card fraud pero hindi sila humingi ng search warrant para rito.

Dahil dito, sinabi ng Korte Suprema na labag sa batas ang pagkakakumpiska sa mga credit card at hindi maaaring gamitin ang mga ito bilang ebidensiya laban sa akusado. Kung wala ang mga ebidensiya, nabigo ang prosekusyon na patunayan ang kanyang kasalanan sa ilalim ng RA 8484.

Basahin ang press release sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172645.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/273931.pdf.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

07/09/2026

You got this, future attorney! 👩🏼‍⚖️👨🏼‍⚖️

31/08/2026

⚖️