Manalo removed the question of who filed
The old objection ran like this: the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code speaks of a divorce validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, so if the Filipino filed it, the provision does not apply. Republic v. Manalo (G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018, En Banc) took that argument apart. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo had herself filed the divorce against her Japanese husband, and the Court held that this changed nothing:
The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding 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 reason is practical, and the Court spelled it out in the passage later quoted in Galapon v. Republic (G.R. No. 243722, January 22, 2020, First Division):
A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operation of the latter's national law.
Whoever filed, the outcome is identical: your Korean spouse is free under Korean law and you are stranded under Philippine law. Article 26(2) exists precisely to close that gap, and Manalo also disposed of the objection that the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code forbids this — that principle, the Court said, is not an absolute and unbending rule, and the very existence of Article 26(2) is proof that the State may provide an exception to it.
Galapon names your scenario
Galapon is the Korean case, and it lists the three situations Article 26(2) reaches:
Pursuant to the majority ruling in Manalo, Article 26(2) applies to mixed marriages where the divorce decree is: (i) obtained by the foreign spouse; (ii) obtained jointly by the Filipino and foreign spouse; and (iii) obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.
You are scenario (iii). The Court had said so a few lines earlier when it rejected the Court of Appeals and the Solicitor General: in Manalo, the Court en banc extended the scope of Article 26(2) to even cover instances where the divorce decree is obtained solely by the Filipino spouse. That is the whole of the doctrinal question, and it is not open.
One honest caveat. Among the Supreme Court decisions on Korean divorces that we have, none presents a Filipino who alone obtained the Korean divorce — Galapon was a divorce by mutual agreement, and Rivera v. Woo Namsun (G.R. No. 248355, November 23, 2021, First Division) was a divorce obtained by the Korean husband. The rule from Manalo and Galapon is not country-specific and does not depend on where the divorce was granted. But it does mean you should expect the Republic to press hard on your evidence rather than on the doctrine, which is where these cases are decided anyway.
Winning the doctrine is not winning the case
Manalo herself did not walk out of the Supreme Court a free woman. She won the point of law and was sent back to the trial court, because the fact of divorce is only half the burden:
Jurisprudence has set guidelines before Philippine courts recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. Presentation solely of the divorce decree will not suffice. The fact of divorce must still first be proven. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
The burden is yours, not the State's, because you are the one invoking the divorce. And there is a wrinkle that hits Filipino-initiated cases harder than any other: you must show that the divorce capacitated your Korean spouse to remarry under Korean law. That is a proposition about the other side's national law, proved from Korean sources, and it does not become easier simply because you are the one who started the case. See proving the governing Korean law for what that takes.
What this means in practice
Three things follow. First, do not let anyone tell you your petition is hopeless because you filed in Korea — ask them to read Manalo. Second, do not remarry, and do not have the Korean divorce annotated on your PSA records, before a Philippine court has ruled; a registration made without a recognition order is void. Third, treat the Korean documents as the real battleground: the divorce judgment or the court's confirmation, the family relation and marriage relation certificates from the Korean registry, apostilled, translated, and matched with properly proved Korean law. The documents checklist and the step-by-step process set out the rest.
Kung ikaw ang nag-file, hindi iyon hadlang — ang ebidensya ang laban. Book a consultation, bring what Korea issued you, and we will tell you what a Quezon City court will still ask for. Related reading on the Korea pillar guide and the general recognition of foreign divorce page.
Frequently asked questions
I was the one who filed for divorce in Korea. Can it still be recognized in the Philippines?
Yes. Republic v. Manalo settled En Banc that Article 26(2) only requires a divorce validly obtained abroad, and that the law does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign proceeding. Galapon restated the rule to cover a divorce obtained solely by the Filipino spouse.
Does the nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code stop me?
Manalo held that invoking the nationality principle in this situation is erroneous, because the principle is not an absolute and unbending rule and the second paragraph of Article 26 is itself the exception the State provided. What still matters is that your spouse was a foreign national when the divorce was obtained.
Has the Supreme Court decided a case where a Filipino alone obtained a Korean divorce?
Not among the Korean decisions available to us. Galapon involved a divorce by mutual agreement and Rivera involved a divorce obtained by the Korean husband. The governing rule from Manalo and Galapon is not country-specific, but you should expect the Republic to test your evidence closely rather than the doctrine.
Manalo won her case but was sent back to the trial court. Why?
Because she proved the divorce but not the foreign law. The Supreme Court denied the Republic on the doctrine and remanded the case for reception of evidence on the relevant foreign law on divorce. Remand rather than dismissal is the usual outcome when only the foreign-law proof falls short, but it costs you a year or more.