Republic_of_the_Philippines_v._Orbecido.pdf

7/30/2019 Republic_of_the_Philippines_v._Orbecido.pdf

1/3

RECENT JURISPRUDENCE CIVIL LAW

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO IIIGR. No. 154380, 5 October 2005, First Division (Quisumbing, J.)

Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a foreigncitizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise

remarry under Philippine law?

On 24 May 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva and theirmarriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and LadyKimberly V. Orbecido.

In 1986, his wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A fewyears later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizenand sometime in 2000, learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree. Hiswife then married Innocent Stanley and is now currently living in San Gabriel, California withher child by him.

Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invokingParagraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (FC). No opposition was filed. Finding merit inthe petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office ofthe Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:Whether or not respondent can remarry under Art. 26 of the Family Code

HELD: The petition is granted.

The OSG contends that par. 2 Art. 26 of FC is not applicable to the instant case becauseit only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen

and an alien. Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs the respondentssituation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial determination.

The respondent admits that Art. 26 is not directly applicable to his case, but insists thatsince his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce decree which capacitated her to remarry, he islikewise capacitated by operation of law pursuant to Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the petition for authority to remarry filed before the trial courtactually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. The requisites of a petition for declaratoryrelief are: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be betweenpersons whose interests are adverse; (3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in thecontroversy; and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination. This case satisfies all therequisites for the grant of a petition for declaratory relief.

Article 26 does not appear to govern the situation presented by the case at hand. Itseems to apply only to cases where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties area Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage wassolemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as anAmerican citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, andindeed she remarried an American citizen while residing in the USA


2/3


Records of the proceedings of the FC deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Civil Code RevisionCommittee, is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to thealien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.,which involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner where the Court held that adivorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently,the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.

In the 1998 case ofQuita v. Court of Appeals, the parties were Filipino citizens when theygot married. The wife became a naturalized American citizen in 1954 and obtained a divorce inthe same year. The Court therein hinted, by way ofobiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by hisnaturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry.

Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, theCourt holds that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involvingparties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on,one of them became naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtained a divorce decree. The Filipinospouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time ofthe solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity andinjustice.

In view of the foregoing, the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article26 are as follows: (1) There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizenand a foreigner; and (2) A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating himor her to remarry. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of thecelebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroadby the alien

spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.

In this case, when Ciprianos wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was stilla valid marriage that had been celebrated between her and Cipriano. Then the naturalized alienwife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twinrequisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both satisfied. Thus Cipriano, thedivorced Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.

However, the Court notes that the records are bereft of competent evidence dulysubmitted by respondent concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of respondentswife. It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mereallegation is not evidence. For his plea to prosper, the respondent must prove his allegation that

his wife was naturalized as an American citizen, must prove the divorce as a fact anddemonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it, and that such foreign law must also beproved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Furthermore, the respondentmust also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically requiredin Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitatedto enter into another marriage.

Nevertheless, the Court is unanimous in holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the FCshould be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had


3/3


acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry. However, due to lack of sufficientevidence submitted and on record, the Court is unable to declare, based on the respondentsbare allegations that his wife, who was naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorcedecree and had remarried an American, that the respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Suchdeclaration could only be made properly upon the respondents submission of the aforecitedevidence in his favor.

Documents

Republic_of_the_Philippines_v._Orbecido.pdf