RepublicvsOrbecido Art.26

7/24/2019 RepublicvsOrbecido Art.26

1/3

[ G.R. NO. 154380, October 05, 2005 ]REPUBLIC OF TE PILIPPINE!, PETITIONER, "!. CIPRI#NO ORBECI$O III, RE!PON$ENT.

$ E C I ! I O N

%UI!U&BING, '.(

Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen andobtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry underPhilippine law'

Before us is a case of first impression that behooves the Court to make a definite ruling on this apparently noveluestion, presented as a pure uestion of law!

"n this petition for review, the #olicitor General assails the $ec)*)o+$%&dated ay %(, )**), of the +egional rial Courtof olave, -amboanga del #ur, Branch ). and itsRe*o-t)o+$)&dated /uly 0, )**) denying the motion forreconsideration! he court a quohad declared that herein respondent Cipriano 1rbecido """ is capacitated to remarry!he falloof the impugned 2ecision reads3456+6F1+6, by virtue of the provision of the second paragraph of 7rt! )8 of the Family Code and by reason of the

divorce decree obtained against him by his 7merican wife, the petitioner is given the capacity to remarry under thePhilippine 9aw!

" "# #1 1+26+62!$.&

he factual antecedents, as narrated by the trial court, are as follows!

1n ay )0, %:;%, Cipriano 1rbecido """ married 9ady yros ! an, 1zamis City! heir marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, ?ristoffer #imbortriz

"n %:;8, Cipriano's wife left for the =nited #tates bringing along their son ?ristoffer! 7 few years later, Ciprianodiscovered that his wife had been naturalized as an 7merican citizen!

#ometime in )***, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain

"nnocent #tanley! #he, #tanley and her child by him currently live at ((88 7! 4alnut Grove 7venue, #an Gabriel,California!

Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8 of theFamily Code! @o opposition was filed! Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same! he +epublic, hereinpetitioner, through the 1ffice of the #olicitor General A1#G, sought reconsideration but it was denied!

"n this petition, the 1#G raises a pure uestion of law3

45656+ 1+ @1 +6#P1@26@ C7@ +67++ =@26+ 7+"C96 )8 1F 56 F7"9 C126$0&

he 1#G contends that Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8 of the Family Code is not applicable to the instant case because it onlyapplies to a valid miDed marriageE that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien! he properremedy, according to the 1#G, is to file a petition for annulment or for legal separation! $(&Furthermore, the 1#G arguesthere is no law that governs respondent's situation! he 1#G posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of udicialdetermination!$8&

For his part, respondent admits that 7rticle )8 is not directly applicable to his case but insists that when his naturalizedalien wife obtained a divorce decree which capacitated her to remarry, he is likewise capacitated by operation of lawpursuant to #ection %), 7rticle "" of the Constitution!$&

7t the outset, we note that the petition for authority to remarry filed before the trial court actually constituted a petitionfor declaratory relief! "n this connection, #ection %, +ule 8. of the +ules of Court provides3

+=96 8.26C97+71+ +69"6F 7@2 #""97+ +662"6#

#ection %! Who may file petition>7ny person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or

whose rights are affected by a statute, eDecutive order or regulation, ordinance, or other governmental regulation may,before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate +egional rial Court to determine any uestion ofconstruction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder!

! ! !

he reuisites of a petition for declaratory relief are3 A% there must be a usticiable controversyE A) the controversymust be between persons whose interests are adverseE A. that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the


2/3

controversyE and A0 that the issue is ripe for udicial determination!$;&

his case concerns the applicability of Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8 to a marriage between two Filipino citizens where onelater acuired alien citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried while in the =!#!7! he interests of the partiesare also adverse, as petitioner representing the #tate asserts its duty to protect the institution of marriage whilerespondent, a private citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to remarry! +espondent, praying for relief, has legal

interest in the controversy! he issue raised is also ripe for udicial determination inasmuch as when respondentremarries, litigation ensues and puts into uestion the validity of his second marriage!

Coming now to the substantive issue, does Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8 of the Family Code apply to the case ofrespondent' @ecessarily, we must dwell on how this provision had come about in the first place, and what was the intentof the legislators in its enactment'

Br)e )*tor)c/ B/cro-+

1n /uly 8, %:;, then President Corazon 7uino signed into law 6Decutive 1rder @o! )*:, otherwise known as theHFamily Code,H which took effect on 7ugust ., %:;;! 7rticle )8 thereof states37ll marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they weresolemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, eDcept those prohibited under 7rticles .(, .,and .;!

1n /uly %, %:;, shortly after the signing of the original Family Code, 6Decutive 1rder @o! )) was likewise signed intolaw, amending 7rticles )8, .8, and .: of the Family Code! 7 second paragraph was added to 7rticle )8! 7s so amended,it now provides37+! )8! 7ll marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where theywere solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, eDcept those prohibited under 7rticles.(A%, A0, A( and A8, .8, . and .;!

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validlyobtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity toremarry under Philippine law! A6mphasis supplied1n its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation presented by the case at hand! "t seems toapply only to cases where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and aforeigner! he instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens,but later on, the wife was naturalized as an 7merican citizen and subseuently obtained a divorce granting her capacityto remarry, and indeed she remarried an 7merican citizen while residing in the =!#!7!

@oteworthy, in the +eport of the Public 5earings $:&on the Family Code, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of thePhilippines ACBCP registered the following obections to Paragraph ) of 7rticle )83

%! The rule is discriminatory. It discriminates against those whose spouses are Filipinos who divorce them abroad.These spouses who are divorced will not be able to remarry, while the spouses of foreigners who validlydivorce them abroad can!

)! his is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce even for Filipino citizens! For those whoseforeign spouses validly divorce them abroad will also be considered to be validly divorced here and can re>marry! 4e propose that this be deleted and made into law only after more widespread consultation! A6mphasissupplied!

Le)*/t)e I+te+t

+ecords of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8,according to /udge 7licia #empio>2iy, a member of theCivil Code +evision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situationwhere the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married tothe Filipino spouse!

"nterestingly, Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8 traces its origin to the %:;( case of !an "orn v. #omillo, $r!$%*&he !an"orncase involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner! he Court held therein that a divorce decreevalidly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and conseuently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated toremarry under Philippine law!

2oes the same principle apply to a case where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties were Filipinocitizens, but later on, one of them obtains a foreign citizenship by naturalization'

he urisprudential answer lies latent in the %::; case of %uita v. &ourt of 'ppeals!$%%&"n %uita, the parties were, as inthis case, Filipino citizens when they got married! he wife became a naturalized 7merican citizen in %:(0 and obtaineda divorce in the same year! he Court therein hinted, by way of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by his naturalizedforeign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry!


3/3

hus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that Paragraph ) of 7rticle)8 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage wereFilipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree! heFilipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of thesolemnization of the marriage! o rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and inustice! 4here the interpretation

of a statute according to its eDact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purposeof the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter ofthe law! 7 statute may therefore be eDtended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they comewithin its spirit or intent!$%)&

"f we are to give meaning to the legislative intent to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remainsmarried to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Filipino spouse, then the instantcase must be deemed as coming within the contemplation of Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8!

"n view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8 as follows3

%! here is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreignerE and

)! 7 valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry!

he reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but theircitizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroadby the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry!

"n this case, when Cipriano's wife was naturalized as an 7merican citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has beencelebrated between her and Cipriano! 7s fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subseuently obtained a validdivorce capacitating her to remarry! Clearly, the twin reuisites for the application of Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8 are bothpresent in this case! hus Cipriano, the HdivorcedH Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry!

4e are also unable to sustain the 1#G's theory that the proper remedy of the Filipino spouse is to file either a petitionfor annulment or a petition for legal separation! 7nnulment would be a long and tedious process, and in this particularcase, not even feasible, considering that the marriage of the parties appears to have all the badges of validity! 1n theother hand, legal separation would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tieE hence, the legally

separated Filipino spouse would still remain married to the naturalized alien spouse!

5owever, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by respondent concerning thedivorce decree and the naturalization of respondent's wife! "t is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burdenof proving it and mere allegation is not evidence!$%.&

7ccordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an7merican citizen! 9ikewise, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading itmust prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it!$%0uch foreign law mustalso be proved as our courts cannot take udicial notice of foreign laws! 9ike any other fact, such laws must be allegedand proved!$%(&Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry asspecifically reuired in 7rticle )8! 1therwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated toenter into another marriage!

@evertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph ) of 7rticle )8 of the Family Code A6!1! @o! )*:, asamended by 6!1! @o! )), should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse whohad acuired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry! 5owever, considering that in the present petition thereis no sufficient evidence submitted and on record, we are unable to declare, based on respondent's bare allegations thathis wife, who was naturalized as an 7merican citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an 7merican,that respondent is now capacitated to remarry! #uch declaration could only be made properly upon respondent'ssubmission of the aforecited evidence in his favor!

#CCOR$INGL, the petition by the +epublic of the Philippines is GR#NTE$! he assailed 2ecision dated ay %(,)**), and +esolution dated /uly 0, )**), of the +egional rial Court of olave, -amboanga del #ur, Branch )., arehereby !ET #!I$E!

@o pronouncement as to costs!

!O OR$ERE$.

"avide, $r., &.$., (&hairman), *nares+antiago, &arpio,and'zcuna, $$.,concur!

Documents

RepublicvsOrbecido Art.26