FIRST DIVISIONREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, G.R. No. 154380 Present: - versus - CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, Respondent. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ. Promulgated: October 5, 2005 x--------------------------------------------------x DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law? 26 of the Family Code and by reason of the divorce decree obtained against him by his American wife.Before us is a case of first impression that behooves the Court to make a definite ruling on this apparently novel question. 2002. presented as a pure question of law. of the Regional Trial Court of Molave. Their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter. Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen. Ciprianos wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. the petitioner is given the capacity to remarry under the Philippine Law. Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. The court a quo had declared that herein respondent Cipriano Orbecido III is capacitated to remarry. the Solicitor General assails the Decision[1] dated May 15. are as follows. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an. . Ozamis City. IT IS SO ORDERED. as narrated by the trial court. In 1986. The fallo of the impugned Decision reads: WHEREFORE. A few years later. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. 2002 denying the motion for reconsideration. In this petition for review. 1981. Orbecido. On May 24.[3] The factual antecedents. Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Zamboanga del Sur. Branch 23 and itsResolution[2] dated July 4. by virtue of the provision of the second paragraph of Art. The proper remedy.Sometime in 2000.[6] For his part. that is. Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. the court granted the same. is to file a petition for annulment or for legal separation. through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). San Gabriel. Stanley and her child by him currently live at 5566 A. Finding merit in the petition. The Republic.[5] Furthermore. sought reconsideration but it was denied. In this petition. No opposition was filed. Walnut Grove Avenue. herein petitioner. a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien. the OSG raises a pure question of law: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE[4] The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage. She. the OSG argues there is no law that governs respondents situation. California. Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. respondent admits that Article 26 is not directly applicable to his case but insists that when his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce decree which . according to the OSG. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial determination. thereunder. Who may file petitionAny person interested under a deed. and for a declaration of his rights or duties. contract or other written instrument. (3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy. bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising. as petitioner representing the State asserts its duty to protect the institution of marriage while respondent. executive order or regulation.. praying for relief. and remarried while in the U.A.[8] This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a marriage between two Filipino citizens where one later acquired alien citizenship. a private citizen. Article II of the Constitution. In this connection.. The issue raised is also ripe for judicial determination . . will. and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination. has legal interest in the controversy. or whose rights are affected by a statute. (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse. we note that the petition for authority to remarry filed before the trial court actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides: RULE 63 DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES Section 1. ordinance.S. before breach or violation thereof. Respondent.[7] At the outset. The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy. or other governmental regulation may. Section 1. insists on a declaration of his capacity to remarry. obtained a divorce decree. he is likewise capacitated by operation of law pursuant to Section 12. The interests of the parties are also adverse.capacitated her to remarry. Executive Order No. 1987. 209. As so amended. does Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code apply to the case of respondent? Necessarily. 36. 227 was likewise signed into law. (4). it now provides: ART. 26. except those prohibited under Articles 35(1). and valid there as such. Article 26 thereof states: All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized. 1988. we must dwell on how this provision had come about in the first place. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized. which took effect on August 3. amending Articles 26. A second paragraph was added to Article 26. (Emphasis supplied) . except those prohibited under Articles 35. and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. shall also be valid in this country. and valid there as such. and what was the intent of the legislators in its enactment? Brief Historical Background On July 6. 37. then President Corazon Aquino signed into law Executive Order No. 37 and 38. shall also be valid in this country. otherwise known as the Family Code. 36. Coming now to the substantive issue. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. shortly after the signing of the original Family Code. litigation ensues and puts into question the validity of his second marriage.inasmuch as when respondent remarries. (5) and (6). On July 17. 1987. and 39 of the Family Code. according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy. The rule is discriminatory. while the spouses of foreigners who validly divorce them abroad can. is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized. This is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce even for Filipino citizens. the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) registered the following objections to Paragraph 2 of Article 26: 1. is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who.) Legislative Intent Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26. (Emphasis supplied. Noteworthy.S. the wife was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry. in the Report of the Public Hearings[9] on the Family Code.A. It discriminates against those whose spouses are Filipinos who divorce them abroad. the parties were two Filipino citizens. a member of theCivil Code Revision Committee. We propose that this be deleted and made into law only after more widespread consultation. 2. but later on.On its face. These spouses who are divorced will not be able to re-marry. For those whose foreign spouses validly divorce them abroad will also be considered to be validly divorced here and can remarry. the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. . the foregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation presented by the case at hand. It seems to apply only to cases where at the time of the celebration of the marriage. and indeed she remarried an American citizen while residing in the U. after obtaining a divorce. and consequently. one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who.[10] The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. one of them obtains a foreign citizenship by naturalization? The jurisprudential answer lies latent in the 1998 case of Quita v. by way of obiter dictum. . but later on.Interestingly. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. the parties were. but later on. that a Filipino divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry. The Court held therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines. The Court therein hinted. at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens. as in this case. The wife became a naturalized American citizen in 1954 and obtained a divorce in the same year. Court of Appeals. Jr. the parties were Filipino citizens. Filipino citizens when they got married. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.[11] In Quita. Thus. Does the same principle apply to a case where at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Romillo. after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage. In this case. we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1.Where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature. then the instant case must be deemed as coming within the contemplation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26. In view of the foregoing. when Ciprianos wife was naturalized as an American citizen. but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and Cipriano. it should be construed according to its spirit and reason. so long as they come within its spirit or intent. disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law.[12] If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. A statute may therefore be extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms. and 2. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. . Annulment would be a long and tedious process. legal separation would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tie. the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.[13] Accordingly. Likewise. the twin requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence. for his plea to prosper. considering that the marriage of the parties appears to have all the badges of validity. respondent herein must prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Thus Cipriano.[14] Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot take . and in this particular case. we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by respondent concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of respondents wife. the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. hence. should be allowed to remarry. before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts. Clearly. the legally separated Filipino spouse would still remain married to the naturalized alien spouse. the divorced Filipino spouse. On the other hand.As fate would have it. However. We are also unable to sustain the OSGs theory that the proper remedy of the Filipino spouse is to file either a petition for annulment or a petition for legal separation. not even feasible. Like any other fact. we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (E. However. and Resolution dated July 4. Nevertheless. based on respondents bare allegations that his wife. of the Regional Trial Court of Molave. had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an American. . No. should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen. the petition by the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried. that respondent is now capacitated to remarry. No pronouncement as to costs.[15] Furthermore. such laws must be alleged and proved. are hereby SET ASIDE. Such declaration could only be made properly upon respondents submission of the aforecited evidence in his favor. who was naturalized as an American citizen. 2002. ACCORDINGLY. SO ORDERED. 209. there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another marriage. 227).O.judicial notice of foreign laws. Zamboanga del Sur. considering that in the present petition there is no sufficient evidence submitted and on record. Branch 23. as amended by E. 2002. No. also to remarry. Otherwise. The assailed Decision dated May 15. we are unable to declare. respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26.O. Article VIII of the Constitution. HILARIO G. QUISUMBING Associate Justice WE CONCUR: HILARIO G.LEONARDO A. 20-22. pp. DAVIDE. JR. AZCUNA Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. JR. CARPIO Associate Justice Associate Justice ADOLFO S. . DAVIDE. it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. Chief Justice [1] Rollo. Chief Justice Chairman CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ANTONIO T. G. [8] Office of the Ombudsman v. 1988 and February 3. at 451. Recio. 11 November 1993. [7] Sec. 38. 366 SCRA 437. [14] Garcia v. at 21-22. 139 SCRA 139. [4] Id. No. 137538. 447. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. 121772. 124862. 12. No. 850. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. 3 September 2001.[2] Id. 300 SCRA 406. No. [12] Lopez & Sons.R. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. 8 October 1985. 364 SCRA 281. Inc. at 27-29. G. 1988. Id. 138322. 13 January 2003.R. 100 Phil. [11] G. at 110. Court of Appeals. at 105. No.R. No. Court of Tax Appeals. [10] No. 227 SCRA 729. Ibay. Valencia. [13] Cortes v. at 106-110. [6] Id.R. 286. 395 SCRA 33. L-68470. 855. 2 October 2001. 1 February 1957. No. L-9274. [5] Id. citing Galarosa v. 22 December 1998. v. [9] Held on January 27 and 28. 737. 109455. [3] . [15] Id.R. G. G. 2005 . REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.Republic vs Orbecido Republic vs. ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. HELD: The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly. one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III. He thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. respectively. R. also to remarry under Philippine law. In 1986. 2005 FACTS: Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24. the court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and remarried. at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens. Hence. 1981 at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. A few years later.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who. but later on. Orbecido discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his wife sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. 154380. Article 26 Par. 154380 October 5. Orbecido GR NO. October 5. G. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. No. Zamboanga del Sur is hereby SET ASIDE. 26 par. the wife was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry. and indeed she remarried an American citizen while residing in the U. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. Lady Myros left for the U. the 2nd par. 26 should be construed and interpreted to include cases involving parties who. “Art. To rule otherwise would be sanction absurdity and injustice. of Art. Thereafter he learned from his son that his wife obtained divorce . the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur granted the petition of the respondent and allowed him to remarry. S. but later on. In view of that. Therefore. The Solicitor General’s motion for reconsideration was denied. the Petition of the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. Were the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature. bringing along their son and after a few years she was naturalized as an American citizen. However. Wife went to US to work and later became a US citizen. 2 of Art. at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens. The Decision and Resolution of the RTC Br. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized. he filed a petition for authority to remarry with the trial court invoking par. Zamboaga del Sur. On May 24. the legislative intent must be taken into consideration and rule of reason must be applied. FACTS: Orbecido and Villanueva were married ad had two children. Having no opposition. 1981.” Article 26 par. Therefore. The Supreme Court ruled that par. Thereafter. granting respondent’s petition for authority to remarry invoking par. one of then becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under the Philippine laws. Sometime in 2000. so long as they come within its spirits or intent. 2002. disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. 26 of the Family Code. S. 2 of Art.Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Molave. the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. 26 (2) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva were married in Lam-an. respondent Orbecido learned from his son – who was living with his wife in the States – that his wife had remarried after obtaining her divorce decree. 32 of Molave. A. Ozamis City and were blessed with a son and a daughter. the parties were two Filipino citizens. but later on. failed to submit competent evidence showing his allegations that his naturalized American wife had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case where at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Herein petitioner raised the issue of the applicability of Art. Held: Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof. Branch 23. 26 does not apply to the instant case. on May 15. In 1986. it should be construed according to its spirit and reason. petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. A stature may therefore be extended to case not within the literal meaning of its terms. 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. 2 to the instant case. Issue: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER THE ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Orbecido filed a petition for authority to remarry under the Article 26 (2) of the Family Code.and married another man. The reckoning point is not their citizenship at the time of celebration of marriage. but their citizenship at the time the divorce decree is obtained abroad by alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry. ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 (2). RULING: Yes. . one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. Article 26 Par. However. RTC Zamboanga del Sur granted his petition.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. but later on. The SolGen's motion for reconsideration was denied. Orbecido is barred from remarrying because he did not present competent evidence showing his wife had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried. Orbecido filed a petition for review of certiorari on the Decision of the RTC. at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens.
Report "Republic of the Philippines vs. Cipriano Orbecido III,"