Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    FACTS: On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros

    Uploaded by

    Ana Rose Cinco
    The Supreme Court ruled that Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if their alien spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad, does not strictly apply when the spouses were both Filipino citizens at the time of marriage but one later became a naturalized foreign citizen. However, the legislative intent and rule of reason require Article 26(2) to be interpreted to also cover such cases. Nevertheless, the respondent was unable to prove that his American wife actually obtained a divorce, so he remained barred from remarrying.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    FACTS: On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros

    Uploaded by

    Ana Rose Cinco
    13 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if their alien spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad, does not strictly apply when the spouses were both Filipino citizens at the time of marriage but one later became a naturalized foreign citizen. However, the legislative intent and rule of reason require Article 26(2) to be interpreted to also cover such cases. Nevertheless, the respondent was unable to prove that his American wife actually obtained a divorce, so he remained barred from remarrying.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    91_Republic_vs_Orbecido

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if their alien spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad, does not strictly apply when the spouses were both Filipino citizens at the time of marriage but one later became a naturalized foreign citizen. However, the legislative intent and rule of reason require Article 26(2) to be interpreted to also cover such cases. Nevertheless, the respondent was unable to prove that his American wife actually obtained a divorce, so he remained barred from remarrying.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views1 page

    FACTS: On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros

    Uploaded by

    Ana Rose Cinco
    The Supreme Court ruled that Article 26(2) of the Family Code, which allows a Filipino spouse to remarry if their alien spouse validly obtains a divorce abroad, does not strictly apply when the spouses were both Filipino citizens at the time of marriage but one later became a naturalized foreign citizen. However, the legislative intent and rule of reason require Article 26(2) to be interpreted to also cover such cases. Nevertheless, the respondent was unable to prove that his American wife actually obtained a divorce, so he remained barred from remarrying.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    91.Republic of the Philippines vs. Orbecido GR No. 154380 Oct. 5, Article 26 par.

    26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case where at


    2005 *FAMILY CODE* the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a
    Filipino citizen and a foreigner. Art. 26 (2) of the Family Code
    FACTS: On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros states that:
    Villanueva were married in Lam-an, Ozamis City and were
    blessed with a son and a daughter. In 1986, Lady Myros left for Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
    the U. S. bringing along their son and after a few years she was foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly
    naturalized as an American citizen. obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
    remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under
    Sometime in 2000, respondent Orbecido learned from his son – the Philippine laws.”
    who was living with his wife in the States – that his wife had
    remarried after obtaining her divorce decree. Thereafter, he filed The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was
    a petition for authority to remarry with the trial court invoking solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on,
    par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code. the wife was naturalized as an American citizen and
    subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to
    Having no opposition, on May 15, 2002, the Regional Trial Court remarry, and indeed she remarried an American citizen while
    of Zamboanga del Sur granted the petition of the respondent and residing in the U. S. A. Therefore, the 2nd par. of Art. 26 does not
    allowed him to remarry. apply to the instant case.

    The Solicitor General’s motion for reconsideration was denied. In However, the legislative intent must be taken into consideration
    view of that, petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari and rule of reason must be applied. The Court ruled that par. 2 of
    of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. Herein petitioner Art. 26 should be construed and interpreted to include cases
    raised the issue of the applicability of Art. 26 par. 2 to the instant involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the
    case. marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of then
    becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce
    ISSUE: WON respondent can remarry under the Article 26 of the decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to
    Family Code of the Philippines. (NO) remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the
    solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be
    HELD: sanction absurdity and injustice.

    Respondent who has the burden of proof, failed to submit However, since Respondent was not able to prove as fact his
    competent evidence showing his allegations that his naturalized wife’s naturalization, he was still barred from remarrying.
    American wife had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried.

    You might also like