republic v.

orbecido

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof,
and resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, failed to submit competent evidence showing his
Zamboaga del Sur, Branch 23, granting respondents allegations that his naturalized American wife had
petition for authority to remarry invoking par. 2 of obtained a divorce decree and had remarried.
Article 26 of the Family Code. Therefore, the Petition of the Republic of the
Philippines is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of
the RTC Br. 32 of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur is hereby
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros SET ASIDE.
Villanueva were married in Lam-an, Ozamis City and
were blessed with a son and a daughter. In 1986, Lady
Myros left for the U. S. bringing along their son and Art. 26 (2) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen
after a few years she was naturalized as an American and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
citizen. thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall have capacity to remarry under the Philippine
Sometime in 2000, respondent Orbecido learned from laws.
his son who was living with his wife in the States
that his wife had remarried after obtaining her divorce
decree. Thereafter, he filed a petition for authority to Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case
remarry with the trial court invoking par. 2 of Art. 26 of where at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
the Family Code. the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The
instant case is one where at the time the marriage was
solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but
Having no opposition, on May 15, 2002, the Regional later on, the wife was naturalized as an American citizen
Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur granted the petition of and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her
the respondent and allowed him to remarry. capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an
American citizen while residing in the U. S. A. Therefore,
the 2nd par. of Art. 26 does not apply to the instant
case.
The Solicitor Generals motion for reconsideration was
denied. In view of that, petitioner filed this petition for
review on certiorari of the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court. Herein petitioner raised the issue of the However, the legislative intent must be taken into
applicability of Art. 26 par. 2 to the instant case. consideration and rule of reason must be applied. The
Supreme Court ruled that par. 2 of Art. 26 should be
construed and interpreted to include cases involving
parties who, at the time of the celebration of the
marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of then
Issue: becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a
divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be
allowed to remarry as if the other party were a
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the
THE ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE marriage. To rule otherwise would be sanction
PHILIPPINES. absurdity and injustice. 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, it should be construed
Held:
according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as
necessary the letter of the law. A stature may therefore The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce,
be extended to case not within the literal meaning of its had obtained jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared
terms, so long as they come within its spirits or intent. in person before the Court during the trial of the case. It
also obtained jurisdiction over private respondent who
Van Dorn vs Romillo, Jr.
authorized his attorneys in the divorce case to agree to
ACTS: Petitioner Alice Van Dorn is a citizen of the the divorce on the ground of incompatibility in the
Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a understanding that there were neither community
citizen of the USA. They were married in Hongkong in property nor community obligations.
1972 and begot two children. The parties were divorced
As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he
in Nevada, USA in 1982. Alice has then re-married also
executed in favor of the law firm of KARP & GRAD LTD.
in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
to represent him in the divorce proceedings:

You are hereby authorized to accept service of

In 1983, Richard filed suit against Alice in the RTC-Pasay, Summons, to file an Answer, appear on my behalf and
stating that Alices business in Ermita, Manila is conjugal do all things necessary and proper to represent me,
property of the parties, and asking that Alice be ordered without further contesting, subject to the following:
to render an accounting of that business, and that
Richard be declared with right to manage the conjugal
property. 1. That my spouse seeks a divorce on the ground of
incompatibility.

2. That there is no community of property to be

Alice moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the
adjudicated by the Court.
cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the
divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein 3. That there are no community obligations to be
respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner adjudicated by the court.
had no community property as of June 11, 1982.

The Court below (presiding judge: Judge Romillo)

There can be no question as to the validity of that
denied the MTD in the mentioned case on the ground
Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States.
that the property involved is located in the Philippines
The decree is binding on private respondent as an
so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.
American citizen. What he is contending in this case is
The denial is now the subject of this certiorari
that the divorce is not valid and binding in this
proceeding.
jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and
ISSUE: What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the public policy.
parties and their alleged conjugal property in the
It is true that owing to the nationality principle
Philippines?
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine
HELD: Petition is granted, and respondent Judge is nationals are covered by the policy against absolute
hereby ordered to dismiss the Complaint divorces the same being considered contrary to our
concept of public police and morality. However, aliens
For the resolution of this case, it is not necessary to
may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized
determine whether the property relations between
in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to
Alice and Richard, after their marriage, were upon
their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada
absolute or relative community property, upon
released private respondent from the marriage from the
complete separation of property, or upon any other
standards of American law, under which divorce
regime. The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada
dissolves the marriage.
divorce of the parties.
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is
no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no
standing to sue in the case below as petitioners
husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal
ISSUE:
assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own
countrys Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over Who between petitioner and private respondent may
him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is validly claim as the spouse of the decedent
estopped by his own representation before said Court
from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal RULING:
property.
The right of petitioner to inherit as Arturos spouse
QUITA V. COURT OF APPEALS must still be determined by the trial court. The trial
court failed to conduct a hearing to establish her
FACTS: citizenship when she obtained the divorce abroad. The
purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the truth of the
Fe Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were
matters in issue with the aid of documentary and
married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941 and were
testimonial evidence as well as the arguments of the
not blessed with children. Their relationship soured and
parties either supporting or opposing the evidence.
eventually Fe sued Arturo for divorce in U.S.A and in
July 1954, she obtained a final judgment of divorce.
Three weeks after, she married a certain Felix Tupaz in
the same locality but their relationship also ended in a On the other hand, private respondents claim to
divorce. Still in the U.S.A., she married for the third heirship was already resolved by the trial court. She and
time, to a certain Wernimont. Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the prior
marriage of petitioner and Arturo was subsisting
On 16 April 1972 Arturo died and left no will. In August thereby resulting in a bigamous marriage considered
1972 Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the void from the beginning under Arts. 80 and 83 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for issuance of Civil Code. Consequently, she is not a surviving spouse
letters of administration concerning the estate of Arturo that can inherit from him as this status presupposes a
in favor of the Philippine Trust Company. Respondent legitimate relationship.
BlandinaDandan, claiming to be the surviving spouse of
Arturo Padlan, and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, The case was remanded to the trial court.
Zenaida and Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named in
PILAPIL VS IBAY-SOMERA
the children of Arturo Padlan, opposed the petition and
prayed for the appointment instead of Atty. Leonardo FACTS: Petitioner Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and
Casaba, which was resolved in favor of the latter. Upon private respondent Erich Geiling, a German national,
motion of the oppositors themselves, Atty. Cabasal was were married in Germany. After about three and a half
later replaced by Higino Castillon. On 30 April 1973 the years of marriage, such connubial disharmony
oppositors submitted certified photocopies of the 19 eventuated in Geiling initiating a divorce proceeding
July 1950 private writing and the final judgment of against Pilapil in Germany. The Local Court, Federal
divorce between petitioner and Arturo. Later Ruperto T. Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce
Padlan, claiming to be the sole surviving brother of the on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.
deceased Arturo, intervened.

Petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of heirs

of the decedent and the distribution of his estate. At a More than five months after the issuance of the divorce
scheduled hearing, the trial court required the decree, Geiling filed two complaints for adultery before
submission of the records of birth of the Padlan children the City Fiscal of Manila alleging in one that, while still
within ten days from receipt thereof, after which, with married to said Geiling, Pilapil had an affair with a
or without the documents, the issue on the declaration certain William Chia. The Assistant Fiscal, after the
of heirs would be considered submitted for resolution. corresponding investigation, recommended the
The prescribed period lapsed without the required dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of
documents being submitted. evidence. However, upon review, the respondent city
fiscal Victor approved a resolution directing the filing of at the time of the institution of the action by the former
2 complaint for adultery against the petitioner. The case against the latter.
entitled PP Philippines vs. Pilapil and Chia was
In the present case, the fact that private respondent
assigned to the court presided by the respondent judge
obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal
Ibay-Somera.
Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its
legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines
insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of
A motion to quash was filed in the same case which was
the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of
denied by the respondent. Pilapil filed this special civil
status of persons Under the same considerations and
action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a
rationale, private respondent, being no longer the
TRO, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower
husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to
court denying her motion to quash.
commence the adultery case under the imposture that
As cogently argued by Pilapil, Article 344 of the RPC thus he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
presupposes that the marital relationship is still
subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal
action for adultery. Laws Applicable: Art. 15, Art. 17, Art. 26 FC

Llorente Vs CA

ISSUE: Did Geiling have legal capacity at the time of the FACTS:
filing of the complaint for adultery, considering that it
Alicia( 2nd wife) Lorenzo N. Llorente --- Paula (1ST
was done after obtaining a divorce decree?
wife) --- Ceferino Llorente (brother)
HELD: WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying
Crisologo Llorente(son)
petitioners MTQ is SET ASIDE and another one entered
DISMISSING the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Lorenzo N. Llorente was an enlisted serviceman of the
TRO issued in this case is hereby made permanent. United States Navy from March 10, 1927 to September
30, 1957
NO
February 22, 1937: Lorenzo and Paula Llorente were
Under Article 344 of the RPC, the crime of adultery
married before a parish priest, Roman Catholic Church,
cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written
in Nabua, Camarines Sur
complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long since
been established, with unwavering consistency, that Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo
compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not departed for the United States and Paula stayed in the
merely a formal, requirement. conjugal home
Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the November 30, 1943: Lorenzo was admitted to United
offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily States citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization
follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity
or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing 1945: When Lorenzo was granted an accrued leave to
of the criminal action. This is a logical consequence visit his wife and he visited the Philippines, He
since the raison detre of said provision of law would be discovered that his wife Paula was pregnant and was
absent where the supposed offended party had ceased living in and having an adulterous relationship with his
to be the spouse of the alleged offender at the time of brother, Ceferino Llorente
the filing of the criminal case.
December 4, 1945: Paula gave birth to a boy registered
Stated differently, the inquiry would be whether it is in the Office of the Registrar of Nabua as Crisologo
necessary in the commencement of a criminal action for Llorente with the certificate stating that the child was
adultery that the marital bonds between the not legitimate and the line for the fathers name was
complainant and the accused be unsevered and existing left blank
Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her proceedings filed by Alicia, gave due course to Paulas
petition
February 2, 1946: the couple drew and signed a written
agreement which was witnessed by Paulas father and divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is
stepmother to the effect that void and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the
marriage he contracted with Alicia Fortunato at Manila
1. all the family allowances allotted by the United
is void
States Navy as part of Lorenzos salary and all other
obligations for Paulas daily maintenance and support Paula T. Llorente: 1/3 estate and conjugal estate
would be suspended
illegitimate children, Raul, Luz and Beverly: 1/3 estate
2. they would dissolve their marital union in
RTC denied Alicias motion for reconsideration but
accordance with judicial proceedings
modified that Raul and Luz Llorente are not children
3. they would make a separate agreement regarding legitimate or otherwise of Lorenzo since they were
their conjugal property acquired during their marital not legally adopted by him thus, Beverly Llorente as the
life; and only illegitimate child of Lorenzo, entitles her to 1/3 of
the estate and one-third (1/3) of the free portion of the
4. Lorenzo would not prosecute Paula for her
estate
adulterous act since she voluntarily admitted her fault
and agreed to separate from Lorenzo peacefully. CA: Affirmed with modification

November 16, 1951: Lorenzo returned and filed for

divorce with the Superior Court of the State of California
ISSUE: W/N the divorce is valid and proven
in and for the County of San Diego

December 4, 1952: the divorce decree became final

HELD: YES. Petition is GRANTED. REVERSES the decision
January 16, 1958: Lorenzo married Alicia F. Llorente in
of the Regional Trial Court and RECOGNIZES as VALID
Manila and lived together as husband and wife and bore
the decree of divorce granted in favor of the deceased
3 children: Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surnamed Llorente
Lorenzo N. Llorente by the Superior Court of the State
March 13, 1981: Lorenzo executed a Last Will and of California in and for the County of San Diego, made
Testament where he bequeathed all his property to final on December 4, 1952. REMANDS the cases to the
Alicia and their three children court of origin for determination of the intrinsic validity
of Lorenzo N. Llorentes will and determination of the
December 14, 1983: Lorenzo filed with the RTC, Iriga,
parties successional rights allowing proof of foreign law
Camarines Sur, a petition for the probate and allowance
with instructions that the trial court shall proceed with
of his last will and testament wherein Lorenzo moved
all deliberate dispatch to settle the estate of the
that Alicia be appointed Special Administratrix of his
deceased within the framework of the Rules of Court.
estate

January 18, 1984: RTC denied the motion for the reason
that the Lorenzo was still alive Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.:

January 24, 1984: RTC admitted finding that the will was o nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code,
duly executedthe will to probate only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
against absolute divorces, the same being considered
June 11, 1985: before the proceedings could be
contrary to our concept of public policy and morality
terminated, Lorenzo died
o Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
RTC on the petition for letters of administration filed by
provided they are valid according to their national law
Paula over Lorenzos estate contending that she was the
surviving spouse and WITHOUT terminating the testate Quita v. Court of Appeals:
o once proven that NO longer a Filipino citizen when promulgated, and said motion was granted by Public
he obtained the divorce, the ruling in Van Dorn would Respondent RTC Judge Salonga.
become applicable

Divorce of Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first wife Paula

Carmen filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with
was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter
a prayer that the case proceed for the purpose of
of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the
determining the issues of custody of children and the
succession to the estate of the decedent) are matters
distribution of the properties between her and
best left to the determination of the trial court.
Wolfgang. Judge Salonga partially setting aside her
The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to previous order for the purpose of tackling the issues of
his second wife and children by her is glaringly shown in support and custody of their children.
the will he executed. We do not wish to frustrate his
wishes, since he was a foreigner, not covered by our
laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and 1st Issue: W/N Judge Salonga was correct in granting a
legal capacity. partial motion for reconsideration.
Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall
inherit from Lorenzo are issues best proved by foreign
law which must be pleaded and proved. Ruling: Yes.

Whether the will was executed in accordance with the

formalities required is answered by referring to
A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case
Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly probated.
that has not yet attained finality, as in the case at bar.

Roehr v. Rodriguez
The Supreme Court goes further to say that the court
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, can modify or alter a judgment even after the same has
married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a become executory whenever circumstances transpire
Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Germany. Their rendering its decision unjust and inequitable, as where
marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14, certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring
1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union such modification or alteration transpired after the
were born Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine. judgment has become final and executory and when it
becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or
when supervening events warrant it.
Carmen filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage before the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied. 2nd issue: W/N Judge Salonga's act was valid when she
assumed and retained jurisdiction as regards child
custody and support.
Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained a decree of divorce
from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg-
Blankenese. Said decree also provides that the parental Ruling: Yes.
custody of the children should be vested to Wolfgang.

As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by

Wolfgang filed another motion to dismiss for lack of foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our
jurisdiction as a divorce decree had already been jurisdiction. But the legal effects thereof, e.g. on
custody, care and support of the children, must still be the marriage between respondent and petitioner ended
determined by our courts. not on the basis of respondents alleged lack of legal
capacity to remarry but on the basis of the divorce
decree (Australian divorce) obtained by respondent.
Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a
Petitioner argues that the divorce decree may only be
foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to
given recognition in this jurisdiction upon proof of
Wolfgang by the German court, it must be shown that
existence of (1) the foreign law allowing absolute
the parties opposed to the judgment had been given
divorce, and (2) the alleged divorce decree itself.
ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under
Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Issues:
Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
(1) Whether or not the divorce between respondent
and Editha Samson was proven; and

In the present case, it cannot be said that private (2) Whether or not respondent was proven to be legally
respondent was given the opportunity to challenge the capacitated to marry petitioner.
judgment of the German court so that there is basis for
declaring that judgment as res judicata with regard to
the rights of Wolfgang to have parental custody of their Held:
two children. The proceedings in the German court
were summary. As to what was the extent of Carmens (1) Yes. The divorce decree has to be admitted in
participation in the proceedings in the German court, evidence with the registration requirements under
the records remain unclear. Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code in order to
prove the divorce as a fact and prove its conformity to
the foreign law allowing it for our courts cannot take
judicial notice of foreign laws. However, compliance
Absent any finding that private respondent is unfit to
with the registration requirements is no longer binding
obtain custody of the children, the trial court was
to respondent for he has acquired Australian Citizenship
correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine the
and therefore, he is no longer bound by Philippine
issue of parental custody, care, support and education
personal laws. Respondent submitted the divorce
mindful of the best interests of the children.
decree and was rendered admissible by the trial court
Recio v. ReCIO as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Autralia
and accorded weight by the judge.
Facts: Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo, on the ground of
bigamy alleging respondent was not legally capacitated
(2) No. The court held that respondents presentation of
to marry her on January 12, 1994 because of his prior
a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree-a conditional or
subsisting marriage to Editha Samson, an Australian
provisional judgment of divorce showed that the
citizen. Respondent claimed that petitioner knew of his
divorce obtained may have been restricted; it did not
prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution. He had
absolutely establish his legal cpacity to remarry
obtained a divorce decree as proof of his legal capacity
according to national law. Respondent also failed to
to marry petitioner in 1994.
submit a Certificate of Legal Capacity together with the
While the suit for the declaration of nullity was still application for a marriage license required by Article 21
pending, respondent, who had become a naturalized of the Family Code which would have been admitted as
Australian citizen in 1992, secured a divorce decree in a prima facie evidence of his legal capacity to marry.
Sydney, Australia for the dissolution of his marriage The Court finds no absolute evidence that proves that
with petitioner on the ground that the marriage had respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian
irretrievably broken down. This was recognized by the citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on
trial court in rendering its assailed decision that deemed January 12, 1994.
Case remanded Rebecca at that time she applied and obtained her
divorce was an American citizen and remains to be one,
Bayot v. CA
being born to American parents in Guam, an American
On April 20, 1979, Vicente, a Filipino, and Rebecca, an territory which follows the principle of jus soli granting
American, were married in Muntinlupa. They had a American citizenship to those who are born there. She
child name Alix, born in November 27, 1982 in was, and still may be, a holder of American passport.
California.

She had consistently professed, asserted and

In February 22, 1996, Rebecca initiated divorce represented herself as an American citizen, as shown in
proceedings in Dominican Republic, which was her marriage certificate, in Alix's birth certificate, when
docketed as Civil Decree No. 362/96 ordering the she secured divorce in Dominican Republic.
dissolution of the marriage. The same court also issued
Civil Decree No. 406/97 settling the couple's conjugal
property in Muntinlupa in March 4, 1997. Being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the
national laws of the United States of America, a country
which allows divorce.
She then filed a declaration of absolute nullity of
The Civil Decree No. 406/97 issued by the Dominican
marriage on the ground of Vicente's alleged
Republic court properly adjudicated the ex-couple's
psychological incapacity,
property relations.
docketed as Civil Case No. 01-094. She sought
The Court said, in order that a foreign divorce can be
dissolution of the conjugal partnerships of gains with
recognized here, the divorce decree must be proven as
application for support pendente lite for her and Alix.
a fact and as valid under the national law of the alien
She also prayed that Vicente be ordered to pay a
spouse.
permanent monthly support for their daughter Alix in
the amount of P 220,000.00. The fact that Rebecca was clearly an American citizen
when she secured the divorce and that divorce is
recognized and allowed in any of the States of the
On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss on Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce
the grounds of lack of cause of action and that the decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing
petition is barred by the prior judgment of divorce. said decree is, as here, sufficient.

Thus the foreign decrees rendered and issued by the

Dominican Republic court are valid, and consequently,
RTC denied Vicente's motion to dismiss. CA dismissed bind both Rebecca and Vicente.
Civil Case No. 01-094 and set aside RTC's incidental
orders. According the the CA, RTC ought to have The fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognised as
granted Vicente's motion to dismiss, since the marriage a Filipino citizen by force of the June 8, 2000 affirmation
between the spouses is already dissolved when the by the DOJ Secretary of the October 6, 1995 Bureau
divorce decree was granted since Rebecca was an Order of Recognition will not, stand alone, work to
American citizen when she applied for the decree. nullify or invalidate the foreign divorce secured by
Rebecca as an American citizen in 1996. In determining
Issue: whether or not a divorce is secured abroad would come
within the pale of the country's policy against absolute
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by Rebecca
divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of the
in Dominican Republic is valid.
parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.
Ruling:
Manzano v. Sanchez
Yes. Civil Decrees No. 362/96 and 406/97 are valid.
FACTS: told that Jose needed to sign the papers so that the
package could be released to Felisa. He initially refused
to do so. However, Felisa cajoled him, and told him that
Herminia Borja-Manzano was the lawful wife of the late his refusal could get both of them killed by her brother
David Manzano having been married on May 21, 1966 who had learned about their relationship. Reluctantly,
in San Gabriel Archangel Parish in Caloocan. They had he signed the pieces of paper, and gave them to the
four children. On March 22, 1993, her husband man who immediately left. It was in February 1987
contracted another marriage with Luzviminda Payao when he discovered that he had contracted marriage
before respondent Judge. The marriage contract clearly with Felisa. He alleged that he saw a piece of paper
stated that both contracting parties were separated lying on top of the table at the sala of Felisas house.
thus, respondent Judge ought to know that the When he perused the same, he discovered that it was a
marriage was void and bigamous. He claims that when copy of his marriage contract with Felisa. When he
he officiated the marriage of David and Payao, he knew confronted Felisa, she said she does not know of such.
that the two had been living together as husband and Felisa denied Joses allegations and defended the
wife for seven years as manifested in their joint affidavit validity of their marriage. She declared that they had
that they both left their families and had never cohabit maintained their relationship as man and wife absent
or communicated with their spouses due to constant the legality of marriage in the early part of 1980, but
quarrels. that she had deferred contracting marriage with him on
account of their age difference. In her pre-trial brief,
Felisa expounded that while her marriage to Jose was
subsisting, the latter contracted marriage with a certain
ISSUE: Whether the solemnization of a marriage
Rufina Pascual (Rufina) on 31 August 1990. On 3 June
between two contracting parties who both have an
1993, Felisa filed an action for bigamy against Jose.
existing marriage can contract marriage if they have
Subsequently, she filed an administrative complaint
been cohabitating for 5 years under Article 34 of Family
against Jose with the Office of the Ombudsman, since
Code.
Jose and Rufina were both employees of the National
HELD: Statistics and Coordinating Board. The Ombudsman
found Jose administratively liable for disgraceful and
Among the requisites of Article 34 is that parties must immoral conduct, and meted out to him the penalty of
have no legal impediment to marry each other. suspension from service for one year without
Considering that both parties has a subsisting marriage, emolument. The RTC ruled against Jose claiming that his
as indicated in their marriage contract that they are story is impossible and that his action of fraud has
both separated is an impediment that would make already prescribed. It cited Article 87 of the New Civil
their subsequent marriage null and void. Just like Code which requires that the action for annulment of
separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with marriage must be commenced by the injured party
another person for at least 5 years does not severe the within four years after the discovery of the fraud.
tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Clearly,
respondent Judge Sanchez demonstrated gross ISSUE: Whether or not the action to file an action to
ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and nullify a marriage due to fraud is subject to prescription.
bigamous marriage.
HELD: The OSG avers that Jose is deemed estopped
Republic v. Dayot from assailing the legality of his marriage for lack of a
marriage license. It is claimed that Jose and Felisa had
Jose was introduced to Felisa in 1986. He later came to lived together from 1986 to 1990, notwithstanding
live as a boarder in Felisas house, the latter being his Joses subsequent marriage to Rufina Pascual on 31
landlady. Later, Felisa requested him to accompany her August 1990, and that it took Jose seven years before
to the Pasay City Hall, so she could claim a package sent he sought the declaration of nullity; hence, estoppel
to her by her brother from Saudi. At the PCH, upon a had set in.This is erroneous. An action for nullity of
pre-arranged signal from Felisa, a man bearing three marriage is imprescriptible. Jose and Felisas marriage
folded pieces of paper approached them. They were was celebrated sans a marriage license. No other
conclusion can be reached except that it is void ab
initio. In this case, the right to impugn a void marriage
does not prescribe, and may be raised any time.