Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    Diff Rep Vs Orbecido and Rep Vs Iyoy

    Uploaded by

    Kael de la Cruz
    1. Cipriano Orbecido III filed a petition to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code after discovering that his wife, who had left for the US with their son, had become a US citizen, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried. 2. The Court ruled that Article 26 Paragraph 2 allows a Filipino citizen to remarry if their spouse who was originally a Filipino citizen became naturalized in a foreign country, obtained a valid divorce decree there, and remarried. 3. In a separate case, the Court ruled that Article 26 Paragraph 2 did not apply when Fely obtained a divorce decree while still a Filipino citizen, even though she later became a US

    Copyright:

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

    Diff Rep Vs Orbecido and Rep Vs Iyoy

    Uploaded by

    Kael de la Cruz
    130 views3 pages
    1. Cipriano Orbecido III filed a petition to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code after discovering that his wife, who had left for the US with their son, had become a US citizen, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried. 2. The Court ruled that Article 26 Paragraph 2 allows a Filipino citizen to remarry if their spouse who was originally a Filipino citizen became naturalized in a foreign country, obtained a valid divorce decree there, and remarried. 3. In a separate case, the Court ruled that Article 26 Paragraph 2 did not apply when Fely obtained a divorce decree while still a Filipino citizen, even though she later became a US

    Original Description:

    Difference betweeen Republic vs Iyoy and Republic vs. Orbecido

    Original Title

    Diff Rep vs Orbecido and Rep vs Iyoy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Cipriano Orbecido III filed a petition to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code after discovering that his wife, who had left for the US with their son, had become a US citizen, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried. 2. The Court ruled that Article 26 Paragraph 2 allows a Filipino citizen to remarry if their spouse who was originally a Filipino citizen became naturalized in a foreign country, obtained a valid divorce decree there, and remarried. 3. In a separate case, the Court ruled that Article 26 Paragraph 2 did not apply when Fely obtained a divorce decree while still a Filipino citizen, even though she later became a US

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    130 views3 pages

    Diff Rep Vs Orbecido and Rep Vs Iyoy

    Uploaded by

    Kael de la Cruz
    1. Cipriano Orbecido III filed a petition to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code after discovering that his wife, who had left for the US with their son, had become a US citizen, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried. 2. The Court ruled that Article 26 Paragraph 2 allows a Filipino citizen to remarry if their spouse who was originally a Filipino citizen became naturalized in a foreign country, obtained a valid divorce decree there, and remarried. 3. In a separate case, the Court ruled that Article 26 Paragraph 2 did not apply when Fely obtained a divorce decree while still a Filipino citizen, even though she later became a US

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Republic vs.

    Orbecido
    GR NO. 154380
    October 5, 2005
    FACTS:
    Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of
    Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly,
    respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, 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. He thereafter filed
    with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family
    Code.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.
    HELD:
    The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article
    26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the
    marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them 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 foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.
    Hence, the courts 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, also to remarry
    under Philippine law.
    The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but
    their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter
    to remarry.

    Republic vs. Iyoy


    GR No. 152177
    Sept. 21, 2005
    Facts: In this part case, Krasus and Fely were married to each other. They have 5 children. Later on, Fely
    left Krasus and went to the USA. In the USA Fely acquired a divorce decree without having been
    naturalized as an American Citizen. After acquiring the divorce decree, Fely married Stephen Miklus.
    Several times Fely came back to the Philippines using the surname of the Stephen and Krasus was
    disappointed so he filed a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage based on Art 36 of FC stating that Fely is
    incapacitated that she can no longer comply her marital obligation by marrying another person. Court
    denied petition. Later on, Krasus contented that Art. 26 par 2 of the FC is applicable to their case - if there
    now a divorce decree obtained by a foreigner capacitating that foreigner again, the Filipino is also
    allowed to marry again.
    Issue: WON Art. 26 par 2 of FC is applicable.
    Held: Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines is not applicable to the case at bar.
    According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines
    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, the Filipino
    spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
    As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the married couple is
    a foreigner who divorces his or her Filipino spouse. By its plain and literal interpretation, the said
    provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time
    Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not established,
    Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from respondent
    Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in 1984, after which she married her American
    husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that she had been an American citizen since 1988. At
    the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle
    embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine laws on
    family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad.
    Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses.
    Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus.
    While this Court commiserates with respondent Crasus for being continuously shackled to what is now a
    hopeless and loveless marriage, this is one of those situations where neither law nor society can provide
    the specific answer to every individual problem.

    You might also like