2 Rep V Orbecido III DONE

ARTICLE 26 (2) - MARRIAGES BETWEEN A FILIPINO AND A FOREIGNER REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
CIPRIANO
ORBECIDO III .
This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a marriage between two Filipino citizens where one later
acquired alien citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried while in the U.S.A.
1. May 24, 1981: Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in
Lam-an, Ozamis City; they later had a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V.
Orbecido.
2. 1986: Cipriano’s wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano
discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen.
3. 2000: Cipriano learned from his son that Lady Myros had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain
Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her child by him currently live at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel,
California.
4. Cipriano later filed with the RTC a a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.
WON Cipriano can remarry under Art 26(2) FC? – YES.
The intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, is to
avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is
no longer married to the Filipino spouse . Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.,
which involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Court held therein that a divorce decree validly
obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry
under Philippine law.
Does the same principle apply to a case where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties were Filipino
citizens, but later on, one of them obtains a foreign citizenship by naturalization? In the case of Quita v. Court of Appeals, the
parties were, as in this case, Filipino citizens when they got married. The wife became a naturalized American citizen in 1954 and
obtained a divorce in the same year. The Court therein hinted, by way of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by his naturalized
foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry.
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26
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. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.
The twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are: 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry.
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. In this case, when Cipriano’s
wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and
Cipriano. The naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin
requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the "divorced"
Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.
Thus, Cipriano must prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen . Likewise, before a foreign
divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot take
judicial notice of foreign laws. Furthermore, Cipriano must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry
as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter
into another marriage.
Nevertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by
E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired
foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry. However, considering that in the present petition there is no sufficient
evidence submitted and on record, we are unable to declare, based on Cipriano’s bare allegations that Lady Myros, who
was naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an American, that Cirpriano is
now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration could only be made properly upon Cipriano’s submission of the necessary evidence
in his favor.

2 Rep V Orbecido III DONE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Rep V Orbecido III DONE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Rep V Orbecido III DONE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE 26 (2) - MARRIAGES BETWEEN A FILIPINO AND A FOREIGNER REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

WON Cipriano can remarry under Art 26(2) FC? – YES.

You might also like