Legal Writing 1

LEGAL OPINION LETTER
BY: ATTY. Rodna Jema Gremille R. Alenton

Based on the Ponencia of Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing in
Republic of the Philippines vs. Cipriano Orbecido III
G.R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005
10 August 2016
Mr. Adriano Enriquez
Maria Orosa Street
Manila
Dear Mr. Enriquez:
This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not you can
now remarry under Philippine law after discovering that your wife had been naturalized
as an American citizen and had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain
Innocent Stanley.
The Facts
Per our discussion and the documents you have shown me, the following are the
pertinent facts:
On May 24, 1991, you married Myra Santos in the Philippines. Your marriage
was blessed with a son Miguel Enriquez.
In 1996, your wife left for the United States bringing along your son Miguel. A
few years later, you discovered that your wife had been naturalized as an American
citizen. Sometime in 2010, you learned from your son that your wife had obtained a
divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley.
The Applicable Law
that:
The applicable law is Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. It provides

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 have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
On its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to directly govern your
situation. It seems to apply only to cases where at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner.
Your case, on the other hand, is one where at the time the marriage was
solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, 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.S.
The Legislative Intent behind Paragraph 2 of Article 26

However, an examination of the records of the proceedings of the Family Code
deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 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.
The Applicable Jurisprudence

Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of VAN
DORN v. ROMILLO, JR. (G.R. No. L-68470, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 139). The Van
Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Supreme
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.
Will this same principle apply to your case? The jurisprudential answer lies latent
in the 1998 case of QUITA v. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 124862, 22 December
1998, 300 SCRA 406). In Quita, the parties were, as in your 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 Supreme Court therein hinted, although by way of obiter
dictum only, that a Filipino divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer
married under Philippine law and can thus remarry.
Analysis and Conclusion
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of
reason, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would apply to your case because it 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 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.
I am confident that said interpretation would prevail in court because to rule
otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. 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, it should be construed according to its
spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A statute may
therefore be extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they
come within its spirit or intent (LOPEZ & SONS, INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
No. L-9274, 1 February 1957, 100 Phil. 850)
Recommendation
To invoke Paragraph 2 of Article 26, it is required that you should submit
competent evidence concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of your wife.
This is based on the settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it
and mere allegation is not evidence (CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
121772, 13 January 2003, 395 SCRA 33).
Likewise, it is also a rule under Philippine law that 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 (GARCIA v.
RECIO, G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2001, 366 SCRA 437).
Furthermore, you must also show that the divorce decree allows your ex-wife to
remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence
sufficient to declare that you are capacitated to enter into another marriage.
For the said purpose, we recommend the filing of a Petition for Declaratory Relief
based on Section 1 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The said provision states:
Section 1. Who may file petitionAny person interested
under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or
whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or other governmental regulation
may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in
the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any
question of construction or validity arising, and for a
declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
In the case of OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. IBAY, G.R. No. 137538, 3

September 2001, 364 SCRA 281, it was held that the requisites of a Petition for
Declaratory Relief are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
there must be a justiciable controversy;

the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;
that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and
that the issue is ripe for judicial determination.
I am of the considered opinion that the said requisites are all present. First, your
case clearly presents a justiciable controversy concerning 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. Second, the
State, which will be a party to the petition will necessarily assert its duty to protect the
institution of marriage while you, a private citizen, will insist on a declaration of your
capacity to remarry; hence adverse interests will be involved. Third, you, as the party
who will be praying for relief, clearly have legal interest in the controversy. Lastly, the
issue is also ripe for judicial determination inasmuch as when you remarry, litigation will
ensue and put into question the validity of your second marriage.
I appreciate the opportunity to advise you regarding this matter. Please let me
know if you wish to discuss any of these issues further. Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
Rodna Jema Gremille R. Alenton

Legal Counsel

Legal Writing 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Writing 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Legal Writing 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL OPINION LETTER

BY: ATTY. Rodna Jema Gremille R. Alenton

The applicable law is Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. It provides

The Legislative Intent behind Paragraph 2 of Article 26

The Applicable Jurisprudence

In the case of OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN v. IBAY, G.R. No. 137538, 3

there must be a justiciable controversy;

Rodna Jema Gremille R. Alenton

You might also like