REQUISITES TO ALLOW FILIPINO SPOUSE TO REMARRY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III

GR No. 154380 October 5, 2005

QUISUMBING, J.

DOCTRINE: If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent 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, then the instant case must be deemed as
coming within the contemplation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26. In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:

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.

FACTS:

In 1981, herein respondent Orbecido married Lady Myros M. Villanueva and later on blessed with a son.

In 1984, the wife left for the United States with their son Kristoffer. Cipriano found out a few years later that his wife became a
naturalized American citizen. In the year 2000, he also found that his wife obtained a divorce decree and remarried.

Cipriano 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 RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE.

RULING: Yes. in the 1998 case of Quita v. Court of Appeals.11 In Quita, 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. 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.

In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:

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. As fate would have it, 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.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs

G.R. No. 221029

DOCTRINE: The idea of the amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as still being married to his or her alien spouse,
although the latter is no longer married to the former because he or she had obtained a divorce abroad that is recognized by his or
national law.24 The aim was that it would solved the problem of many Filipino women who, under the New Civil Code, are still
considered married to their alien husbands even after the latter have already validly divorced them under their (the husbands') national
laws and perhaps have already married again.

FACTS: Herein respondent, Marelyn Manalo filed a petition for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment with regard to the
divorce decree from his former spouse which she obtained in Japan. Such was denied by the trial court on the basis of Article 15 of the
Civil Code. On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines (Family Code)
is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree may obtained makes the
latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to remarry.The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied; hence,
this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by the Filipino spouse in Japan may be recognized by the Philippine courts.

HELD: Yes. On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209,
otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, which took effect on August 3, 1988. 16 Shortly
thereafter , E.O. No. 227 was issued on July 17, 1987.17 Aside from amending Articles 36 and 39 of the Family
Code, a second paragraph was added to Article 26.18 This provision was originally deleted by the Civil Code
Revision Committee (Committee),but it was presented and approved at a Cabinet meeting after Pres. Aquino
signed E.O. No. 209.19 As modified, Article 26 now states:

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the where
country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those
prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him her to remarry under Philippine law.

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse
without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.20 It authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a
foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce. 21 Philippine courts cannot try the case on the merits
because it is tantamount to trying a divorce case.22Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by
the spouse of foreign nationality, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care and support of the children or property relations of
the spouses, must still be determined by our courts.23

To reiterate, the purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the
alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the
Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective measure is free to marry under the laws of his or her countr.42 Whether the Filipino spouse
initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse
to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign
divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstances as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated
proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as a means to recognize the
residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on a Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operations of their
alien spouses are severed by operation on the latter's national law.

Conveniently invoking the nationality principle is erroneous. Such principle, found under Article 15 of the City Code, is not an absolute
and unbending rule. In fact, the mer e existence of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is a testament that the State may provide for an exception
thereto. Moreover, blind adherence to the nationality principle must be disallowed if it would cause unjust discrimination and oppression
to certain classes of individuals whose rights are equally protected by law. The courts have the duty to enforce the laws of divorce as
written by the Legislature only if they are constitutional.43

Effects of the absence of a marriage license

G.R. No. 201061 July 3, 2013

SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Petitioner,

Their relationship ended in 1994 when Sally left for Canada. She filed criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of public documents
agaisnt Benjamin. Benjamin, however countered that there was no Bigamy as their marriage was non-existent due to the absence of
formal requisites.

ISSUE: Whether respondnt was liable for Bigamy.

Whether Art. 148 should govern Benjamin and Sally’s property relations

HELD:

1. No. The marriage is not bigamous. It is required that the first or former marriage shall not be null and void. The marriage of the
petitioner to Azucena shall be assumed as the one that is valid, there being no evidence to the contrary and there is no trace of
invalidity or irregularity on the face of their marriage contract. However, if the second marriage was void not because of the existence of
the first marriage but for other causes such as lack of license, the crime of bigamy was not committed. For bigamy to exist, the second
or subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity except for the existence of a prior marriage.In this case, there
was really no subsequent marriage. Benjamin and Sally just signed a purported marriage contract without a marriage license. The
supposed marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office. In short, the marriage between
Benjamin and Sally did not exist. They lived together and represented themselves as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.