Title
Anaban vs. Anaban-Alfiler
Case
G.R. No. 249011
Decision Date
Mar 15, 2021
Pedrito’s Ibaloi divorce and remarriage deemed invalid under Philippine law; second marriage void, children illegitimate, inheritance rights limited.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189609)

Petitioners

Cristita Anaban, Crispina Anaban, Pureza Anaban, Cresencia Anaban-Walang, Rosita Anaban-Baristo (younger children of Pedrito and Pepang)

Respondents

Betty Anaban-Alfiler, Mercedes Anaban, Marcelo Anaban (children of Pedrito and Virginia)

Key Dates

• 1942 – First marriage of Pedrito and Virginia under Ibaloi customs
• 1947 – Divorce decree by Ibaloi council of elders citing Virginia’s insanity
• 1949 – Old Civil Code takes effect (June 18)
• 1952 – Second marriage of Pedrito to Pepang under Ibaloi customs
• 2004 – Pedrito’s death (September 2)
• 2015 – MCTC decision recognizing both marriages and all children as legitimate heirs
• 2017 – RTC decision declaring second marriage bigamous and younger children illegitimate
• 2019 – CA decision affirming bigamy ruling and illegitimacy
• 2021 – Supreme Court decision under the 1987 Constitution

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – governs civil status and succession issues in cases decided after 1990.
• Spanish Civil Code of 1889 (in force until 1949) – customs contrary to law or public policy are void.
• Act No. 2710 (1917, reinstated 1945) – allows divorce only for adultery (wife) or concubinage (husband).
• Executive Order No. 141 (1943–1945) – briefly permitted absolute divorce on specified grounds, but was inoperative by 1947.
• Old Civil Code (1950) Article 11 – customs contrary to law, public order or public policy are not countenanced.
• Old Civil Code (1950) Article 78 – recognizes customary rites only for solemnization of marriage.
• Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (RA 8371) and IRR Rule VI, Sec. 8 – recognize customary marriage rites but remain silent on customary dissolution.
• Code of Muslim Personal Laws (PD 1083) – exclusively governs Muslim marriage and divorce; no equivalent law for Ibaloi customs.
• Administrative Order No. 3 (2004) – procedural recognition of customary civil events; non-retroactive and substantive law still required.

Facts and Procedural History

Pedrito’s first customary marriage to Virginia produced three children. The Ibaloi council of elders approved a divorce in 1947 on grounds of Virginia’s insanity—a ground not provided by the prevailing divorce law (Act No. 2710) in effect at that time. In 1952 Pedrito contracted a second customary marriage to Pepang, producing eight children, including the petitioners. Upon Pedrito’s death in 2004, respondents sued for judicial partition of his estate, contending that the second marriage was void for bigamy and that the petitioners were illegitimate.

MCTC Ruling

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court held that tribal elders validly dissolved the first marriage and thereafter approved the second. It declared all eight children of both marriages as legitimate heirs entitled to equal shares of the estate.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court reversed, finding that non-Christian customary divorce lacked legal recognition under the Civil Code. It declared the second marriage void for bigamy, held petitioners illegitimate, and apportioned half the estate to legitimate children (respondents) and half to illegitimate children (petitioners).

Court of Appeals Ruling

Affirming the RTC, the Court of Appeals held that Article 78 of the old Civil Code and Section 8, Rule VI of the IPRA IRR recognize only customary marriage ceremonies, not customary divorces. It emphasized that only Muslim divorce has statutory support (PD 1083) and that expansion of divorce recognition for other tribes is a legislative, not judicial, function.

Supreme Court Issue

Whether an Ibaloi-custom divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Pedrito and Virginia may be recognized under Philipp

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.