Case Summary (G.R. No. 36599)
Issue Before the Court
Whether a Filipino spouse whose co-spouse later naturalizes abroad and secures a divorce enabling remarriage likewise acquires capacity to remarry under Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code.
Nature of the Petition
The petition constitutes a request for declaratory relief under Rule 63, seeking judicial determination of respondent’s rights affected by statute (Family Code). The requisites—a justiciable controversy between adverse interests, legal interest of the petitioner, and ripeness—are satisfied.
Historical and Legislative Evolution of Article 26
Original Article 26 (Family Code, 1988) validated foreign solemnizations. Executive Order 227 (July 17, 1987) added Paragraph 2, expressly granting capacity to remarry to a Filipino whose foreign spouse (a non-Filipino at marriage) validly obtained a divorce abroad.
Legislative Intent Behind Paragraph 2, Article 26
Records show the amendment aimed to prevent absurdity: a foreign spouse who remarries abroad leaves the Filipino spouse in perpetual marital limbo. Drafters intended to grant the Filipino spouse parity once the foreign spouse’s divorce becomes effective.
Jurisprudential Precedents Supporting Extension
– Van Dorn v. Romillo (1985): divorce obtained by alien spouse in valid mixed marriage valid in Philippines, enabling Filipino spouse to remarry.
– Quita v. Court of Appeals (1998): obiter dictum suggesting that where a spouse naturalizes abroad and divorces, the remaining Filipino spouse is likewise freed.
Interpretation of Article 26’s Scope
The Court applies the rule of reason to extend Paragraph 2 beyond literal terms. The critical moment is not citizenship at marriage but citizenship at the time of foreign divorce. When the former Filipino spouse becomes an alien and obtains divorce, the remaining Filipino spouse assumes capacity to remarry.
Applicability of Mixed Marriage Provision
Although Article 26, Paragraph 2, literally addresses marriages originally mixed by citizenship, its spirit encompasses later-naturalized spouses. To restrict application to mixed marriages would sanction injustice and defeat legislative purpose.
Burden of Proof on Foreign Naturalization and Divorce
Respondent must formally prove (1) the former spouse’s naturalization under U.S. law, (2) existence and validity of the U.S. divorce decree, (3) that the decree explicitly capacitated her to remarry, and (4) conformity of the divorce with foreign law. Philippine courts cannot judicially noti
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 36599)
Facts
- Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros M. Villanueva, both Filipino citizens, were married on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City.
- The marriage produced two children: Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido.
- In 1986, Mrs. Orbecido left for the United States with their son Kristoffer.
- Some years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as a U.S. citizen.
- In 2000, he learned from his son that Mrs. Orbecido had obtained a divorce decree abroad and had remarried an American named Innocent Stanley, residing in San Gabriel, California.
Procedural History
- Respondent filed a petition for authority to remarry in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.
- No opposition was filed; the RTC granted the petition by Decision dated May 15, 2002, declaring him capacitated to remarry.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied by Resolution dated July 4, 2002.
- The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, elevated the case by petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 154380), framing it as a pure question of law.
Issue
- Whether, under Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code, a Filipino spouse may remarry when the other spouse—originally also a Filipino—later naturalizes abroad as a foreign citizen, obtains a valid foreign divorce decree, and remarries.
Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioner (OSG):
- Paragraph 2 of Article 26 applies only to “mixed” marriages validly celebrated between a Filipino and an alien at the time of marriage.
- The proper remedy for respondent is annulment or legal separation, not Article 26 relief.
- No domestic law authorizes the situation; it is a matter for legislation, not judicial determination.
- Respondent:
- Admits Article 26 is not “directly” applicable but invokes Section 12, Article II of the Constitution to argue that equal protection and sanctity of family life grant him capacity to remarry once his former wife’s divorce capacitated her to remarry.
Nature of Action
- The petition for authority to remarry is characterized as a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
- Requisites for decla