7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

FIRSTDIVISION

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,

versus

CIPRIANOORBECIDOIII,
Respondent.

G.R.No.154380

Present:

Davide,Jr.,C.J.,
(Chairman),
Quisumbing,
YnaresSantiago,
Carpio,and
Azcuna,JJ.

Promulgated:
October5,2005

xx

DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later
naturalizedasaforeigncitizenandobtainsavaliddivorcedecreecapacitatinghimorher
toremarry,cantheFilipinospouselikewiseremarryunderPhilippinelaw?
Before us is a case of first impression that behooves the Court to make a definite
rulingonthisapparentlynovelquestion,presentedasapurequestionoflaw.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

1/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

[1]
Inthispetitionforreview,theSolicitorGeneralassailstheDecision dated May
15,2002,oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMolave,ZamboangadelSur,Branch23andits
[2]
Resolution datedJuly4,2002denyingthemotionforreconsideration.Thecourtaquo
haddeclaredthathereinrespondentCiprianoOrbecidoIIIiscapacitatedtoremarry.The
fallooftheimpugnedDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,byvirtueoftheprovisionofthesecondparagraphofArt.26oftheFamily
CodeandbyreasonofthedivorcedecreeobtainedagainsthimbyhisAmericanwife,the
petitionerisgiventhecapacitytoremarryunderthePhilippineLaw.

[3]

ITISSOORDERED.

Thefactualantecedents,asnarratedbythetrialcourt,areasfollows.
OnMay24,1981,CiprianoOrbecidoIIImarriedLadyMyrosM.VillanuevaattheUnited
ChurchofChristinthePhilippinesinLaman,OzamisCity.Theirmarriagewasblessed
with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V.
Orbecido.
In1986,CiprianoswifeleftfortheUnitedStatesbringingalongtheirsonKristoffer.
Afewyearslater,CiprianodiscoveredthathiswifehadbeennaturalizedasanAmerican
citizen.
Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a
divorcedecreeandthenmarriedacertainInnocentStanley.She,Stanleyandherchildby
himcurrentlyliveat5566A.WalnutGroveAvenue,SanGabriel,California.
Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking
Paragraph2ofArticle26oftheFamilyCode.Nooppositionwasfiled.Findingmeritin
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

2/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

the petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG),soughtreconsiderationbutitwasdenied.
Inthispetition,theOSGraisesapurequestionoflaw:
WHETHERORNOTRESPONDENTCANREMARRYUNDERARTICLE26OFTHE

[4]

FAMILYCODE

TheOSGcontendsthatParagraph2ofArticle26oftheFamilyCodeisnotapplicableto
the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage that is, a marriage
celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien. The proper remedy, according to the
[5]
Furthermore,theOSG

OSG,istofileapetitionforannulmentorforlegalseparation.

argues there is no law that governs respondents situation. The OSG posits that this is a
matteroflegislationandnotofjudicialdetermination.

[6]

For his part, respondent admits that Article 26 is not directly applicable to his case but
insists that when his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce decree which capacitated
her to remarry, he is likewise capacitated by operation of law pursuant to Section 12,
[7]

ArticleIIoftheConstitution.

Attheoutset,wenotethatthepetitionforauthoritytoremarryfiledbeforethetrialcourt
actuallyconstitutedapetitionfordeclaratoryrelief.Inthisconnection,Section1,Rule63
oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
RULE63
DECLARATORYRELIEFANDSIMILARREMEDIES

Section1.WhomayfilepetitionAnypersoninterestedunderadeed,will,contractorother
writteninstrument,orwhoserightsareaffectedbyastatute,executiveorderorregulation,
ordinance,orothergovernmentalregulationmay,beforebreachorviolationthereof,bring
anactionintheappropriateRegionalTrialCourttodetermineanyquestionofconstruction
orvalidityarising,andforadeclarationofhisrightsorduties,thereunder.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

3/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

...

The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must be a justiciable
controversy(2)thecontroversymustbebetweenpersonswhoseinterestsareadverse(3)
thatthepartyseekingthereliefhasalegalinterestinthecontroversyand(4)thattheissue
[8]

isripeforjudicialdetermination.

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. The interests of the parties are also
adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts its duty to protect the institution of
marriage while respondent, a private citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to
remarry. Respondent, praying for relief, has legal interest in the controversy. The issue
raised is also ripe for judicial determination inasmuch as when respondent remarries,
litigationensuesandputsintoquestionthevalidityofhissecondmarriage.
Comingnowtothesubstantiveissue,doesParagraph2ofArticle26oftheFamilyCode
apply to the case of respondent? Necessarily, we must dwell on how this provision had
comeaboutinthefirstplace,andwhatwastheintentofthelegislatorsinitsenactment?

BriefHistoricalBackground
OnJuly6,1987,thenPresidentCorazonAquinosignedintolawExecutiveOrder
No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988.
Article26thereofstates:
All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in
force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be
validinthiscountry,exceptthoseprohibitedunderArticles35,37,and38.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

4/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

OnJuly17,1987,shortlyafterthesigningoftheoriginalFamilyCode,Executive
Order No. 227 was likewise signed into law, amending Articles 26, 36, and 39 of the
Family Code. A second paragraph was added to Article 26. As so amended, it now
provides:
ART.26.AllmarriagessolemnizedoutsidethePhilippinesinaccordancewiththe
lawsinforceinthecountrywheretheyweresolemnized,andvalidthereassuch,shallalso
bevalidinthiscountry,exceptthoseprohibitedunderArticles35(1),(4),(5)and(6),36,
37and38.
WhereamarriagebetweenaFilipinocitizenandaforeignerisvalidlycelebrated
andadivorceisthereaftervalidlyobtainedabroadbythealienspousecapacitatinghimor
hertoremarry,theFilipinospouseshallhavecapacitytoremarryunderPhilippinelaw.
(Emphasissupplied)

On its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation
presented by the case at hand. It seems to apply only to cases where at the time of the
celebrationofthemarriage,thepartiesareaFilipinocitizenandaforeigner.Theinstant
caseisonewhereatthetimethemarriagewassolemnized,thepartiesweretwoFilipino
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
AmericancitizenwhileresidingintheU.S.A.
Noteworthy, in the Report of the Public Hearings

[9]
on the Family Code, the

Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) registered the following

objectionstoParagraph2ofArticle26:
1. Therule is discriminatory. Itdiscriminates against those whosespousesare
Filipinos who divorce them abroad. These spouses who are divorced will not be
abletoremarry,whilethespousesofforeignerswhovalidlydivorcethemabroad
can.
2.ThisisthebeginningoftherecognitionofthevalidityofdivorceevenforFilipino
citizens.Forthosewhoseforeignspousesvalidlydivorcethemabroadwillalsobe
consideredtobevalidlydivorcedhereandcanremarry.Weproposethatthisbe
deleted and made into law only after more widespread consultation. (Emphasis
supplied.)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

5/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

LegislativeIntent
RecordsoftheproceedingsoftheFamilyCodedeliberationsshowedthattheintent
ofParagraph2ofArticle26,accordingtoJudgeAliciaSempioDiy,amemberoftheCivil
Code Revision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse
remainsmarriedtothealienspousewho,afterobtainingadivorce,isnolongermarriedto
theFilipinospouse.
Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van
Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.

[10]
The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino

citizenandaforeigner.TheCourtheldthereinthatadivorcedecreevalidlyobtainedby
the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is
capacitatedtoremarryunderPhilippinelaw.
Doesthesameprincipleapplytoacasewhereatthetimeofthecelebrationofthe
marriage, the parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them obtains a foreign
citizenshipbynaturalization?
Thejurisprudentialanswerlieslatentinthe1998caseofQuitav.CourtofAppeals.
[11]
InQuita,thepartieswere,asinthiscase,Filipinocitizenswhentheygotmarried.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
naturalizedforeignspouseisnolongermarriedunderPhilippinelawandcanthusremarry.
Thus,takingintoconsiderationthelegislativeintentandapplyingtheruleofreason,
we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving
partieswho,atthetimeofthecelebrationofthemarriagewereFilipinocitizens,butlater
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

6/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

on,oneofthembecomesnaturalizedasaforeigncitizenandobtainsadivorcedecree.The
Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a
foreigneratthetimeofthesolemnizationofthemarriage.Toruleotherwisewouldbeto
sanctionabsurdityandinjustice.Wheretheinterpretationofastatuteaccordingtoitsexact
andliteralimportwouldleadtomischievousresultsorcontravenetheclearpurposeofthe
legislature,itshouldbeconstruedaccordingtoitsspiritandreason,disregardingasfaras
necessarytheletterofthelaw.Astatutemaythereforebeextendedtocasesnotwithinthe
literalmeaningofitsterms,solongastheycomewithinitsspiritorintent.

[12]

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
divorceisnolongermarriedtotheFilipinospouse,thentheinstantcasemustbedeemed
ascomingwithinthecontemplationofParagraph2ofArticle26.
Inviewoftheforegoing,westatethetwinelementsfortheapplicationofParagraph
2ofArticle26asfollows:
1.ThereisavalidmarriagethathasbeencelebratedbetweenaFilipinocitizenanda
foreignerand
2.Avaliddivorceisobtainedabroadbythealienspousecapacitatinghimorherto
remarry.

Thereckoningpointisnotthecitizenshipofthepartiesatthetimeofthecelebration
ofthemarriage,buttheircitizenshipatthetimeavaliddivorceisobtainedabroadbythe
alienspousecapacitatingthelattertoremarry.
Inthiscase,whenCiprianoswifewasnaturalizedasanAmericancitizen,therewas
still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and Cipriano. As fate would
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

7/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

haveit,thenaturalizedalienwifesubsequentlyobtainedavaliddivorcecapacitatingherto
remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are
bothpresentinthiscase.ThusCipriano,thedivorcedFilipinospouse,shouldbeallowed
toremarry.
We are also unable to sustain the OSGs theory that the proper remedy of the
Filipinospouseistofileeitherapetitionforannulmentorapetitionforlegalseparation.
Annulment would be a long and tedious process, and in this particular case, not even
feasible, considering that the marriage of the parties appears to have all the badges of
validity.Ontheotherhand,legalseparationwouldnotbeasufficientremedyforitwould
notseverthemarriagetiehence,thelegallyseparatedFilipinospousewouldstillremain
marriedtothenaturalizedalienspouse.
However, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by
respondentconcerningthedivorcedecreeandthenaturalizationofrespondentswife.Itis
settledrulethatonewhoallegesafacthastheburdenofprovingitandmereallegationis
[13]

notevidence.

Accordingly,forhispleatoprosper,respondenthereinmustprovehisallegationthathis
wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Likewise, before a foreign divorce decree
canberecognizedbyourowncourts,thepartypleadingitmustprovethedivorceasafact
anddemonstrateitsconformitytotheforeignlawallowingit.

[14]
Suchforeignlawmust

also be proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other
[15]
Furthermore,respondentmustalsoshow

fact,suchlawsmustbeallegedandproved.

thatthedivorcedecreeallowshisformerwifetoremarryasspecificallyrequiredinArticle
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

8/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to

enterintoanothermarriage.
Nevertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the
FamilyCode(E.O.No.209,asamendedbyE.O.No.227),shouldbeinterpretedtoallow
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
petitionthereisnosufficientevidencesubmittedandonrecord,weareunabletodeclare,
basedonrespondentsbareallegationsthathiswife,whowasnaturalizedasanAmerican
citizen,hadobtainedadivorcedecreeandhadremarriedanAmerican,thatrespondentis
now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration could only be made properly upon
respondentssubmissionoftheaforecitedevidenceinhisfavor.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition by the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The
assailedDecisiondatedMay15,2002,andResolutiondatedJuly4,2002,oftheRegional
TrialCourtofMolave,ZamboangadelSur,Branch23,areherebySETASIDE.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

HILARIOG.DAVIDE,JR.
ChiefJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

9/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

Chairman

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGOANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ADOLFOS.AZCUNA
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

HILARIOG.DAVIDE,JR.
ChiefJustice
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

Rollo,pp.2022.
Id.at2729.
Id.at2122.
Id.at105.
Id.at106110.
Id.at110.
Sec.12.TheStaterecognizesthesanctityoffamilylifeandshallprotectandstrengthenthefamilyasabasicautonomous
socialinstitution.Itshallequallyprotectthelifeofthemotherandthelifeoftheunbornfromconception.Thenaturaland
primaryrightanddutyofparentsintherearingoftheyouthforcivicefficiencyandthedevelopmentofmoralcharacter
shallreceivethesupportoftheGovernment.

[8]

OfficeoftheOmbudsmanv.Ibay,G.R.No.137538,3September2001,364SCRA281,286,citingGalarosav.Valencia,
G.R.No.109455,11November1993,227SCRA729,737.
[9]
HeldonJanuary27and28,1988andFebruary3,1988.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

10/11

7/8/2015

RP vs Orbecido : 154380 : October 5, 2005 : J. Quisumbing : First Division : Decision

[10]
No.L68470,8October1985,139SCRA139.
[11]
G.R.No.124862,22December1998,300SCRA406.
[12]
Lopez&Sons,Inc.v.CourtofTaxAppeals,No.L9274,1February1957,100Phil.850,855.
[13]
Cortesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.121772,13January2003,395SCRA33,38.
[14]
Garciav.Recio,G.R.No.138322,2October2001,366SCRA437,447.
[15]
Id.at451.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm

11/11