You are on page 1of 4

FOREIGN LAWS MUST BE PROVEN; CAPACITY TO REMARRY (Art. 26) Garcia v. Recio G.R. No.

138322, October 2, 2001 Panganiban, J. FACTS: Rederick A. Recio (herein the respondent), a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal. Meanwhile, a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian Family Court. The respondent became an Australian citizen as shown by a Certificate of Australian Citizenship. Grace J. Garcia (herein the petitioner), a Filipina and respondent were married in Cabanatuan City. The two lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. The petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy. The RTC ruled that the marriage was dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Philippines. ISSUE: Whether the respondent was legally capacitated to remarry. HELD: Article 26 of the Family Code provides that marriages solemnized abroad are governed by the law of the place where they were celebrated (the lex loci celebrationist). The Code requires the presentation of the foreign law to show the conformity of the marriage in question to the legal requirement of the place where the marriage was performed. The divorce obtained abroad may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. In the case at bar, the Court cannot conclude that respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner. The divorce decree obtained abroad did not specifically indicate whether it is an absolute divorce or a limited divorce. However, in his Australian divorce decree, it contained a restriction, which reads, A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy . The legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned. Wherefore, the Court remands the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence.

EFFECT OF A DIVORCE DECREE TO A FILIPINO CITIZEN (Art. 26) Pilapil v. Somera G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989 Regalado, J. FACTS: This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition. The petitioner Imelda Pilapil, Filipino was married to private respondent Erich Geiling at Friedensweiler in Germany. They lived together for some time in Malate, Manila. After three and a half years of marriage, private respondent initiated a divorce proceeding against her wife in Schoneberg Local Court in Germany. On January 15, 1986, the court promulgated a decree of divorce. On the other hand, the petitioner filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property at the RTC of Manila. After the issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila. The complaints were accordingly filed, Criminal Case No. 87-52435 and Criminal Case No. 87-52434. ISSUE: Does the complaint filed by the private respondent against the petitioner valid? HELD: NO. The private respondent is no longer the offended spouse in this case. The private respondent obtained a valid divorce decree in Germany wherein its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines. This is based on the nationality principle covered by Article 15 of the Civil Code that provides; only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorce. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. The same principle was applied in the case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., et al. A divorce decree was granted by the US between Alice Van Dorn, Filipina and her American husband. The latter cannot file a civil case alleging that their business is a conjugal property and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of the business and be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. The divorce released both the parties from the marriage.

CAPACITY TO REMARRY AFTER A VALID DIVORCE DECREE Republic of the Philippines v. Orbecido III G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005 Quisumbing, J. FACTS: The respondent, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros Villanueva. The respondents wife left for the United States. A few years after, respondent discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned that his wife obtained a divorce decree and then got married to a certain Innocent Stanely. This is a petition for review of the Decision of the RTC of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur and Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration declaring respondent Cipriano Orbecido III capacitated to remarry. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. HELD: First, the OSG contends that Par. 2Article 26 of the FC is not applicable to the instant case since it only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is between a Filipino citizen and an alien. Furthermore, OSG argues that no law governs respondents situation. To settle this issue, we must look at the legislative intent. Par. 2 of Article 26 of the FC was objected by the CBCP saying that it discriminates against those whose spouses are Filipinos who divorce them abroad. This is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce even for Filipino citizens. For those whose foreign spouses validly divorce them abroad will also be considered to be validly divorced here and can remarry. Taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that Par. 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 obtain a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be able to remarry because to rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce decree is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. Thus Cirpiano, the divorced Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry. However, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by the respondent. It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has a burden of proving it and mere allegations is not evidence.

Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985 Melencio-Herrera, J. FACTS: The petitioner, Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent; Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hong Kong that after the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines. They have two children. The parties were divorced in Nevada, United States. The petitioner has remarried also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. The private respondent file a suit against the petitioner in RTC in Pasay City stating that petitioners business in Ermita, Manila (Gallen Shop) is a conjugal property of the parties and that he should be allowed to render an accounting of the business with the right to manage the conjugal property. The petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground hat the cause of action is barred by the previous judgment in the divorce proceedings wherein the private respondent had acknowledged that he and the petitioner had NO COMMUNITY PROPERTY. ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by the parties allows the petitioner to remarry. HELD: There is no question as to the validity of that Nevada Divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on the private respondent as an American citizen. The divorce decree frees them both from the bond. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner. It cannot be just to consider the petitioner still married to private respondent and still subject to a wifes obligations. The private respondent should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. The case at bar is also governed by Par. 2, Article 26 of the FC where marriage is a mixed one and the foreigner should initiate the divorce petition, and if granted, it should capacitate him under his national law to remarry, the Filipino can also be capacitated to remarry.

You might also like