PILAPIL v.

1 SOMERA

IBAY- GR
No.

801
16

June 30, 1989

FACTS:
Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married in Germany to private respondent, Erich Ekkehard
Geiling, a German national. They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named
Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling initiated a divorce proceeding
against petitioner in Germany on January 1983.The divorce decree was promulgated on January
15, 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was
granted to the petitioner.
Six months after the divorce was granted private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery
before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to Imelda, latter had an affair
with William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983.
ISSUE:
Whether a person could still be prosecuted of bigamy after a divorce decree was already issued?
HELD:
The law specifically provides that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person who
can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else. Though in this
case, it appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid
divorce in his country and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines.
In the same consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of
petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he
was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.

VAN
DORN
2 ROMILLO, JR.

v. GR
No.

L68470

October
1985

08,

FACTS:
Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino married Richard Upton, a U.S. citizen in Hongkong in 1972. They
had two children. They got divorced in Nevada U.S.A in 1982 and both certified that they do not
have any community property to divide. Alice remarried to Theodore Van Dorn.
Upton filed a suit in June 1983 stating that Reyes business in Manila is conjugal property. He
demands to render an accounting to the business and declare his right to manage the business.
Reyes moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the action is barred by the previous
judgment in Nevada divorce wherein they both acknowledged having no community property as
of June 11, 1982.
Reyes motion was denied by the lower court stating that the property is located in the
Philippines so that the divorce decree has no bearing.
ISSUE:
What is the effect of the foreign divorce of the parties to their property in the Philippines?
HELD:
Pursuant to his national law, Upton is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He has no standing
to sue in the case where the husband is entitled to control over conjugal assets.

The divorce obtained abroad being valid in his countrys court may be recognized in the
Philippines. The divorce decree granted in Nevada released Reyes from the marriage for
the marriage had been severed by one party ceases to bind either.

Getting a divorce decree in the US court and contending that it is not valid and binding in
the Philippines being contrary to local law and public policy estopped Uptons declaration.

REPUBLIC
3 IGOY

v. GR
No.

15257
7

September
2005

21,

FACTS:

TENCHANVEZ
4 ESCAO

v. GR
No.

L19671

November 29,
1965

FACTS:
Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escano were secretly married by a military chaplain in one of
Pastors friends house. Upon learning about the secret marriage, Vicentas parents arranged for
them to be married properly in a church so as to validate their marriage as advised by a priest.
Vicenta opposed to a second marriage after receiving an anonymous letter alleging that Pastor
and is having an amorous relationship with matchmaker Pacita Noel. Vicenta continued to live
with her parents and Pastor went back to work in Manila. Although still solicitous of her
husbands welfare in her letters, she was not as endearing and becomes less and less until they
became estranged.
Vicenta filed for a petition to annul her marriage but it was dismissed for non-prosecution
because she never went to any of the set hearings. Without informing her husband, she applied
for a passport, indicating in her application that she was single and left for the United States. She
filed for divorce (1950) against Pastor in Nevada on the ground of extreme cruelty, entirely
mental in character which the Nevada court granted even when she was not yet an
American citizen (1958).
Tenchavez had initiated a complaint in the against Vicenta F. Escao, her parents Mamerto and
Mena Escao, whom he charged with having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her
husband, and alienating her affections. He asked for legal separation and one million pesos in
damages.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the divorce decree granted by the Nevada Court is valid
2. Can the parents be held liable for the failure of the marriage?
HELD:
That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, is not entitled to recognition as valid in this
jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with another party. That the remarriage of
divorced wife and her co-habitation with a person other than the lawful husband entitle the latter
to a decree of legal separation conformably to Philippine law;
That the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one party entitles the other to
recover damages;

BORJA-MANZANA v. JUDGE AM
5 SANCHEZ
No.

MTJ-001329

March
2001

08,

FACTS:
Herminia Borja Manzano avers that she was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano, having
been married to him on 21 May 1966. They had 4 children. On 22 March 1993, however, her
husband contracted another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before Judge Sanchez. The
Judge knew or ought to know that the same was void and bigamous, as the marriage contract
clearly stated that both contracting parties were separated.
In his comment, at the time he officiated the marriage the two had been living together as
husband and wife for seven years already without the benefit of marriage, as manifested in their
joint affidavit. Had he known that Manzano was married he would have refused to solemnize the
marriage.
David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao expressly stated that they were married to Herminia Borja
and Domingo Relos, respectively; and that since their respective marriages had been marked by
constant quarrels, they had both left their families and had never cohabited or communicated
with their spouses anymore
ISSUE:
Is the judge guilty of solemnizing a bigamous marriage?
HELD:
Respondent Judge knew or ought to know that a subsisting previous marriage is a legal
impediment, which would make the subsequent marriage null and void.
The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart from their respective spouses for a long
time is immaterial. Legal separation does not dissolve the marriage tie, much less authorize the
parties to remarry. This holds true all the more when the separation is merely de facto, as in the
case at bar.
Clearly, respondent Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void
and bigamous marriage.
Recommendation of the Court Administrator is hereby ADOPTED, with the MODIFICATION that the
amount of fine to be imposed upon respondent Judge Roque Sanchez is increased to P20, 000.

LLORENTE v. COURT OF GR
6 APPEALS
No.

1243
71

November 23,
2000

FACTS:
The deceased Lorenzo Llorente was an enlisted US Navy serviceman from March 10, 1927 to
September 30, 1957. Sometime in 1937, 1937, Lorenzo married Paula Llorente (petitioner) in the
Philippines. Thereafter, Lorenzo left for the United States while Paula stayed in Camarines Sur.
On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo acquired US citizenship. After the Philippine liberation from
America in 1945, he came home to the Philippines only to discover that his wife Paula was
pregnant and living in with his brother Ceferino Llorente.
Lorenzo went back to the United States and obtained a divorce decree against Paula in the
California court, which decree became final in 1952. In 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia Llorente
(respondent) in Manila and their 25 year union produced three offsprings. Alicia had no

knowledge of the first marriage even if they resided in the same town as Paula, who did not
oppose the marriage or cohabitation.
Lorenzo executed a last will and testament wherein he bequeathed all his property to Alicia and
their three children. He appointed Alicia as the administratrix of his estate. Lorenzo filed a
petition to probate the will but Lorenzo died before the proceedings could be terminated. Paula
intervened and sought to be appointed as the administratrix over Lorenzo's estate contending
that she was Lorenzo's surviving spouse and the various property were acquired during their
marriage.
The lower court granted in favor of paula finding that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo was void
and inapplicable in the Philippines, thus his marriage to Alicia is void and making Paula the legal
surviving spouse.
HELD:
Nationality Principle
1. The Civil Code clearly provides:
Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found.
Foreign Laws
2. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized
to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
3. The trial court declared that American law follows the 'domiciliary theory' hence,
Philippine law applies when determining the validity of Lorenzo's will.
4. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to general
American law. Each State of the union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in force only
within the State. It can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the
decedent was a resident
Validity of Foreign Divorce
5. In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. the court held that owing to the nationality principle embodied in
Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute
divorces, the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. In the
same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid
according to their national law.
6. In Quita v. Court of Appeals, it was held that once proven that a party was no longer a
Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce, the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable.
(Divorce recognized in Philippines provided valid according to national law of divorcing spouse)
7. The divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and
recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity.
Validity of Will

8. Lorenzo was already a US citizen at the time he executed his will up to the time of his
death. He was not covered by Philippine laws on "family rights and duties, status, condition and
legal capacity."
9. Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo are issues best
proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and proved. Congress specifically left the amount
of successional rights to the decedent's national law.
10. As to extrinsic validity of the will, i.e., whether the will was executed in accordance with
the formalities required is answered by referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly
probated.

CORPUZ
7 TOMAS

v.

STO. GR
No.

18657 August
1
2010

GR
8 SO v. VALERA No.

15067
7

GO-BANGAYAN
9 BANGAYAN

v. GR
No.

1
0

CAPILI v. PEOPLE

GR
No.

11,

June 05, 2009

2010
61

July
2013

18380 July
5
2013

03,

03,