REPUBLIC VS ORBECIDO G.R. No.

154380
October 5, 2005
FACTS:
In 1981, Cipriani Orchid III married Lady Myron Villanueva in Lam-anosmia City. In
1986, Orchid discovered that his wife had had been naturalized as an American
citizen. Sometime in 2000, Orchid learned from his son that his wife had obtained
divorce decree and married an American. Orchid filed with the Trial Court a petition
for Authority to Remarry invoking Article 26 Paragraph 2 of the Family Code, the
Court granted the petition. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, sought for reconsideration but it was denied by the Trial Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the allegations of the respondent was proven as a fact according to
the rules of evidence.
HELD:
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party
pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the
foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot
take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged
and proved. Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows
his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there
would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into
another marriage. However, in the present petition there is no sufficient evidence
submitted and on record, we are unable to declare, based on respondents bare
allegations that his wife, who was naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained
a divorce decree and had remarried an American, that respondent is now
capacitated to remarry. Such declaration could only be made properly upon
respondents submission of the afforested evidence in his favor. ACCORDINGLY, the
petition by the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
May 15, 2002, and Resolution dated July 4, 2002, of the Regional Trial Court of
Mojave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, are hereby SET ASIDE.
(Long version Ditto may explanation young ruling)

FACTS: Orbecido married Villanueva in the Philippines and had two children.
Villanueva, wife, left for the US, was naturalized and eventually remarried. Orbecido
petitioned for authority to remarry using Par. 2 of Article 26, FC. OSG appealed
arguing that the provision only applies to valid mixed marriages between Filipinos
and aliens; that the remedy is annulment or legal separation; and that there is no
law that governs respondents situation.

ISSUE: W/N Obrecido is can remarry

HELD: The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party
were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise
would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. The reckoning point in the provision is
not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but
their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating the latter to remarry.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III,

G. R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboaga del Sur, Branch 23, granting respondents
petition for authority to remarry invoking par. 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva were married in
Lam-an, Ozamis City and were blessed with a son and a daughter. In 1986, Lady
Myros left for the U. S. bringing along their son and after a few years she was
naturalized as an American citizen.

Sometime in 2000, respondent Orbecido learned from his son who was living with
his wife in the States that his wife had remarried after obtaining her divorce
decree. Thereafter, he filed a petition for authority to remarry with the trial court
invoking par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code.

Having no opposition, on May 15, 2002, the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del
Sur granted the petition of the respondent and allowed him to remarry.

The Solicitor Generals motion for reconsideration was denied. In view of that,
petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court. Herein petitioner raised the issue of the applicability of Art. 26 par. 2 to
the instant case.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER THE ARTICLE 26 OF THE

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Held:

Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof, failed to submit competent
evidence showing his allegations that his naturalized American wife had obtained a
divorce decree and had remarried. Therefore, the Petition of the Republic of the
Philippines is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the RTC Br. 32 of Molave,
Zamboanga del Sur is hereby SET ASIDE.

Art. 26 (2) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to
remarry under the Philippine laws.

Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case where at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The
instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were
two Filipino 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 American citizen while residing in the U. S. A. Therefore, the 2nd
par. of Art. 26 does not apply to the instant case.

However, the legislative intent must be taken into consideration and rule of reason
must be applied. The Supreme Court ruled that par. 2 of Art. 26 should be construed
and interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of then becomes
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse
should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the
time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be sanction
absurdity and injustice. Were the interpretation of a statute according to its exact
and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose
of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason,
disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A stature may therefore be
extended to case not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come
within its spirits or intent.

REPUBLIC vs. ORBECINDO

G.R. No. 154380, 5 October 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecindo and Lady Myros Villanueva got married in May 24, 1981. Both
are Filipino citizens. They cohabited and had two children. Villanueva went to the
U.S. in 1986 with one son.

Villanueva became a naturalized American citizen and sometime in the year 2000,
Orbecindo learned that his wife obtained a divorce decree and remarried. Orbecindo
then filed a petition for authority to remarry. The court granted the petition since
there was no opposition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code

HELD:

Petition for authority to remarry constituted a petition for the declaratory relief. The
following are the requisites:

Justiciable controversy
Controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse
That the party seeking relief has a legal interest
The issue is ripe for judicial determination
ARTICLE 26 Paragraph 2 of the Family Code should be interpreted to allow a Filipino
citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who acquired foreign citizenship and
remarried can also be allowed to remarry.

However, the present petition of Orbecindo has no sufficient evidence submitted

and on record and are only based on bare allegations that his wife was a naturalized
American citizen, had obtained divorce decree and had remarried an American.

Such declaration could only be made properly upon submission of evidence in his
favor.

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the
United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage
was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady
Kimberly V. Orbecido. In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States bringing
along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had
been naturalized as an American citizen. Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from
his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain
Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley, and her child by him currently live at 5566 A. Walnut
Grove Avenue, San Gabriel, California. Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a
petition for authority to remarry invoking Par. 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No
opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The
Republic through the Office of the Solicitor General sought reconsideration but it
was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Art. 26 of the Family Code.

HELD: Yes and No. In view of the foregoing, the Supreme Court states the twin
elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and
a foreigner; and
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.

In this case, when Ciprianos wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was
still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and Cipriano. As fate
would have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce
capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the
divorced Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.

However, since Cipriano was not able to prove as fact his wifes naturalization he is
still barred from remarrying.