Republic vs. Obrecido III

Short summary: Filipino husband left by Filipina wife, Filipina wife was naturalized as an US citizen then divorced him. He now wants a declaration allowing him to remarry again. Court held that A26.2 is also applicable to cases where the spouse who obtained divorce decree is a naturalized citizen of a State allowing divorce, provided the law allowing such divorce is proven + divorce decree proven. 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.

Facts:

-Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros Villanueva in 1981

-Villanueva left for US in 1986, bringing son with them

-few years later, Villanueva was naturalized as US Citizen; sometime in 2000, Orbecido found out through son that wife obtained a divorce decree and remarried

-Orbecido filed PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO REMARRY

RTC: granted it

-MFR filed by OSG:  Art26 only applies to mix marriages, not in one where both are Filipinos even if the other one was naturalized

WON PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IS PROPER REMEDY? YES

-action constitutes Petition for Declaratory Relief which is granted if the ff are present:

(1) there must be a justiciable controversy;

(2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse;

(3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and

(4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination

--here OSG and Orbecido are adverse parties - one for protection of marriage while the other against it; then it is ripe for judicial determination because if Orbecido decides to remarry, he may face litigation wherein the validity of his 2nd marriage may be questioned

WHY NOT ANNULMENT OR LEGAL SEPARATION:

-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. 

-legal separation would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tie; hence, the legally separated Filipino spouse would still remain married to the naturalized alien spouse.

WON ART26.2, FC APPLIES TO CASES WHERE BOTH SPOUSES ARE FILIPINOS BUT ONE WAS NATURALIZED AND WAS ALSO THE ONE WHO OBTAINED DIVORCE DECREE? YES, provided already naturalized at the time divorce decree was obtained

-as was cited in San Luis vs. San Luis

Brief Historical Background

-On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon Aquino signed into law Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code," which took effect on August 3, 1988. Article 26 thereof states:

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 valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35, 37, and 38.

-On July 17, 1987, shortly after the signing of the original Family Code, 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. 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 valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.

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 Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied)

CPCP opposed Art26.2 because it was discriminatory (against Filipinos whose spouses who are in abroad) and because it is the beginning of recognition of absolute divorce.

Legislative Intent

Paragraph 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 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 to sanction absurdity and injustice.  Where 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 statute may therefore be extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent

*note: decisions cite Quita v. CA on the court ruling that A Filipino divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry. NOTE HOWEVER that this is just an obiter dictum, as recognized in this case.

TWIN ELEMENTS FOR APPLICATION OF ART26.2:

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.

HOWEVER, HERE, THE PETITION FOR AUTHORITY TO REMARRY GRANTED BY TC WAS SET ASIDE BECAUSE OBRECIDO FAILED TO PROVE THE FF:

1. Wife validly obtained naturalization
2. Foreign law allowing divorce
3. Wife validly obtained divorce decree