Republic vs Orbecido III (Civil Law)

Republic of the Philippines

vs

Cipriano Orbecido III

--- Filipina wife became an American citizen and obtained a divorce decree capacitating her to remarry. May the Filipino former spouse likewise remarry? Yes. For the application of paragraph 2 of Art. 25 of the Family Code, 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.

G.R. No. 154380

QUISUMBING, J.:

FACTS:  On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady 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. In 1986, Lady 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 California.

Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.  No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same.  The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied.

The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not applicable to 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 OSG, is to file a petition for annulment or for legal separation. Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs respondent’s situation.  The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial determination.

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, Article II of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

WON Orbecido III may remarry based on paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code

HELD: YES

Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.

1998 case of Quita v. Court of Appeals: the parties were, as in this case, Filipino citizens when they got married.  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 naturalized foreign spouse, is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry.

Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that 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.

In view of the foregoing, we state 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.

      However, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by respondent concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of respondent’s wife.  It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.

          Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen.  Likewise, 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.