REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIPRIANO OBRECIDO III GR No.

154380 October 5, 2005 FACTS The petition alleged the following: - On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbrecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City - Ciprianos wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and in 2000 obtained a divorce decree and married Innocent Stanley - Cipriano filed with the rial court a petition for authority to remarry involing Par 2 of Art 26 of the Family Code - OSG contends that Par 2 of Art 26 of the Family Code only applies to a valid mixed marriage celebrated between Filipino citizen and alien - The petition for authority to remarry constitute a petition for declaratory relief: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy, (2) 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. ISSUE Whether Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code apply to the case of the respondent 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 HELD 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 reckoning point is their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry

ALICE REYES VAN DORN v. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR and RICHARD UPTON G.R. No. L-68470 October 8, 1985 FACTS The petition alleged the following: - The petitioner, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent, citizen of United States were married in Hong Kong in 1972, and established their domicile in the Philippines - The parties were divorces in Nevada, United States in 1982 and the petitioner has re-married to Theodore Van Dorn - On June 8, 1983, private respondent filed a suit against petitioner stating that the formers business in Ermita, Manila is a conjugal property of the parties and to declare the private respondent the right to manage the property - Petitioner contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings that they had no community of property; - The Court denied the petitioners Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case ISSUE The effect of the foreign divorce of the parties on their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines HELD Pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. Hence, the petition is granted and respondent Judge was ordered to dismiss the Complaint.

EDGAR SAN LUIS v FELICIDAD SAN LUIS G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 FACTS The petition alleged the following: - Felicisimo San Luis married the Virginia whom he had six children: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita and Manuel - When Virginia died, he married Merry Lee Corwin, an American citizen. The marriage was later divorced under the Family Court of Hawaii, USA - On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married respondent at Los Angeles, California, USA. He had no children with the respondent but lived with her up to his death on December 18, 1992. - On December 17, 1993, respondent filed a petition for letters of administration before the RTC of Makati City - Linda, Rodolfo and petitioner Edgar San Luis asserted that the marriage of Felicisimo and the respondent is illegal - On September 12, 1995, the trial court dismissed the petition for letters of administration and ruled that the respondent was without legal capacity since their marriage was bigamous; the decree of absolute divorce was not valid in the Philippines - The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the orders of the trial court Felicisimo is actually resided in Muntinlupa and his second marriage was validly dissolved by virtue of the decree of absolute divorce ISSUE Whether a Filipino who is divorces by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry under the Civil Code HELD Due to Article 26 of the Family Code and various jurisprudence, the Court held that the divorce was valid and that capacitates Felicisimo San Luis to remarry. Thus, Felicidad San Luis, the respondent, marriage to the deceased is valid. She has standing to file the suit. It was remanded though to the lower court to further try the proceedings in order to properly prove the divorce decree, the law enabling it, etc. Hence, the decision of Court of Appeals was affirmed and the case was remanded to the trial court.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CRASUS L. IYOY G.R. No. 152577 September 21, 2005 FACTS The petition alleged the following: - On December 16, 1961, Crasus married Fely in Cebu City and had five children - In 1984, Fely left the Philippines for the USA and got married to an American with whom she eventually had a child - Fely returned to the Philippines in 1990, 1992 and 1995 - Fely continued to live with her American family in New Jersey and using the surname of her American husband - Crasus alleged that these demonstrated psychological incapacity of Fely to perform essential obligations of marriage thus constitutes a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code - Fely also prayed for the declaration of nullity of marriage - On October 30 1998, RTC declared their marriage null and void ab initio due to Felys psychological incapacity - Petitioner Republic filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals believing that the decision was contrary to law and evidence, which was later denied. ISSUES Whether Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code is applicable to the case at bar HELD Article 26 of the Family Code also was not deemed to be applicable by the Court, contrary to the position of the Court of Appeals. It was said that during the time that Fely secured a divorce decree and contracted a new marriage, she was still a Filipino and therefore, governed by the laws of her nationality which is the Philippines. Laws of the Philippines only ceased to take effect on her on 1988 when she was naturalized as an American citizen. Hence, the petition was granted and the decision of Court of Appeals was reversed and set aside

IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL v. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, HON. LUIS C. VICTOR and ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING G.R. No. 80116 June 30, 1989 FACTS The petition alleged the following: - On September 7, 1979, Imelda, a Filipino citizen, and Geiling, a German national, were married in the Federal Republic of Germany - On January 1983, Geiling filed a divorce before the Schoneberg Local Court and Pilapil filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC of Manila - Schoneberg Local Court promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage - Five months after their divorce, respondent filed two complaints for adultery before City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while they are still married, petitioner had an affair to certain William Chia and Jesus Chua - Petitioner filed before the Department of Justice to dismiss the cases. Petitioner also alleged that the complainant, Geiling, does not qualify as an offended spouse as they have obtained divorce prior his filing of the complaint ISSUE Whether or not Erich Ekkehard Geiling, the German national had the standing to sue Imelda Pilapil on the ground of bigamy HELD When the German national Geiling obtained a divorce in Germany, their marriage was already dissolved. There is now no marriage to speak of. Philippine laws regarding adultery and concubinage cases require that the case be filed by the offended spouse as it is in the genre of private crime. Geiling, having ceased to be Pilapils husband, therefore does not have the standing to sue her.