Republic vs Orbecido

Republic vs. Orbecido

GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of
Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly,
respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Orbecido
discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his
wife sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed
with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family
Code.

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

HELD:

The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason,
Article 26 Par.2 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.

Hence, the courts unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino
citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to
remarry under Philippine law.

Quita vs Court of Appeals December 22, 1998 Fact of the Case: Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo T.
Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941. They got divorce in San
Francisco on July 23, 1954. Both of them remarried another person. Arturo remarried Bladina Dandan,

the respondent herewith. They were blessed with six children. On April 16, 1972, when Arturo died, the
trial court was set to declared as to who will be the intestate heirs. The trial court invoking Tenchavez vs
Escano case held that the divorce acquired by the petitioner is not recognized in our country. Private
respondent stressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of the ruling in Van Dorn
v. Rommillo Jr that aliens who obtain divorce abroad are recognized in the Philippnes provided they are
valid according to their national law. The petitioner herself answered that she was an American citizen
since 1954. Through the hearing she also stated that Arturo was a Filipino at the time she obtained the
divorce. Implying the she was no longer a Filipino citizen. The Trial court disregarded the respondents
statement. The net hereditary estate was ordered in favor the Fe D. Quita and Ruperto, the brother of
Arturo. Blandina and the Padlan children moved for reconsideration. On February 15, 1988 partial
reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the exception of Alexis, entitled to onehalf of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and the other half to Fe Quita. Private respondent
was not declared an heir for her marriage to Arturo was declared void since it was celebrated during the
existence of his previous marriage to petitioner. Blandina and her children appeal to the Court of
Appeals thatthe case was decided without a hearing in violation of the Rules of Court. Issue: (1) Whether
or not Blandinas marriage to Arturo void ab initio. (2) Whether or not Fe D. Quita be declared the
primary beneficiary as surviving spouse of Arturo. Held: No. The marriage of Blandina and Arturo is not
void. The citizenship of Fe D. Quita at the time of their divorce is relevant to this case. The divorce is
valid here since she was already an alien at the time she obtained divorce, and such is valid in their
countrys national law. Thus, Fe D. Quita is no longer recognized as a wife of Arturo. She cannot be the
primary beneficiary or will be recognized as surviving spouse of Arturo.

G.R. No. L-12105 January 30, 1960TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN, deceased.PHILIPPINE TRUST CO.,
executor-appellee,vs.MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN, EDWARD C. BOHANAN, and MARY LYDIA
BOHANAN,oppositors-appellants.Issues:
The oppositors, Magadalena C. Bohanan and her two children, question the validity of the
executor/testator C.O. Bohanans last will and testament, claiming that they havebeen deprived of the
legitimate that the laws of the form concede to them.Another, is the claim of the testator's children,
Edward and Mary Lydia Bohanan, whohad received legacies in the amount of PHP 6, 000 each only, and,
therefore, have notbeen given their shares in the estate which, in accordance with the laws, should be
two-thirds of the estate left by the testator.
Facts:
C.O. Bohanan was born in Nebraska and therefore a citizen of that state.Notwithstanding his long
residence in the Philippines, he continued and remained to bea citizen of the United States and of the
state of his pertinent residence to spend therest of his days in that state. His permanent residence or
domicile in the United Statesdepended upon his personal intent or desire, and he selected Nevada as his
homicideand therefore at the time of his death, he was a citizen of that state.

Held:
The first issue refers to the share that the wife of the testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan,should be
entitled to receive. The will has not given her any share in the estate left bythe testator. It is argued that
it was error for the trial court to have recognized the Renodivorce secured by the testator from his
Filipino wife Magdalena C. Bohanan, and thatsaid divorce should be declared a nullity in this jurisdiction.
The court refused torecognize the claim of the widow on the ground that the laws of Nevada, of which
thedeceased was a citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties without requiringhim to leave
any portion of his estate to his former (or divorced) wife. No right to sharein the inheritance in favor of a
divorced wife exists in the State of Nevada, thus theoppositor can no longer claim portion of the estate
left by the testator.With regards the second issue, the old Civil Code, which is applicable to this
casebecause the testator died in 1944, expressly provides that successional rights topersonal property
are to be earned by the national law of the person whose successionis in question, thus the two-third
rule is not enforceable.
Wherefore, the court finds that the testator C. O. Bohanan was at the time of his deatha citizen of the
United States and of the State of Nevada and declares that his will and testament is fully in accordance
with the laws of the state of Nevada and admits thesame to probate. As in accordance with Article 10 of
the old Civil Code, the validity of testamentary dispositions are to be governed by the national law of the
testator, and as it has beendecided and it is not disputed that the national law of the testator is that of
the State of Nevada which allows a testator to dispose of all his property according to his will, as inthe
case at bar, the order of the court approving the project of partition made in accordance with the
testamentary provisions, must be, as it is hereby affirmed, withcosts against appellants.

Van Dorn vs Romillo Jr.

139 scra 139

Nationality Principle Divorce

Petitioner Alice Reyes is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United
States; they were married in Hongkong. Thereafter, they established their residence in the Philippines
and begot two children. Subsequently, they were divorced in Nevada, United States, and that petitioner
has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

Private respondent filed suit against petitioner, stating that petitioners business in Manila is their
conjugal property; that petitioner he ordered to render accounting of the business and that private

respondent be declared to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case
contending that the cause of action is barred by the judgment in the divorce proceedings before the
Nevada Court. The denial now is the subject of the certiorari proceeding.

ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce obtained by the parties is binding only to the alien spouse.

HELD: Is it true 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. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In
this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of
American Law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband petitioner. He would
have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioners husband entitled to exercise control over
conjugal assets. As he is bound by the decision of his own countrys court, which validly exercised
jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is stopped by his own
representation before said court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.
Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera
TITLE: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera
CITATION: GR No. 80116, June 30, 1989| 174 SCRA 653

FACTS:

Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a
German national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal
Republic of Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil
Geiling. Conjugal disharmony eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding
against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. The petitioner then
filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on
January 23, 1983.

The decree of divorce 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.
On June 27, 1986, 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 private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even though
they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued.

HELD:
The law specifically provided 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, the Federal Republic of Germany, and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in
the Philippines in so far as he is concerned. Thus, under 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.
Garcia-Recio vs. Recio
TITLE: Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A. Recio
CITATION: GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002 | 366 SCRA 437

FACTS:

Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on
March 1, 1987. They lived as husband and wife in Australia. However, an Australian family court issued
purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989.

On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia where it was solemnized at Our lady of Perpetual
Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Since October 22, 1995, the couple lived separately without prior judicial
dissolution of their marriage. As a matter of fact, while they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets
were divided on May 16, 1996, in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.

Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy on March 3,
1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997, Redericks marriage with Editha Samson.

ISSUE: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick Recio is admissible as evidence to prove his
legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

HELD:

The nullity of Redericks marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued was valid and
recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized Australian. However, there is
absolutely no evidence that proves respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner though the former
presented a divorce decree. The said decree, being a foreign document was inadmissible to court as
evidence primarily because it was not authenticated by the consul/ embassy of the country where it will
be used.

Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record
of a foreign country by either:
(1) an official publication or
(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept
in the Philippines, such copy must be:
(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine
foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City to receive or
trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner and thus free
him on the ground of bigamy.
Case Digest: Roehr v. Rodriguez

WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, vs. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA
GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge of Makati RTC, Branch 149, respondents.
G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003

QUISUMBING, J.:
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a
Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14,
1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union were born Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine.
Carmen filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Makati Regional Trial Court
(RTC). Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied.
Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of HamburgBlankenese. Said decree also provides that the parental custody of the children should be vested to
Wolfgang.
Wolfgang filed another motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as a divorce decree had already been
promulgated, and said motion was granted by Public Respondent RTC Judge Salonga.
Carmen filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer that the case proceed for the purpose
of determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of the properties between her and
Wolfgang. Judge Salonga partially setting aside her previous order for the purpose of tackling the issues
of support and custody of their children.
1st Issue: W/N Judge Salonga was correct in granting a partial motion for reconsideration.
Ruling: Yes.
A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality, as in the case at
bar.
The Supreme Court goes further to say that the court can modify or alter a judgment even after the
same has become executory whenever circumstances transpire rendering its decision unjust and
inequitable, as where certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring such modification or
alteration transpired after the judgment has become final and executory and when it becomes
imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant it.
2nd issue: W/N Judge Salonga's act was valid when she assumed and retained jurisdiction as regards
child custody and support.

Ruling: Yes.
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our
jurisdiction. But the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still be
determined by our courts.
Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody
to Wolfgang by the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been
given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court
(now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given the opportunity to challenge the
judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment as res judicata with
regard to the rights of Wolfgang to have parental custody of their two children. The proceedings in the
German court were summary. As to what was the extent of Carmens participation in the proceedings in
the German court, the records remain unclear.
Absent any finding that private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the children, the trial court was
correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine the issue of parental custody, care, support and
education mindful of the best interests of the children.