PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS ATTY.

JACQUELINE GUZMAN DLSUCOLB72019

REPUBLIC V. ORBECIDO III
(G.R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005)
DOCTRINE:
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.

1)

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

HELD/RATIO
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

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

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.

authority to remarry invoking par. 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

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

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva were married in

him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under the Philippine

Lam-an, Ozamis City and were blessed with a son and a daughter. In 1986, Lady

laws.

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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.