Divorce Notes

Tenchave v. Escano (1966)

- Pastor and Vicenta got secretly married
- Her mother got wind of their plans to elope and prevented their plans
- Her parents were surprised and disgusted at the clandestine nature of their marriage and
the scandal it would bring
- They received a letter that Pastor was having an amorous relationship with Pacita Noel
- The love between them grew colder and eventually they became estranged
- She left for the US and filed for a divorce
o Extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character
- Her parents sought papal dispensation of her marriage
- Vicenta got married to an American (1954) and acquired US citizenship in 1958
- Tenchavez initiated proceedings in 1955
o Charged Escanos for discouraging their daughter from joining him and alienating
her affections
o And also against the Roman Catholic Church for having decreed the annulment
of the marriage
o He also asked for leg sep and 1M in damages

ISSUE:
WON the divorce is valid
WON the Court may compel Escano to cohabit w/ Tenchavez

HELD:
NO
- Art 15, NCC
o A foreign decree is not recognized in the PH especially if it was granted by a court
of the place which was not the parties bona fide domicile
o And also on a ground not recognized by our law that does not recognize absolute
divorce
- Foreign decrees, even in private international law, cannot contravene public policy
- She was still a PH citizen when the marriage was contracted
- Her marriage w Leo Moran is adulterous is nature

NO
- It is not w/in the province of the courts to attempt to compel one of the spouses to
cohabit with and render conjugal rights ti the other
- But a spouse who unjustifiably deserts the conjugal abode can be denied support

1) A foreign divorce decreed after the effectivity of the CC is invalid

2) Her remarriage and cohabitation is grounds for Tenchavez to file for leg sep
3) Desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree entitles him to recover damages
4) Action for alienation of affections against the parents does not lie in the absence of proof
of malice or unworthy motives on their part

Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. (1985)

- Richard (US) and Alice got married in HK in 1972
o Established residence in the PH
- 1975
o Obtained a decree of divorce in Nevada on ground of incompatibility
- 1982
o Alice married Theodore Van Dorn in Nevada
- She has a business in Ermita, MNL, The Galleon Shop
o Richard claims is part of their conjugal property
 o Wife argues that as of the time they obtained a divorce, they both expressed they
had no community property

ISSUES:
WON the divorce decreed abroad is binding in the PH in cases of mixed marriage
WON the 1st husband may be entitled to the administration of the property subject of the
dispute

HELD:
YES
- Art 15.
o Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the PH
Provided it is valid according to their national law
o The marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either
- NO
o He is estopped by his own representation previously when they obtained a
divorce decree adjudicated by the court in Nevada
o Foreigners cannot use our laws against our citizens

Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera (1989)

- Imelda and Erich (German) married in Germany
- Lived for some time in Malate with their child Isabella (Apr 20, 1980)
- Discord and mutual recrimination set in
- De facto separation
- After abt 3 yrs of marriage, he initiated a divorce proceeding against her in Germany (Jan
1983)
o Claims failure of marriage and de facto separation since Apr 1982
- She filed an action for leg sep, support and sep of property before the RTC (Jan 1983)
- Jan 1986
o German court grants the divorce on ground of failure of marriage
o Custody of child goes to mother
- June 1986
o Resp filed 2 complaints for adultery
William Chia in 1982
Jesus Chua in 1983
- Oct 1987
o Pet filed special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a TRO
seeking annulment of the order of the LC denying her motion to quash
Anchored on the ground that the court is w/o jurisdiction to try and
decide the charge of adultery
He does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a divorce
decree under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint

ISSUE:
WON resp can file a complaint for adultery

HELD:
NO
- Under 344, RPC
o Crimes against chastity can only be prosecuted upon a sworn written complaint
filed by the offended spouse
o After a divorce has been decreed, the innocent spouse
no longer has the right to institute proceedings against the offenders
where the statue provides that the innocent spouse shall have the
exclusive right to institute a prosecution for adultery
 BUT where proceedings have been properly commenced, a divorce
subsequently granted can have no legal effect on the prosecution of the
criminal proceedings to a conclusion

Case dismissed, TRO issued and made permanent

Republic v Obrecido (2005)

- Cipriano married Lady1981
- 1986
o Wife left for US and eventually naturalized as a US citizen
- 2000
o Cip learned from his son that she had obtained a divorce decree and married
another man
- Cip filed w/ trial court to remarry invoking Art 26(2), FC
o Granted
- OSG says the provision refers to marriages bet Fil and an alien
o Proper remedy should me annulment or leg sep

ISSUE
WON Art 26(2) can be construed to include Fil who have been naturalized

HELD
YES
- Art 26(2) was to avoid an absurd situation wherein the alien spouse can remarry after
obtaining a divorce whereas the Fil cannot
- This includes those naturalized foreign spouses who obtain a divorce decree
o To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice
- 2 essential elements of Art 26(2)
o Valid marriage bet Fil and foreigner
o Valid divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him/her to
remarry
- The reckoning point is not citizenship at time of marriage celeb, but citizenship at the time
a valid divorce decree is obtained by alien spouse that capacitates him/her to remarry
- In response to the OSGs claims:
o Leg sep would not work because then the Fil spouse would still be married
o Annulment is not feasible because their marriage has all badges of validity
- For the case to prosper, sufficient evidence must be submitted
- Such declaration could only be made properly upon respondents submission of evidence
o Wife was a naturalized US citizen
o Divorce was a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it
o The foreign law allowing it
o Divorce allows wife to remarry
- No evidence was submitted

Notes:
They should have applied Art 15

Quita v Dandan (1998)

- Artura and Quita married in the PH 1941
- Filed for divorce in 1950 in SF
o Also submitted evidence of agreement to live separately and a settlement of their
conjugal properties
- 1954 divorce decreed
 - Quita contracted 2 marriages in the USA since then
- Dandan married Arturo
- 1972
o Arturo died
o Dandan claimed to be his heirs of the intestate of Arturo along w his alleged 6 kids
o TC, w/o proper hearing, decided in favor of Quita and Arturos marriage
Foreign divorce bet PH citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of
the CC was invalid
Quita and his bro are the only heirs
o Upon partial recon, kids were recognized as heirs and excluded his bro
Dandan not counted bc marriage was contracted on 1947 which makes
it bigamous and void
o Dandan appealed
- CA affirmed appeal and nullified the TC decision, remanded case for further proceedings
- Quita appealed

ISSUE:
WON case should be remanded to the LC for further proceedings

HELD
YES
- Controversy lies as to who is the legitimate surviving spouse of Arturo
o Quita said they remained legally married because Arturo was Filipino despite their
divorce
o From this, SC interpreted that Quita was no longer Fil at time of divorce
Should have prompted the TC to conduct a hearing establishing her
citizenship
o She became a US citizen in 1954, the yr final judgment of divorce was obtained
o If proven she was no longer a PH citizen, she loses right to inherit

Petition denied

Llorente v. CA (2000)
- Lorenzo married Paula in 1937
- Lorenzo left for the US before WW2 leaving Paula behind
- 1943
o Lorenzo was granted US citizenship
- 1945
o Upon his return, he discovered she was pregnant to his brother Ceferino
o He refused to live w her
- 1946
o Executed a written agreement wherein they decided that
Support from him would be suspended
Marital union dissolved
Paula will not be prosecuted for adultery upon admission and agreement
to separate
- Lorenzo returned to the US and obtained a divorce in San Diego County
- He went back to PH and married Llorente
o 25 yrs and had 3 kids
- He executed a last will and testament
o All properties to Alicia (also as sole executor) and their kids
o Died June 1985
- Sept 1985
o Paula filed for letters of administration claiming shes the surviving spouse and the
properties in the will were acquired during their marriage
 - RTC ruled in Paulas favor
o Divorce obtained was inapplicable and that marriage to Alicia void
- CA affirmed
o But granted Alicia as co-owner of properties obtained during her relationship w/
Lorenzo
- Alicia files to the SC

ISSUE:
WON divorce acquired by a naturalized US citizen is applicable in the PH
WON the will executed in favor of Alicia is valid

HELD:
YES
- Arts 15 and 16 apply only to PH nationals
- Lorenzos divorce is valid

- Court did not decide the wills inherent validity bc of Lorenzos nationality
o Issues best proven by foreign law
- Was the will executed in accordance w formalities required based on PH law?
o YES
- The only issue to be resolved is the intrinsic validity of the will and successional rights of the
parties

Petition granted, case is remanded

Garcia v Recio (2001)

- 1987 Rederick married Editha (Australian) in Malabon
- 1989 Australian family court decreed a divorce
- 1992 became Australian citizen
- 1994 He married Grace Garcia in Cabanatuan
- In their marriage license, he declared himself single and Filipino
- 1995 they started living separately
- March 1998 Grace filed for NoM on the ground of bigamy she learned of only in 1997
o Referring to Redericks marriage with Editha
- Resp says it has been dissolved making him legally capacitated to marry her back in 1994
- July 1998 while the suit was pending, he obtained a divorce decree from a family court in
Sydney
- TC recognized the decree

ISSUE
WON the divorce between Rederick and Editha was valid
WON Rederick was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner
HELD
YES
- In order for a foreign divorce decree to be valid, it must be shown that:
o There was a divorce in fact
o The divorce conformed to the law allowing it
- Sec 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a document may be proven as an official record of a foreign
country by
o An official publication
o A copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the docu
If the docu isnt kept in the PH, a copy must be
 Accompanied by a certificate issued by a proper diplo or
consular officer in the PH foreign service stationed in the country
where record is kept
Authenticated by the seal of his office
- The divorce decree between Editha and Samson

* In civil law, def have the burden of proving the material allegations in their answer when they
introduce new matters

NO
- 2 types of divorces
o Absolute (terminates the marriage)
o Limited (suspends the marriage and leaves the bond in full force)
- There was no showing what type of divorce was obtained
o There was a restriction in the decree A party to a marriage who marries again
before this decree becomes absolute commits the offence of bigamy
o This shows the divorce MAY BE restricted
- There was no proof of the legal effects of the decree obtained under Australian laws

Case remanded to TC to receive evidence which shows pets legal capacity to marry petitioner

Corpuz v Sto Tomas (2010)

- Gerbert acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization
- Married Daisylyn
- He found that she was having an affair 4 months later when he returned from Canada
- He went to Canada to file for petition for divorce granted
- 2 yrs later, he found another Fil to marry
o He tried to file the decree to the CRO
o An NSO official told him the decree has to be judicially recognized by a
competent PH court to be enforceable
- He filed for petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce
- RTC denied
o Only the Filipino spouse can avail of the petition for judicial recognition of foreign
divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved

ISSUE
WON Art 26(2) extends to aliens the right to petition a PH court for recognition of a foreign
divorce decree

HELD
NO
- Art 26(2) establishes substantive rights in favor of the Fil spouse
- It is for the benefit of the Fil spouse by clarifying his/her marital status
- Only to capacitate the Fil spouse to remarry
- The capacity of the alien spouse to remarry is governed by his national law

FUJIKI v. MARINAY (2013)

- 2004 Minoru Fujiki (Japanese) married Maria Marinay (Filipino) in the PH

- Petitioners parents did not like the marriage
o Wife was left in the PH
- 2008 Marinay married Shinichi Maekara in QC
o Wife was brought to Japan where she was physically abused by Maekara
 o Marinay left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki
- 2010 Fujiki and Marinay re-established their relationship and filed the following actions:
o Japanese Family Court: judgement on the marriage between Marinay and Maekara was
deemed void
o Ph RTC: Decree of absolute nullity of marriage

ISSUE:

1. WoN rule on Declaration of Absolute nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment on Voidable Marriages
(AM No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable
2. Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment
nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of
bigamy.

HELD:

1. NO.

- A.M. 02-11- 10-SC applies to proceedings for declaration of nullity / annulment of marriages.
Fujiki is not filing a petition for declaration of nullity. He does not have to, because the
question of the nullity of that marriage has already been tried and decided in Japan.
- For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage
where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove
the foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.
o Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family Court judgment through (1) an official
publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of
the judgment.

2. YES.

- When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated, the spouse is clearly an
injured party and is therefore interested in the judgment of the suit.
- Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested in any act, event, order or
decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil
register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry
relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the
corresponding civil registry is located.

- Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC states:

[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely
by the husband or the wife"

NOTE: However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign judgment
in the Philippines, Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment is consistent with domestic public
policy and other mandatory laws.

MEDINA v. KOIKE

- 2005 Doreen Parilla (Filipino) married Michiyuki Koike (Japanese) in QC

o 2 children; Masako and FUKA
- 2012 filed for divorce before mayor in Japan
 - 2013 filed for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to
remarry before the RTC
o No one opposed the petition during the hearing
o Presented various documents which certifies the divorce including Civil code of
Japan
- 2014 RTC denied Parillas petition because she fell short on proving the existence of a
divorce law in Japan

ISSUE: WoN the RTC erred in denying the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce.

HELD: NO.
The petitioner must prove all the facts that there is a divorce law. The petition is referred to CA where issued of
facts are involved to determine and resolve the pertinent factual issues to the decision.
READ BEFORE RECIT. IF TINANONG NI MAAM:
In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, the Court had the occasion to rule that:

This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on
evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the
alien himself or herself.
Garcia v. Recio it was pointed out that in order for a divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse to be
recognized in our jurisdiction, it must be shown that the divorce decree is valid according to the national law of
the foreigner. Both the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the
divorce must be proven. Since our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment, our law on
evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven
like any other fact.

Yasin v Sharia District Court (1995)

- Hatima and Hadji got married in accordance to Muslim rites
- They eventually got divorced
- Hatima wanted to resume the use of her maiden name
- The court ruled that under Rule 103 Sec 2(a) and 3 of the RoC (CHANGE OF NAME)
o The petition is insufficient in form
It did not indicate her place of residence
It did not indicate the name she seeks to adopt
- She filed a MFR denied

ISSUE
WON a petition for resumption of maiden name and surname is also a petition for change
of name

HELD
NO
- The only name that Rule 103 governs is the name given at birth (Hatima Centi Y. Saul)
- She isnt praying for a change of name, but rather, resume the use of her legal name
o Only civil status changes upon marriage, not legal name
- PD 1086
o Divorce severs the marriage bond and allows the spouses to remarry
- Art 370, CC
o Married women are not obliged to use their husbands name upon marriage
- Art 371, CC
o If wife is guilty party in an annulment case, she shall resume her maiden name
o If shes the innocent, she has the option
Unless either remarry
- A widow or divorcee need not seek judicial confirmation in her civil status in order to revert
to her maiden name as the use of the husbands name is merely an option

Romero, J. dec of nullity/absolute divorce is automatically a ground for resumption of womans use
of maiden name. Merely a recognition of the change in civil status.