Topic: Conflict rule governing status

MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT V. CA

7 November 2008

Facts:
 Vicente and Rebecca were married in 1979 in Mandaluyong City. On its face, the
Marriage Certifcate indentified Rebecca as an American citizen born in Guam to
American parents.
 In 1982, Rebecca gave birth to Alix. Thereafter, the marriage turned sour.
 In 1996, Rebecca initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. The
Dominican court issued two decrees – one ordering the dissolution of the
marriage (1996) and the other settling the couple’s property relations (1997).
 Less than a month from the issuance of the 1996 decree, Rebbeca filed with the
Makati RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage which she withdrew.
Two months after, she filed another petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
on the ground of Vicente’s alleged psychological incapacity. She also executed
an affidavit saying that she’s an American Citizen and that she is carrying
another man’s child.1
 In 2001, Rebecca filed another petition this time before the Muntinlupa RTC. She
sought the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains + support for Alix +
support pendente lite for her and the child. Vicente filed an MTD on the ground
that the petition is barred by a prior judgment of divorce.
 Rebecca then countered that she was a Filipino citizen as affirmed by the DOJ
and that therefore, there is no valid divorce to speak of.
 Meanwhile Vicente, who got married againd, and Rebecca commenced several
actions against each other (bigamy, concubinage, perjury).
 RTC granted Rebecca’s petition for support. Vicente then appealed with the CA
with a prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or a writ of preliminary injunction. CA
held in favor of Vicente and dismissed the petition.
Issue: Whether granting the MTD was proper in view of the divorce judgment - YES
(Preliminary question: WON the divorce was valid – YES)
Held: Petition dismissed.

Ruling:
 The Court has taken stock of the holding in Garcia v. Recio that a foreign divorce
can be recognized here, provided the divorce decree is proven as a fact and as
valid under the national law of the alien spouse. Be this as it may, the fact that
Rebecca was clearly an American citizen when she secured the divorce and that
divorce is recognized and allowed in any of the States of the Union, the
presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by the
foreign court issuing said decree is, as here, sufficient.
 Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it is abundantly clear to the Court that Rebecca
lacks, under the premises, cause of action. The petitioner lacks a cause of action
for declaration of nullity of marriage, a suit which presupposes the existence of a
marriage.
 Note: reckoning point is not the citizenship of the divorcing parties at birth or at
the time of marriage but their citizenship at the time the divorce was obtained.

1Boo. You whore!

Rebecca withdrew her first petition in the RTC of Makati because she could not
prove she was a Filipino, only to file a new one after she obtained an affirmation
from the Secretary of Justice.