GUE vs REPUBLIC No. L-14058 March 24, 1960 Petitioner and appellant: Angelina L.

Gue Oppositor and appellee: Republic of the Philippines Nature of the case: Appeal from the order of the CFI of Manila POnente: Montemayor, J. Issue: Facts: 1) Appeal from an order of the CFI Manila dismissing the petition of Angelina Gue 2) Oct 11, 1944: married to William Gue and had a child Anthony Gue; another child Eulogio on January 5, 1946 her husband left Manila and went to Shanghai China but since then had not been heard of, neither had he written to her nor in any way communicated with her and she failed to locate him despite of her efforts and diligence 4) they had not acquired any property during the marriage 5) she asked the court for a declaration of the presumption of death of William gue (Art 390 of the CC) CFI: after publication and hearing, issued the order of dismissal no right had been established by the petitioner upon which a judicial decree may be predicated and this action is not for settlement of the estate of the absentee as it is clear he did not leave any - * A judicial presumption even if final and executor, would still be a prima facie presumption only and it still disputableit is for this reason that it cannot be a subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration proof of actual death would still have to be determined 6) Appealed- invoked the provisions of Art 390 of the New Civil Codeabsence of 7 yearsfor succession shall not be presumed dead till after an absence of 10 years 7) According to appellant with promulgation of the NCC in 1950, the courts are now authorized to declare persons presumptively dead SOLICITOR GENERAL:opposed to the petition; same reason as above (*) SC: the appeal order dismissing the petition is AFFIRMED

3)

Petitioner: Antonia Armas Y Calisterio Respondent: Marietta Calisterio Nature of the case: Petition on certiorari of a decision of the CA Ponente: Vitug, J. Issue: Validity of the marriage between deceased Teodorico and respondent Marrieta, that in turn would be determinative of her right as a surviving spouse Facts: 1) April 24, 1992: Teodorico Calisterio died intestate leaving several parcels of land (value: P604,750.00) 2) He was survived by his wife (respondent- Marietta Calisterio) 3) Teodorico was second husband of Mariettamarried previously to James William Bound (jan 13, 1946) 4) James Bound disappeared w/o trace on February 11, 1947 5) 11 years later Marietta and teodorico were married (may 8, 1958) w/o Marietta having secured a court declaration that James was presumptively dead 6) Oct 9, 1992: petitioner, surviving sister of teodorico filed with RTC of QC a petition entitled In the Matter of Intestate Estate of the Deceased Teodorico Calisterio y Cacabelos, Antonia Armas, petitioner claiming to be the sole surviving heir of the deceased- marriage between Marietta and Teodorico as bigamous thereby null and void 7) Prayed that her son Sinfroniano C. Armas Jr. be appointed administrator w/o bond of the estate of the deceased and that the inheritance be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the estate would have been settled 8) mArietta opposed the petitionfirst marriage w/ Bound had been dissolved due to his absence, whereabouts being unknowncontends to be the surviving spouse of teodorico and sought priority in the administration of the estate of the decedent RTC: issued order appointing Sinfroniano C. Armas Jr and respondent Marietta administrator and administratix of the intestate estate of teodorico Marietta appealed the decision to CA CA: decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered a) mArietta Calisterios marriage with teodorico remains valid b) house and lot situated as 32 Batangas St San Francisco del Monte QC belong to conjugal partnership property c) marrieta Calisterio being teodoricos compulsory heir is entitled to one half of husbands estate and sister of Teodorico the other half

ARMAS vs. CALISTERIO GR NO. 136467 April 6, 2000

9)

d)
-

ordered TC to determine competence of MArrieta Calisterio to act as administrator of Teodoricos estate CA denied motion for reconsideration

SC DECISION: Assailed judgment of the CA is AFFIRMED except in so far only as it decreed in par of the dispositive portion thereof that the children of petitioner are likewise entitled, along with her to the other half of the inheritance in lieu of which it is DECLARED that said one-half share of the decedents estate pertains solely to the petitioner to the exclusion of her children REASONS: 1) Marriage happened in 1958law in force at that time was the Civil Code not the family code 2) Art 83 of the new Civil Coderetroactive only when it would not prejudice ort impair vested acquired rights in accordance wit Civil code and other laws 3) A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by the explicit mandate of Art 83 to be deemed valid until declared null and void by a competent courtthe burden of proof would be, in these cases, on the party assailing the second marriage 4) Mariettas first husband, James William Bounds had been absent or had disappeared for than eleven years before she entered into second marriagesecond marriage having been contracted during the regime of the Civl Code, should thus be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of judicial declaration of presumptive death of james Bounds 5) Conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta pertains to them in commonupon its dissolution, the property should rightly be divided in two equal portionsone portion going to surviving spouse and the other to the estate of the deceased spouse 6) Appellate court erred in granting to petitioners children, along with their mother Antonia who herself is invoking successional rights over the estate of deceased brother JONES vs. HORTIGUELA No. 43701 March 6, 1937 petitioner-appellant: Angelita Jones Oppositor-Appellant and appellee: Felix hortiguela as administrator, widower and heir Nature of the case: appeal from an order of the CFI of cebu Ponente: Concepcion, J. Issue: WON Felix Hortiguelas alleged marriage to marciana Escano was celebrated Facts: 1) CFI of Cebu denying: a) motion to appoint a new administrator and b) to set aside the order declaring the heirs of deceased; c) holding it unwarranted to declare that the properties of the intestate estate are paraphernal properties of deceased but reserving to the parties the right to discuss which of said properties are parahernal and which are conjugal and d) setting aside the order granting to the administrator fees in the sum of P10,000 and that order approving the project of partition and the final account an e) ordering the presentation of another project partition and final account 2) Marciana Escano died intestatewidower Felix Hortiguela was appointed judicial admisnitrator of her entire estate 3) Order (may 9, 1932)angelita Jones (daughter bu her first marriage) and Felix (widower by he second marriage) were declared only heirs 4) Felix prayed that his fees as administrator be fixed at P10000 (granted by court and conformity of guardian of heiress Angelita) 5) Admin: presented inventory of propertied left by deceased, a final account of his administration and a project of partition of the intestate estate 6) He adjudicated to himself a part of the estate, in payment of the conjugal properties and of his usufructuary right and the remaining part to Angelita Jonesrepresented by guardian Paz Escano de Corominas since a minor then 7) Project of partition and final account was approved and properties were turned over to the respective grantees 8) MAy 3, 1934: heirees Angelita, married to Ernesto lardizabal, filed a motion alleging that she was the only heir of her motherno valid marriage between mother and felix (or it was null and void) 9) She prayed for: 1) reopening of the proceedings; 2) her husband be appointed special administrator w/o bond; 3) her mother s alleged marriage to Felix be declared null and void and 4) that the partition of the properties made by felix be declared null and void and that petitioner be declared the only universal heir of the deceased; and 5) if marriage be a valid marriage, Hortiguela be declared not entitled to the widowers usufruct; the errors in the admin account be corrected; the latter be granted a remuneration of only P4 a day and a new partition of the properties be made 10) 1914: Marciana Escano married Arthur Jones in San NIcolas Province of Cebu 11) Jan 10, 1918: Jones secured passport to go abroad and therafter nothing was heard of him

12) October 1919: proceedings were instituted in the CFI of Maasin Leyte to have her husband judicially declared an absenteecourt issued an order declaring Jones an absentee from Phil Islands (Art 186 of the CC) 13) April 23, 1921: court issued another order for the taking effect if the declaration of absence, publication made in the OG and in EL Ideal 14) May 6, 1927: Felix Hortguela married to MArciana Escano 15) Angelita contends: declaration of absence must be understood to have been made not in the order of Oct 1919 but April 1921only 6 years and 14 days elapsedmarriage null and void DECISION OF THE SC: Court REVERSED the appealed order REASONS: 1) For the purpose of civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absenteethis declaration made was only to the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee 2) For civil marriagethe only requirement is that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage 3) Absence counted from January 10, 1918 to May 6, 1927nine years elapsed-marriage is valid and lawful 4) Although no marriage contract appearing in the marriage register of the Municipality of Malitbogdoes not invalidate the marriage 5) Marciana Escano believed husband was dead when she contracted marriage 6) Marriahe was validnot doubt Felix is entitled to inherit in usufruct, not only in testate but also in the intestate succession 7) No reason to annul the order of May 9, 1932 declaring the heirs were widower and daughter and the order of June 26, 1933 approving the partition of the properties of the intestate estate 8) Fees to administrator P10000 reasonable and moderate compensationused also to pay professional fees of the lawyer 9) Orders have become final on the ground that no appeal was ever taken therefrom, the court has lost jurisdiction over the case LUKBAN vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES No L- 8492 February 29, 1956 Petitioner and appellant: Lourdes G. Lukban Oppositor and Appellee: RP Nature of the Case: Appeal from an order of the CFI of Rizal Ponente: Bautista Angelo J. Issue: Facts: 1) CFI to declare that petitioner is a widow of her husband Francisco Chuidian who is presumed to be dead and has no legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage 2) Lourdes Lukban contracted marriage with Francisco Chuidian December 10, 1933 (paco Manila) 3) Dec 27 same year husband left after violent quarrel and since then he has not been heard from despite diligent search made by her 4) She believes he has been dead being absent for more than 20 years and because she intends to marry again, she desires that her civil status be defined in order that she may be relieved of any liability under law CFI: petition cannot be entertained because not authorized by lawmuch less can the court determine the status of petitioner as a widow since this matter must of necessity depend upon the fact of death of the husbandcourt can declare upon proper evidence but not decree that he is merely presumed to be dead SOLICITOR GENERAL: opposed the petition on the ground that the same is not authorized by law CFI: sustained the opposition and dismissed the petition DECISION OF SC: decision appealed from is AFFIRMED REASONS: 1) A judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if final and executor would still be prima facie presumption only. It is still disputable. It is for that reason that it cannot be subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration 2) Art 349 of penal codeProceedings referred to here refers only to those authorized by law such as those which refer to administration or settlement of the estate of the deceased person (jones vs HOrtiguela) SSS vs. JARQUE Vda. De BAILON GR NO. 165545 March 24, 2006 Petitioner: SSS

Respondent: Teresita Jarque Vda. De Bailon Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J. Issue: Facts: 1) CA reversed decision of SSC 2) April 25, 1955: marriage of Clemente G. Bailon and Alice P. Diaz in Barcelona, Sorsogon 3) More than 15 years later: October 9, 1970: Bailon filed before CFI of Sorsogon petition to declare Alice presumptively dead 4) Dec 10, 1970: CFI granted the petition 5) After almost 13 years: Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque in casiguran Sorsogon 6) Jan 30, 1998, bailon, member of SSS since 1980 and a retiree pensioner died 7) Respondent filed claim for funeral benefits and was granted P12,000 by SSS and additional claim for death benefits granted on April 6, 1998 8) Cecilia Bailon-Yap, claimed to be a daughter of Bailon and one Elisa jayona contested before the SSS the release to respondent of the death and funeral benefitsclaims Bailon contracted three marriages (Alice, mother or elisa and respondentall are still alive) 9) Elisa claimed that their mother and Bailon cohabited together as husband and wide since (1958) 10) Hermes P. Diaz brother of Alice filed before SSS a claim for death benefits 11) Elisa and seven of her children also filed claims for death benefits as bailons beneficiaries Atty MArites C. dela Torre: legal unit of SSS: recommended cancellation of payment of death pension benefits to respondent and issuance of order to refund amount paid to her from Feb 1998 to May 1999; denied the claim of alice and payment of balance of the five-year guaranteed pension to Bailons beneficiaries after the amount erronesouly paid to respondent has been collected 13) Said that marriage between bailon and jarque is bigamous and void, there s no disappearance of Aliceno need to present affidavit of reappearance since alice never disappeared 14) SSS cancelled monthly pension of respondent-marriage was void since contracted when Bailons marriage with alice was still subsisting 15) Respondent protested cancellation of pension-asserted release of her pension her marriage w/ Bailon not declared by the court as bigamous and unlawfulvalid and subsisting 16) SSS dismissed her petitiondeclaring her common law wife and ordered payment to alice of the death benefit 17) Appealed to CA after motion for reconsideration was denied by SSS CA: reversed and set aside the April 2, 2003 resolution and June 4, 2003 order of the SSc and thus ordered the SSS to pay respondent all the pension benefits ISSUE: Could the SSC and SSS re-evaluate validly the findings of RTC and on its own declare the latters decision to be bereft of any basiscan they declate the first marriage subsisting and the second marriage null and void? CA: It is only the competent court that can nullify the second marriage (Art 87 of CC) Respondent SSS cannot arrogate upon itself the authority to review the decision of the regular courts SSS is correct in stating that affidavit for reappearance was irrelevant since no first marriage to restore as marital bond between Alice and Clemente already terminated by death of Clemente; neither a second marriage to terminate since also dissolved by Bailons death But SSS is not correct to conclude that it has the authority to review the decision of the RTC and consequently declare the second marriage null and void SSC and SSS filed motion for reconsideration but both denied- hence, present reviewsaid that observations and findings relative to CFI proceedings are considered obiter dicta DECISION OF SC: petition fails; DENIED REASONS: 1) SSC empowered to settle dispute w/ respect to SSS coverage benefits and contributions, however, it cannot review much less reverse, decisions rendered by the courts of lawwith respect to the validity of BAilons and Alices marriage and the invalidity of bailon and respondents marriage 2) Two marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the FC August 3, 1988applicable law to determine validity is the CC (art 83) 3) In this case, as found by the CFI. Alice had been absent for 15 consecutive years when Bailon sought declaration of her presumptive death which judicial declaration was not even a requirement then for purpose of remarriage 4) When a person has entered into a subsequent marriage the second marriage is presumed valid and the burden is o the party assailing the marriage to prove that the first marriage had not been dissolved 5) Under the CC- subsequent marriage being voidable is terminated by final judgment of annulment in a case instituted by the absent spouse who reappears or by either of the spouses in the subsequent marriage 6) FC: no judicial proceeding to annul a subsequent marriage is necessary (Art 42) -

12)

If the absentee reappears, but no step to terminate the subsequent marriage, either by affidavit or by court action, such absentees mere reappearance even if made known to the spouses in the subsequent marriage will not terminate such marriage 8) If the subsequent marriage is not terminated by registration of an affidavit of reappearance or by the judicial declaration but by death of either spouse a voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding upon the death of either, the marriage cannot be impeached, and is made good ab initio 9) In this case at bar, no step was taken to nullify, in accordance with law, bailons and respondents marriage prior to formers death in 1998respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of Bailon (note: judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse in the new CC is not necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met) ROEHR vs. RODRIGUEZ GR NO. 142820 June 20, 2003 Petitioner: Wolfgang O. Roehr Respondents: Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez. Hon, Judge Josefina Guevara-Salonga (pres Judge of Makati RTC Br 149) Nature of the Case; Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari Ponente: Quisumbing, J. Issue; a) Grave abuse of discretion allegedly committed by public respondent b) Lack of jurisdiction of the RTC in matters that spring from a divorce decree obtained abroad by petitioner Facts: 1) Special civil action for certiorari petitioner assails a) the order dated Sept 30, 1999 of public respondent Judge Josefina salonga for declaration of nullity of marriage and b) order dated march 31, 2000 denying his motion for reconsiderationpartially set aside the trial courts order dismissing the Civil case No 96-1389 for the purpose of resolving issues relating to the property settlement of the spouses and the custody of their children 2) Wolfgang roehr (German citizen) married Carmen Rodriguez (Filipina) Decmeber 11, 1980 in Hamburg, Germanyratified on Feb 14, 1981 Tayasan Negros orientalchildren: Caroline and Alexandra Kristine 3) August 26, 1996: private respondent filed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before RTC Makati city 4) Feb 6, 1997 motion to dismiss filed by petitioner but denied and motion for reconsideration also denied 5) Sept 5. 1997: petitioner filed motion for certiorari to CA but denied and remanded to RTC 6) Petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the CFI of Hamburg-Blankenese (dec 16, 1997) declaring marriage dissolved and custody of children to father 7) Petitioner filed second motion to dismiss on the ground that RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the ation or suit as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage petition granted 8) Private respondent filed 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 properties between petitioner and private respondent 9) Aug 18, 1999: Opposition to the Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed by petitionernothing they could do anymoredecree of divorce already recognized by the RTC through the implementation of the mandate of Art 26 of the FC endowing petitioner w/ the capacity to remarry under Phil Law 10) Sept 30, 1999 respondent judge issued order partially setting aside her order dated July 14, 1999 for the purpose of tackling the issues of property relations and support and custody of their children 11) Petitioners motion fore reconsideration was denied ISSUES: 1) WON respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing her order dated Sept 30, 1999 w/c partially modified her order dated July 14, 1999 and 2) WON respondent judge gravely abused her discretion when she assumed and retained jurisdiction over the present case despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from german court FIRST ISSUE: Petitioner: asserts that assailed order of respondent judge is completely inconsistent w/ her previous order and is contrary to Sec 3 rule 16 of rules of civil procedure (resolution of motion) Courts action is limited to dismissing the action or claim, denying the motion or ordering amendment of the pleading Respondent: argues that RTC can validly reconsider its order because it had not yet attained finality, given the timely filing of respondents motion for reconsideration Section 3 relation to Sec 7 Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure (action upon motion for new trial or reconsideration and partial new trial or reconsideration) Judge can order partial reconsideration as long as within reglementary period and w/o finality yet

7)

SECOND ISSUE: Petitioner: claims that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion when she partially set aside her order despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from CFI Hamburg Germany COURT: court consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner (Garcia v. Recio, Van Dorn v. Romillo,Jr. and Llorente v. CA) The divorce decree not challenged save for the issue of parental custody As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our jurisidcition, but the legal effects thereof (on custody and support of children) must still be determined by our courts In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and as such, is subject to proof to the contrary In the present case, private respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring the judgment as res judicata w/ regard to the rights of petitioner to have parental custody of their two childrenproceedings of German court were summary decision given based on the German civil code provision to the effect that when couple lived separately for three years, the marriage is deemed irrefutably dissolvedno determination of the issue if parental custody, care, support and education mindful of the best interests of children On matter of property relations, petitioner asserts that public respondent exceeded the bounds of her jurisdiction when she claimed cognizance of the issue concerning property relations between petitioner and private respondent Given factual admission by parties in their pleadings that there is no property to be accounted for, respondent judge has no basis to assert jurisdiction in this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in controversy DECISION OF SC: the orders of RTC Makati Br 149 issued Sept 30, 1999 and March 31, 2000 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Court declares that the trial court has jurisdiction over the issue between the parties as to parental custody, including child care, support and education of childrenrecords remanded to the Trial court for continuation of appropriate proceedings TC can proceed on taking cognizance of the children custody issue but it erred in taking cognizance of the property issue or relations of the parties

GARCIA vs. RECIO GR NO. 138322 October 2, 2001 Petitioner: Grace J. Garcia (Grace Garcia-recio) Respondent: Rederick A. Recio Nature of the case : Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the RTC of Cabanatuan city Br. 28 Ponente: Panganiban. J. Issue; Facts: 1) Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the January 7,1999 decision and the mArch 24, 1999 Order of the RTC of Cabanatuan city br 28 in Civil case no 3026-AF 2) Rederick Recio (fil) married to Editha Samson (Austrial citizen) in Malabon, Rizal March 1, 1987 3) May 18, 1989 a decree of divorce purportedly dissolving the marriage was issued by Austrian family court 4) June 26, 1992: respondent became Australian citizen (cert of Australian citizenship) 5) Petitioner and respondent married in Jan 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan Cityapplication for a marriage license, respondent was declared as single and Filipino 6) Lived separately w/o judicial dissolution of their marriageconjugal assets were divided on mAy 16, 1996 in accordance with Statutory Declarations secured in Australia 7) March 3, 1998: petitioner filed Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time they got married 8) Respondent: as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution 9) He was capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994 10) July 7, 1998: while suit for declaration of nullity was pendingrespondent was able to secure divorce decree in Sydney Australia since marriage has broken down 11) Respondent prayed in his answer that Complaint be dismissedstated no cause of action 12) SG: agreed w/ respondent

RTC: declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Phils It based its decision on the divorce decree obtained by respondent. The Australian divorce had ended the marriage, thus, there was no more marital union to nullify or annul ISSUES: petition raised five issues but for purposes of this decision concentrate on two pivotal issues: 1) Whether the divorce between Respondent and Editha Ramos was proven 2) Whether respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner DECISION OF SC: Petition is meritorious; interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, court REMANDS the case to court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondents legal capacity to remarry petitioner and failing in that, of declaring the parties marriage void on the ground of bigamy REASONS; First Issue: Proving the divorce between Respondent and Editha Ramos Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce, hence, or courts cannot grant it. A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because Arts 15, 17 of the CC Mixed marriages: a fil and a foreigner Art 26 of FC allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by alien spouse capacitating him to remarry - Therefore, before any foreign divorce can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing itpresentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient Under Section 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 a) An official publication b) A copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document c) If record is not kept in the Philssuch a copy must be accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Phil foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be authentic however appearance is not sufficient, compliance with the aforementioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated - Burden of proving Australian law: lies with the party who alleges the existences of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution of defense of an actionsince defense raised by respondentthe burden of proving pertinent Australian law to validate it falls on him Our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws Second issue: respondents legal capacity to remarry Divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage - Different types: 2 common: 1) absolute divorce or a viniculo matrimonii and 2) limited divorce or a mansa et thoro first kind terminates the marriage while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force - This case, no showing of the kind of divorce decreerespondent presented a decree nisi pr an interlocutory decreea conditional or provisional judgment of divorce - Some courts may restrict remarriage even after divorce is granted (some limited by statute- guilty party not tor remarry again) There is contention that divorce obtained be respondent may have been restricteddid not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry - TC erred in assuming that Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondents capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter - Legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concernedthe certificate (mentioned in Art 21 of FC) could have established his legal capacity to remarry if presented There is absolutely no evidence that proves respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner -

Petitioner: RP Respondent: Cipriano Orbecido III Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the RTC of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur Br 23 Ponente: Quisumbing, J Issue: given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law? (applicability of Art 26 of the FC) Facts:

RP vs. ORBECIDO GR No. 154380 October 5, 2005

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) -

In this petition for review, SG assails the decision of RTC and denying motion for reconsiderationthe court declared that herein respondent is capacitated to remarry May 24, 1981: Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the UCCP in Lam-an Ozamis, City Blessed with a son and daughter: Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Obercido 1986: Ciprianos wife left for the US bringing along Kristoffera few years later discovered by Cipriano that wife had been naturalized as American citizen 2000: Cipriano learned from son that wife obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley (now living at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Ave San Gabriel California) Cipriano filed before RTC petition for authority to remarry invoking Par 2 of Art 26 of the FC No opposition filed. RTC granted the petition Solicitor general representing the republic sought reconsideration but denied Contends that par 2 Art 26 is not applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is a marriage between a fil citizen and an alien Proper remedy is to file a petition for annulment or legal separation Argues that no law governs respondents situationa matter of legislation and not a matter of judicial determination

SC: petition by RP is GRANTED. The assailed decision dated May 15, 2002 and resolution dated July 4, 2002 of the RTC Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur Br 23 are hereby SET ASIDE. Holds that par 2 of Art 26 of the FC amended by EO 227 should be interpreted to allow a Fil citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried also to remarrybut declaration could only be made properly upon respondents submission of aforecited evidence in his favor REASONS: 1) At the outset, the petition for authority to remarry filed actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief (sec 1Rule 63 of the Rules of Court) 2) Requisites for declaration of declaratory relief: a) there must be a justiciable controversy; b) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; c) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy and d) the issue is ripe for judicial determination 3) The instant case is one where at the time of 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 tor remarry ad indeed she remarried an American citizen 4) (historical background) CBCP: says that Art 26 is discriminatory-discriminates against those who spouses are Filipinos who divorce them abroad. These spouses who are divorced will not be able to remarry while the spouses of foreigners who validly divorce them abroad can remarry 5) This is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce even for Fil citizens 6) Legislative intent: Family Code deliberation records: art 26 was aimed to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the fil citizen 7) The answer to the question if this applies to Filipinos and to this case?lies latent in the 1998 case of quita vs CAby way of obiter dictum that A Fil divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Phil laws and can thus remarry 8) Thus, Art 26 par 2 of the FC should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who at the time of the celebration of marriage were fil citizens but later on one becomes naturalized and obtains a divorce decree to rule otherwise would post injustice and absurdity 9) The provision should be construed to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law 10) The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties during the time of the marriage but during the time a valid divorce decree has been obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry 11) About the SC remedy given: the court cannot sustain: annulment would be a long and tedious process and not possible since marriage is valid; legal separation on the other hand would not be sufficient remedy for it would not sever marriage ties 12) However, records presented are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by respondent concerning the divorce decree and naturalization of wife 13) Must prove his allegation that wife is naturalized and has obtained divorce and demonstrate its conformity with foreign law allowing itshowing also that wife was allowed to remarry SAN LUIS vs. LUIS GR NO. 133743 february 6, 2007 Petitioner: edgar San Luis Respondent: Felicidad San luis GR NO. 134929 february 6, 2007 Petitioner:Rodolfo San Luis Respondent: Felicidad Sagalongos alias felicidad San Luis

Nature of the case: consolidated petitions fore review assailing the feb 4, 1998 decision of the CA which reversed and set aside the sept 12 1995 and January 31, 1996 resolutions of RTC Makati Br 134 in SP Proc NO. 3708 and its mAy 15, 1998 resolution denying petitioners motion for reconsideration Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J. Issue: settlement of the estate of felicisimo San Luis (former governor of laguna) Facts: 1) Gov. contracted three marriages: a) Virginia Sulit (March 17, 1942) out of which were born 6 children (Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita, and Manuel) in 1963 Virginia predeceased Felicisimo 2) May 1, 1968: felicisimo married Merry Lee Cowin (American citizen) with whom he had a son Tobias Merrly Lee filed complaint for divorce before the family court of the Court of First Circuit of Hawaii which issued decree Granting absolute divorce and awarding child custody (dec 14, 1973) 3) June 20, 1974: felicisimo married felicidad San Luis (respondent) in Los Angeles, CAno childrenlived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on dec 18, 1992 4) Respondent sought dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and settlement of felicisimos estate filed petition for letters of administration before the RTC of Makati 5) Respondent alleged that she is the widow of felicisimo that the decedents surviving heirs are respondent as legal spouse, his six children by his first marriage and son by second marriageprayed that the conjugal partnership assets be liquidated and that letters of administration be issued to her 6) Feb 4, 1994: petitioner Rodolfo San Luis child of felicisimo in the first marriage filed motion to dismiss grounds: improper venue to state a cause of actionshould have been filed in the province of laguna because this was the place f residence of felicisimo prior to his death; claimed further that respondent has no legal personality to file petition since she was only a mistress of felicisimo since the latter during the time of his death was still legally married to Merry Lee 7) Feb 15, 1994: Linda invoked the same grounds 8) Feb 28, 1994: RTC issued an order denying the motions 9) Unaware of the denial of motions to dismiss: respondent filed (Mar 5, 1994) oppositionsubmitted documentary evidence that felicisimo regularly went home to their house in New ALabang, villahe, Alabang MM; presented absolute divorce decree issued by court n Hawaii to prove that second marriage was dissolvedclaims felicisimo has legal capacity to marry her 10) Petitioners asserted that par 2 art 26 of FC cannot be given retroactive effect to validate respondents bigamous marriage with felicisimo since this would impair vested rights in derogation of Art 256 of the FC 11) Oct 24, 1994: motion for reconsideration was dismissedrespondent, as widow of decedent possessed the legal standing to file the petition and that the venue was properly laid TC: dismissed the petition for letters of administration; 1) Felicisimo was duly elected gov of lagunapetition must have been filed in sta cruz laguna 2) Because marriage with Felicisimo was bigamous thus void ab initio (divorce obtained by merry lee not valid in the Phils) 3) Art 26 par 2 cannot be retroactively applied for it would impair the vested rights of felicisimos legitimate children CA: REVERSED and SET ASIDE orders of the trial court - Said that term residence refers to actual residence or place of abode of a person as distinguished from legal residence or domicilesince he actually resided in Alabang Muntinlupa even though he is discharging his functions in lagunathus the petition for letters of administration was properly filed in Makati Held that felicisimo had legal capacity to marry respondent by virtue of Art 26 par 2 of the FC (Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr) and Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera) Found that marriage between Merry Lee and felicisimo was validly dissolved by virtue of decree of absolute divorce (not a bigamous marriagecourts cannot deny what the law grants) ISSUES: 1) Whether venue was properly laid 2) Whether respondent has the legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration DECISION OF SC: Petition lacks Merit.; Petition is DENIED. The decision of CA reinstating and affirming the RTC which denied petitioners motion to dismiss and its order which dismissed petitioners motion for reconsideration is AFFIMRED. Case REMANDED to the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and felicisimo Found that respondents legal capacity to file subject petition for letter of administration may arise from her status as the surviving wife of felicisimo or as his co-owner under Art 144 of the CC or Art 148 of the FC REASONS: 1) Section1 Rule 73 of rules of courtpetition for letters of administration should be filed in the RTC of the province in which he resides at the time of his deathrule for determining residence (Garcia Fule vs CA) contradistinguised from domicile 2) Residence or residespopular sense, meaning, the personal actual or physical habitation of a person, signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereatmeans simply residence, personal residence

3) 4)
5)

6) 7)

not legal residence or domicileno particular length of time required, however, residence must be more than temporary Incorrect for petitioners to argue that residence is the same as domicile for purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of the estate of felicisimothis is often used in election laws Since respondent proved that deceased also maintained a residence in Alabang Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his deathsubject petition was validly filed before the RTC of Makati LEGAL PERSONALITY: issue: whether the fil was divorced by his alien spouse abroad and may validly remarry under the CCmarriage solemnized before the FC took effectno need to retroactively apply art 26 but use the sufficient jurisprudential basisaffirmativePilapil vs. Ibay-Somera; Quita vs CA, Van Dorn vs. ROmillo JR. Historical background and legislative intent behind art 26 par 2

Van dorn case is sufficient basis in resolving a situation where a divorce is valdly obtained abroad by the alien spouse. With the enactment of Art 26 par 2 of the FC thereof our lawmakers codified the already established through judicial precedent--8) the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his own country if the ends of justice are to be served 9) The law should never be interpreted in such a way as to cause injustice as this is never within the legislative intent. An indispensable part of the intent, in fact, for we presume the good motives of the legislature is to RENDER JUSTICE 10) Proof of authenticity and due execution of documents must be presented --- public document requirements: a) an official publication; b) copy attested thereof by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Phils copy must be: a) accompanied by certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Phil foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and b) authenticated by the seal of his office 11) Present; validity of divorce 12) Even if felicisimo is not capacitated to remarry, respondent still has legal capacityshe may be considered the co-owner of felicisimo as regards properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during their cohabitation NOTE: IF she proves validity of divorce and capacity to remarry bu felicisimo but fails to prove that their marriage was validly performed according to law of the USconsidered co-owner in Art 144 of the CC- parties living together without benefit of marriage or void from the beginningco-ownership If fails to prove the validity of both divorce and marriageapplicable art would be Art 148 of FCregulating property relations of couples living together as husband and wife but are incapacitated to remarryregime of limited co-ownership

VALDES vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT br 102 QC GR no. 122749 July 31, 1996 Petitioner: Antonio A.S. Valdes Respondent: RTC BR 102 QC and Consuelo M. Gomez-Valdes Nature of the case: petition for review of a decision of the RTC of QC Br 102 Ponente: Vitug, J. Issue: Facts: 1) Petition for review bewails on a question of law an alleged error committed by RTCfailed to apply correct law that should govern the disposition of family dwelling in a situation where a marriage is declared ab initio because of psychological incapacity on the part of either or both of the parties of the contract 2) January 5, 1971: Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez married 3) 5 children 4) June 22, 1992: valdez sought the declaration of nullity of their marriage pursuant to Art 36 of the FC 5) RTC declared marriage null and void 6) Consuelo Gomez sought for a clarification of that portion of the decision directing compliance with Arts 50, 51 and 52 of the FC; she asserted that the FC contained no provisions on the procedure for liquidation of common property in unions without marriage RTC: clarification: considering that Art 147 of the FC explicitly provides that property acquired by both parties during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, are presumed to have been obtained through the joint efforts of the parties and will be owned by them in equal shares, plaintiff and defendant will own their family home and all their other properties for that matter in equal sharesprovisions on co-ownership will apply Petitioner moved fore reconsideration of the order (issue regarding family dwelling)petition denied Appealed

7) 8)

DECISION OF SC: Trial court correctly applied the law; Questioned orders, dated May 5, 1995 and October 30, 1995 of the trial court are AFFIRMED. REASONS: 1) in void marriages, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of art 147 or 148 such as the case may be, of the Family Code Art 147 is the remake of Art 144 of the CC 2) this peculiar kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman suffering no legal impediment to marry each other, so exclusively lives together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage 3) under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership.Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto jointly of said partys efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family housedhold. Unlike the conjugal partnership of gains, the fruits of the couples separate property are not included in the co-ownership 4) the trial court acted neither imprudently nor precipitately a court which had jurisdiction to declare the marriage a nullity must be deemed likewise clothed with authority to resolve the incidental and consequential matters 5) it did not commit error in ruling that petitioner and private respondent own the family home and all their common property in equal shares as in concluding that in the liquidation and partition of the property owned in common by them the provisions on co-ownership under the CC not Arts 50, 51 and 52 in relation to arts 102 and 129 of the FC should aptly prevail--- these are only for valid and voidable marriages (community and conjugal partnerships)