CASE DIGEST : Republic of the Philippines v. Cipriano Orbecido III G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005 Supreme Court, First Division — Quisumbing, J.

 

FACTS

Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamiz City. They had two children. In 1986, Orbecido's wife left for the United States and brought their son with her. Several years later, Orbecido learned that his wife had become a naturalized American citizen. In 2000, he learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree in the United States and had subsequently married an American named Innocent Stanley.

Orbecido then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court for authority to remarry, invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed, and the RTC granted the petition, declaring that Orbecido had the capacity to remarry under Philippine law by reason of the divorce decree obtained by his American wife. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, moved for reconsideration, but the RTC denied the motion.

The Republic argued before the Supreme Court that Article 26(2) did not apply because the marriage between Orbecido and his wife was originally a marriage between two Filipino citizens, rather than a marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner. According to the Republic, Article 26(2) applied only to a valid mixed marriage in which one spouse was already a foreigner at the time of the marriage. It argued that Orbecido's proper remedies were annulment or legal separation and that there was no law governing his particular situation.

The Supreme Court noted at the outset that Orbecido's petition for authority to remarry actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief under Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The Court explained that declaratory relief requires a justiciable controversy, adverse interests between the parties, a legal interest on the part of the person seeking relief, and an issue ripe for judicial determination. The Court found these requisites present because Orbecido sought a declaration of his capacity to remarry while the Republic asserted its duty to protect marriage.

ISSUE

The principal issue was whether Orbecido could remarry under Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code when he and his wife were both Filipino citizens when they married, but his wife subsequently became a naturalized American citizen, obtained a divorce abroad, and remarried. The Republic argued that the provision covered only marriages between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner existing at the time of the marriage.

The Court therefore had to determine the proper interpretation of Article 26(2) of the Family Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 227. The provision states that where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and the foreign spouse subsequently obtains a valid divorce abroad that capacitates the foreign spouse to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

The Court also considered the legislative intent behind Article 26(2). It examined the history of the provision and its relationship to Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. and Quita v. Court of Appeals. The Court considered whether the same principle should apply when the parties were both Filipino citizens when they married, but one spouse subsequently became a foreign citizen and obtained a valid foreign divorce that capacitated that spouse to remarry.

Finally, the Court had to determine whether Orbecido had presented sufficient evidence to establish that his wife had actually become an American citizen, obtained a valid divorce, and obtained a divorce decree that capacitated her to remarry. The Court distinguished between recognizing the legal principle applicable to his situation and declaring, on the evidence then presented, that Orbecido himself was already capacitated to remarry.

HELD

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition of the Republic and SET ASIDE the RTC Decision and Resolution. However, the Court held that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code should be interpreted to include the situation of Orbecido. The Court ruled that the provision applies even where the parties were both Filipino citizens when they originally married, provided that one spouse subsequently becomes a naturalized foreign citizen and obtains a valid foreign divorce that capacitates that spouse to remarry.

The Court explained that Executive Order No. 209, or the Family Code, originally contained Article 26 concerning the validity in the Philippines of marriages solemnized abroad. Executive Order No. 227 subsequently amended Article 26 by adding its second paragraph. Under Article 26(2), when a valid marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is followed by a valid foreign divorce obtained by the alien spouse that allows the alien spouse to remarry, the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. The Court held that the provision must be interpreted according to its spirit and legislative intent, rather than its literal wording, when necessary to avoid an absurd or unjust result.

The Court traced the legislative intent to avoid the situation where the Filipino spouse remains married under Philippine law to an alien spouse who, after obtaining a valid divorce abroad, is no longer married and is free to remarry. The Court also relied on Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., where it had recognized the effect in the Philippines of a valid foreign divorce obtained by the alien spouse, and Quita v. Court of Appeals, where the Court had previously indicated that a Filipino spouse divorced by a naturalized foreign spouse could likewise be considered no longer married under Philippine law. Thus, the Court held that the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties when the valid foreign divorce is obtained, rather than their citizenship when the marriage was originally celebrated.

The Court stated the twin requisites for the application of Article 26(2): (1) there must be a valid marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and (2) a valid divorce must be obtained abroad by the alien spouse, capacitating that spouse to remarry. Applying these requisites to Orbecido's situation, the Court held that when his wife became an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage between them, and she subsequently obtained a divorce that allegedly capacitated her to remarry. However, the Court found that the record lacked sufficient competent evidence proving the wife's naturalization and the foreign divorce. Under the rules on proof of foreign law and foreign judgments, the party alleging the foreign divorce must prove the divorce as a fact and establish its conformity with the foreign law; the foreign law itself must likewise be alleged and proved because Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Therefore, while the Court unanimously held that Article 26(2) allows a Filipino citizen in Orbecido's situation to remarry, it could not declare that Orbecido was actually capacitated to remarry on the basis of his bare allegations.