8/13/2019 Rep v. Orbecido III

1/6

REP vs. ORBECIDO

2005 Oct 5; G.R. No. 154380

QUISUMBING, J.

Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later

naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him orher to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law?

Before us is a case of first impression that behooves the Court to make a definite rulingon this apparently novel uestion, presented as a pure uestion of law!

"n this petition for review, the #olicitor General assails the $ecision%&' dated (ay &),*++*, of the egional -rial Court of (olave, .amboanga del #ur, Branch */ and itsesolution%*' dated 0uly 1, *++* denying the motion for reconsideration! -he court auo had declared that herein respondent Cipriano 2rbecido """ is capacitated to remarry!-he fallo of the impugned $ecision reads3

4566F26, by virtue of the provision of the second paragraph of 7rt! *8 of theFamily Code and by reason of the divorce decree obtained against him by his 7mericanwife, the petitioner is given the capacity to remarry under the Philippine 9aw!

"- "# #2 2$66$!%/'

-he factual antecedents, as narrated by the trial court, are as follows!

2n (ay *1, &:;&, Cipriano 2rbecido """ married 9ady (yros (! an, 2zamis City! -heir marriage was blessed

with a son and a daughter, ristoffer #imbortriz

"n &:;8, Cipriano@s wife left for the =nited #tates bringing along their son ristoffer! 7few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an 7mericancitizen!

#ometime in *+++, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorcedecree and then married a certain "nnocent #tanley! #he, #tanley and her child by himcurrently live at ))88 7! 4alnut Grove 7venue, #an Gabriel, California!

Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invokingParagraph * of 7rticle *8 of the Family Code! Ao opposition was filed! Finding merit inthe petition, the court granted the same! -he epublic, herein petitioner, through the2ffice of the #olicitor General 2#G, sought reconsideration but it was denied!

"n this petition, the 2#G raises a pure uestion of law3

456-56 2 A2- 6#P2A$6A- C7A 6(7D =A$6 7-"C96 *8 2F -56

8/13/2019 Rep v. Orbecido III

2/6

8/13/2019 Rep v. Orbecido III

3/6

apply to the case of respondent? Aecessarily, we must dwell on how this provision hadcome about in the first place, and what was the intent of the legislators in its enactment?

Brief 5istorical Background

2n 0uly 8, &:;H, then President Corazon 7uino signed into law 6Eecutive 2rder Ao!*+:, otherwise known as the IFamily Code,I which took effect on 7ugust /, &:;;! 7rticle *8 thereof states3

 7ll marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force inthe country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid inthis country, eEcept those prohibited under 7rticles /), /H, and /;!

2n 0uly &H, &:;H, shortly after the signing of the original Family Code, 6Eecutive 2rderAo! **H was likewise signed into law, amending 7rticles *8, /8, and /: of the FamilyCode! 7 second paragraph was added to 7rticle *8! 7s so amended, it now provides3

 7-! *8! 7ll marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the lawsin force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall alsobe valid in this country, eEcept those prohibited under 7rticles /)&, 1, ) and 8, /8,/H and /;!

4here a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and adivorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or herto remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law!mphasis supplied

2n its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation presentedby the case at hand! "t seems to apply only to cases where at the time of thecelebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner! -he instantcase is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were twoFilipino citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as an 7merican citizen andsubseuently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed sheremarried an 7merican citizen while residing in the =!#!7!

Aoteworthy, in the eport of the Public 5earings%:' on the Family Code, the CatholicBishops@ Conference of the Philippines CBCP registered the following obections toParagraph * of 7rticle *83

&! -he rule is discriminatory! "t discriminates against those whose spouses are Filipinoswho divorce them abroad! -hese spouses who are divorced will not be able to re>marry,while the spouses of foreigners who validly divorce them abroad can!

*! -his is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce even for Filipinocitizens! For those whose foreign spouses validly divorce them abroad will also beconsidered to be validly divorced here and can re>marry! 4e propose that this be

8/13/2019 Rep v. Orbecido III

4/6

deleted and made into law only after more widespread consultation! mphasissupplied!

9egislative "ntent

ecords of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent ofParagraph * of 7rticle *8, according to 0udge 7licia #empio>$iy, a member of the CivilCode evision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouseremains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer marriedto the Filipino spouse!

"nterestingly, Paragraph * of 7rticle *8 traces its origin to the &:;) case of

8/13/2019 Rep v. Orbecido III

5/6

"n view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph * of 7rticle *8 as follows3

&! -here is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and aforeigner and

*! 7 valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her toremarry!

-he reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration ofthe marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by thealien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry!

"n this case, when Cipriano@s wife was naturalized as an 7merican citizen, there was stilla valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and Cipriano! 7s fate wouldhave it, the naturalized alien wife subseuently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her

to remarry! Clearly, the twin reuisites for the application of Paragraph * of 7rticle *8are both present in this case! -hus Cipriano, the IdivorcedI Filipino spouse, should beallowed to remarry!

4e are also unable to sustain the 2#G@s theory that the proper remedy of the Filipinospouse is to file either a petition for annulment or a petition for legal separation!

 7nnulment would be a long and tedious process, and in this particular case, not evenfeasible, considering that the marriage of the parties appears to have all the badges ofvalidity! 2n the other hand, legal separation would not be a sufficient remedy for itwould not sever the marriage tie hence, the legally separated Filipino spouse would stillremain married to the naturalized alien spouse!

5owever, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted byrespondent concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of respondent@s wife!"t is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mereallegation is not evidence!%&/'

 7ccordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his allegation that hiswife was naturalized as an 7merican citizen! 9ikewise, before a foreign divorce decreecan be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as afact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it!%&1' #uch foreign lawmust also be proved as our courts cannot take udicial notice of foreign laws! 9ike anyother fact, such laws must be alleged and proved!%&)' Furthermore, respondent mustalso show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specificallyreuired in 7rticle *8! 2therwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare thathe is capacitated to enter into another marriage!

Aevertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph * of 7rticle *8 of theFamily Code 6!2! Ao! *+:, as amended by 6!2! Ao! **H, should be interpreted toallow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acuired foreign

8/13/2019 Rep v. Orbecido III

6/6

citizenship and remarried, also to remarry! 5owever, considering that in the presentpetition there is no sufficient evidence submitted and on record, we are unable todeclare, based on respondent@s bare allegations that his wife, who was naturalized asan 7merican citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an 7merican,that respondent is now capacitated to remarry! #uch declaration could only be made

properly upon respondent@s submission of the aforecited evidence in his favor!

 7CC2$"AG9D, the petition by the epublic of the Philippines is G7A-6$! -heassailed $ecision dated (ay &), *++*, and esolution dated 0uly 1, *++*, of theegional -rial Court of (olave, .amboanga del #ur, Branch */, are hereby #6- 7#"$6!

Ao pronouncement as to costs!

#2 2$66$!