Marriages of Filipinos on a foreign land FC 26 (1) All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws

in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. ( lex loci celebrationis - applicable only to Filipinos) if both foreigners or bet. Filipino and foreigner, Conflict of laws apply FC 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6): below 18 even with consent, bigamous or polygamous marriages (except those with absent spouse), mistake of identity, subsequent marriages w/out record in registry of an annulment of former marriage, partition and distribution of properties and delivery of childrens presumptive legitimes FC 36, 37 and 38: Psychological incapacity, Incestous marriages and marriages void for reasons of public policy So pwede kahit walang solemnizing officer or license, marriage by proxy, common law marriage basta valid sa bansa na yun yung marriage

Marriages dissolved by a foreign judgement NCC 15 Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. NCC 17(3) Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. FC 26 (2) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. *FC 26(2) placed to avoid absurdity that Filipino women are still considered to be married to their alien husbands even after the latter have already validly divorced them under the husbands national laws DOES NOT APPLY TO: 1. Divorce obtained by a Filipino abroad from his or her Filipino spouse, which divorce is void because divorce is not allowed in this country and a Filipino is governed by his national law wherever he goes (ART 15-Nationality) 2. Divorce obtained by a former Filipino who had been naturalized in another country after his naturalization, as it might open the door to rich Filipinos obtaining naturalization abroad for no other reason than to divorce their Filipino spouses (Filipino at marriage) Effect of foreign divorce on alien spouse: cannot charge with adultery ARCA v JAVIER
DOCTRINE: For a divorce decree to be considered valid, foreign court must acquire jurisdiction over subject

matter and plaintiff must be domiciled in good faith. Matrimonial jurisdiction should also be present. Temporary residence is immaterial. FACTS: of USA, she did not abandon him but physical impossibility November 19, 1937 - Arca and Javier married Prayed for dismissal because under old Civil by Judge in manila; already have a son born on Dec. 2, 1931 Code - wife not bound to live with husband if at ultramine colonies 1938 - Javier left for US because US Navy April 1941 - State of Alabama granted divorce since 1927; at the time of marriage already enlisted man July 1941 - Javier married Thelma Francis, an Arca lived with his parents but she left America citizen and bought house at New because of differences York August 1940 - Javier filed for divorce in USA 1949 - Thelma divorced him September 1940 - Arca received copy at date Feb. 13, 1950 - Javier returned to Philippines and filed an answer that Javier is not resident April 19, 1950 - Remarried Maria Odvina in Manila

July 25, 1950 - Arca filed information for bigamy against Javier TC: Acquitted Javier because "in good faith" that decree of divorce had legal effect of dissolving marital ties; no criminal intent ISSUE: Does divorce decree have valid effect in Philippines? HELD: Divorce decree on the marriage between the parties cannot have legal effect in the Philippines because the foreign court did not

acquire jurisdiction over the party/parties due to the State not being their residence or matrimonial residence. Even if petitioner submitted an answer to the court, it merely clarified the latters jurisdiction.
The courts in the Philippines can grant divorce only on the ground of adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband, and if the decree is predicated on another ground, that decree cannot be enforced in this jurisdiction.

TENCHAVEZ v ESCANO
DOCTRINE: A foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386) was not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction. FACTS: Filipinos, only competent civil court can annul it, thus remaining valid Pastor Tenchavez and Escano entered into a Civil code does not admit absolute divorce secret marriage before Catholic chaplain, Lt Moises Lavares. After their marriage was and is not even part of the code, instead of revealed, they were separated as Tenchavez divorce, legal separation is used, wherein went back to Manila to work while Escano marriage is still recognized stayed in Cebu then Misamis To recognize decree of divorce of foreign In Misamis, Escano asked for petition to annul courts would be violation on public policy and her marriage but this was dismissed because article 17 of civil code of her non-appearance at hearing. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their Afterwards, she went to the US without acts, or property and those which have for informing Tenchavez and secured a divorce their object public order, policy, and good on grounds of extreme cruelty and mental in customs shall not be rendered ineffective by character in Nevada. laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in Respondent then married again to Russell foreign country. Moran, had children and became a US Citizen Would also discriminate in favor of wealthy On July 30, 1955 Tenchavez filed the persons who can get divorced elsewhere. proceedings for legal separation and Would not make difference if Tenchavez was damages against wife and parents in law also in court of Nevada when divorce was Escano claimed that 2nd marriage is the filed since mere appearance cant confer better marriage. She said that she has jurisdiction on court which had none. secured papal dispensation in 1954 but no Tenchavez now has grounds to divorce evidence presented. ISSUE: WON divorce in Nevada was legal respondent since she had intercourse with HELD: NO, divorce and 2nd marriage are not someone other than her husband, entitling recognized as valid him to ask for legal separation under basis of RATIO: adultery RESULT: Petitioner has grounds to file for legal As stated in Art 15, since marriage was separation, recover 25,000 by way of moral contracted by Filipinos in Philippines by damages and fees

VAN DORN v ROMILLO

DOCTRINE: If the foreigner obtains a valid foreign divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. FACTS: acknowledged in divorce proceedings in Nevada Court that he and the petitioner had 1972 Van Dorn, Filipino and Upton, US no community property citizen married in Hongkong; established TC: Denied motion because property involved residence in Phil is located in the Philippines so that the 1982 obtained divorce in Nevada, US Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case Petitioner remarried in Nevada to Theodore ISSUE: WON Upton still has rights on conjugal Van Dorn property June 8, 1983 Upton is contesting for his HELD: NO share in Galleon Shop which he contends is US divorce releases Upton from marriage conjugal property as divorce is valid in US but under American law where divorce dissolves not in Philippines because wife is Filipino marriage thus also relinquished any rights he Respondent moved to dismiss on the grounds may have obtained through marriage that cause of action is barred by previous including property judgment in Nevada wherein Upton

A husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law.

Cannot hold Fil law against petitioner is not valid since own law would discriminate her.

SOMERA v PILAPIL
DOCTRINE: An alien spouse who has divorced his Filipino wife can no longer charge the latter with adultery because he can no longer be an offended spouse. Divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as Geiling is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons. FACTS: WON he can still file for adultery after Sept 7, 1979 Imelda Pilapil a Filipino German divorce married Erich Geiling German in Federal Whether it is not necessary in the Republic Germany. They later resided in commencement of a criminal action for Malate, Manila adultery that the marital bonds between the Jan 1983 asked for divorce bec. living apart complainant and the accused be unsevered since 1982, which was obtained on Jan 15 and existing at the time of the institution of 1986 the action by the former against the latter HELD: NO Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action 344 of RPC only offended spouse may bring for legal separation, support and separation of property in Manila case of adultery to court and should still be spouse when complaint was filed. It June 27, 1986 Geiling filed two complaints of necessarily follows that such initiator must adultery with William Chia and Jesus Chua have the status, capacity or legal Petitioner filed a motion to quash due to lack representation to do so at the time of the of jurisdiction as court is without jurisdiction filing of the criminal action. Since he filed it "under his national law prior to his filing the after the divorce decree, he is not considered criminal complaint the petitioners husband anymore. Denied by court Marriage in his part was already extinguished ISSUE: thus he cannot sue as spouse anymore

QUITA v CA
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, divorce secured by Filipinos abroad is void in the Philippines. However, if it can be proven that one of the parties has acquired foreign citizenship and thereafter has secured a valid divorce, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Once proven that respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could "very well lose her right to inherit. FACTS: Respondents filed a motion submitting May 18 1941 - Quita and Padlan, both documents on legitimacy of children of Filipinos, married in Philippines Blandina. TC: Partial reconsideration granted to other April 22, 1947 - Marriage of Padlan with Padlan children with exception of Alexis entitled Blandina them to one-half of estate to exclusion of brother July 19 1950 - Quita submitted in the divorce and the other half to the petitioner. Private proceedings a private writing evidencing respondent not heir because bigamous marriage. agreement to live separately from each other Appealed to CA that trial court violated Sec.1 and settlement of conjugal properties Rule 90 of Rules of Court that "if there is a 1954 - American citizen controversy before the court as to who are July 23 1954 - Quita obtained final judgement the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as of divorce to the distributive shares to which each August 1954 - Quita Married a Felix Tupaz still person is entitled under the law, the in USA but divorced and married a third time controversy shall be heard and decided as in April 16 1972 - Arturo died without a will ordinary cases". Petitioner, respondent, brother of Arturo and CA: Declared orders of trial court null and void a Lino Inciong wanted to be intestate heirs. and directed remand There was no hearing because respondent Petitioner came to Court to contest remand failed to acquire evience and documents were because no issue. not submitted. The period lapsed ISSUE: Is petitioner legitimate heir in light of TC: Without further hearing, held the doctrine in divorce? Tenchavez v. Escano. Divorce is not valid so SC: OKAYS REMAND marriage with petitioner still in effect until death. 1. Other children are undoubtedly heirs being Extrajudicial settlement is also invalidated acknowledged because of lack of judicial approval. Ruperto and 2. Trial court overlooked citizenship of petitioner petitioner intestate heirs and held equal at the time of divorce adjudication of estate. 3. Second marriage bigamous not heir

LLORENTE v CA DOCTRINE: If divorce is valid, wife can no longer inherit. FACTS:

Lorenzo, serviceman of the US Navy, visited his wife in the Philippines and discovered her pregnant and having an adulterous relationship with his brother. Wife, Paula, gave birth to a baby boy whose certificate stated that the child was illegitimate and the line of the fathers name was left blank. Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and the couple drew a written agreement wherein: (1) support for Paula would be suspended, (2) marital union would be dissolved in accordance with judicial proceedings, (3) a separate agreement would be made re: conjugal property, and (4) Lorenzo would not prosecute Paula for her adulterous acts. Lorenzo returned to the US and filed for divorce; wife was represented by counsel. Divorce was granted on 1952. He returned to the Philippines and on 1958 he married Alicia Llorente. Alicia lived in the same town as Lorenzos exwife but did not know of the latters previous relations with her new husband. Regardless, their 25-year union produced 3 children. On March of 1981, he wrote a will which was notarized which bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children. On January 1984, the court, finding that the will was duly executed, admitted the will to probate. However before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died. Paula then filed with the same court a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzos estate in her favor. Although Alicia filed a similar petition, RTC issued a joint decision awarding the testamentary dispositions of the will to Paula (because Lorenzos divorce to her was void and inapplicable in the Philippines) and the illegitimate children conceived through Alicia. This was later modified to classify only one child by Alicia as qualified to be considered illegitimate and Alicia herself to be declared as co-owner of whatever properties the couple may have acquired during their 25 years of cohabitation. The latter appealed, was denied by the CA, and thus the existence of current petition. Issue: WON Alicia is entitled to inherit from the late Lorenzo Llorente. Held/Ratio: Yes. The fact that Lorenzo became an American citizen, procured a divorce from Paula, married Alicia, executed his will, and then died is duly established and undisputed. The trial court and the CA disregarded the wills dispositions in favor of Alicia because they considered her a mere paramour. But the divorce should be recognized as a matter of comity. Now the effect of such a divorce is best determined by the trial court.

GARCIA v RECIO
DOCTRINE: 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. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. FACTS: On 1998, five years after the couples wedding A Filipino (Recio) was married to Editha Samson, and while the suit for the declaration of nullity an Australian citizen in 1987. In 1989, a decree of was pending respondent was able to secure a divorce purportedly dissolving the marriage was divorce decree from a family court in Australia issued by an Australian family court. based on breaking of marriage and not legal On 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen capacity of Recio. and married a Filipina (Garcia) in Cabanatuan City RTC: declared the marriage dissolved on 1994. The application for marriage license because the Australian divorce had ended the showed that Recio was single and Filipino. marriage. Garcia filed current petition in the Late 1995, couple started living separately. SC On May 1996, conjugal assets were divided in ISSUES: accordance with Statutory Declarations secured in (1) WON the divorce between Recio and Samson Australia. On 1998, Garcia filed a complaint to was proven nullify the marriage on the ground of bigamy, (2) WON Recio was legally capacitated to marry claiming that Recio had a subsisting marriage Garcia when they were married and that she only HELD: became aware of this on November of the (1) The divorce decree between respondent and preceding year. Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one Recio says otherwise and claims that his first issued by an Australian family court. Article 26 of marriage was dissolved by the Australian divorce the Family Code, marriages solemnized abroad decree, was legally capacitated to marry, and that are governed by the law of the place where they Garcia was aware of this as early as 1993. were celebrated (the lex loci celebrationis)

 However, appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the aforementioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated. Fortunately for respondents cause, when the divorce decree of May 18, 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City. The trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject to petitioners qualification. Hence, it was admitted in evidence and accorded weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioners failure to object properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Australia. Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary; respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. (2) Unknown. That the Australian divorce of the 1st marriage should be recognized in the Philippines may not be applicable in this case. Respondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree -- a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce. It is in effect the same as a separation from bed and board, although an

absolute divorce may follow after the lapse of the prescribed period during which no reconciliation is effected. The legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned. Since he is an Australian, none of the records he produced absolutely prove that he has legal capacity to marry on January 12, 1994. Australian law: A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy However, Garcias prayer to declare the marriage null and void based on bigamy cannot be granted because it may turn out that Recio did, in fact, have capacity to marry. To repeat, the legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned. Hence, the SC believes that the most judicious course is to remand this case to the trial court to receive evidence, if any, which show petitioners legal capacity to marry petitioner. Failing in that, then the court a quo may declare a nullity of the parties marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being already in evidence two existing marriage certificates. Divorces are of different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent.

DIEGO v CASTILLO
DOCTRINE: One who secured a foreign divorce, and later remarried in the Philippines, in the belief that the foreign divorce was valid, is liable for bigamy. Intent or belief in good faith will not excuse. FACTS: Lucena Escoto married Jorge de Perio. Thereafter, Perio secured a divorce decree from Texas dissolving their marriage. Lucena then married again to Perios brother. Jorge Perio filed a case of bigamy against Perio as divorce decree is not recognized in the Philippine jurisdiction. Respondent judge acquitted Lucena Escoto for failure of the STATE to prove accuseds guilt beyond whisper of doubt as there was no malice/intent associated with mala in se crimes. Jorge Perio charged respondent judge with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and/or gross ignorance of the law for acquitting the accused Lucena Escoto, in a bigamy case, giving credence to her defense that she acted without malicious intent. ISSUES: (1) Whether belief in good faith that divorce is valid acquits a person from the crime of bigamy (2) Whether respondent Judge should be held administratively liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and/or gross ignorance of the law HELD: (1) No. Good faith will not excuse anyone. (2)The Supreme Court ruled that there was no basis for the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, as malice or bad faith on the part of respondent was not proved. Malice or bad faith on the part of the judge in rendering an unjust decision must be proved and failure on the part of the complainant to prove the same warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint. DECISION: Anent the charge of gross ignorance of the law, the Court ruled that the error committed by respondent in rendering the decision in question was gross and patent and the same constitutes ignorance of the law of a nature sufficient to warrant disciplinary action. Thus, respondent was fined in the amount of ten thousand pesos.

REPUBLIC v ORBECIDO III

DOCTRINE: Parties, who at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree will be recognized.

FACTS: Orbecido married Villanueva in the Philippines and had two children. Villanueva, wife, left for the US, was naturalized and eventually remarried. Orbecido petitioned for authority to remarry using Par. 2 of Article 26, FC. No opposition. OSGs motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this appeal stating: that the questioned provision only applies to valid mixed marriages between Filipinos and aliens; that the remedy is annulment or legal separation; and that there is no law that governs respondents situation. ISSUE: 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 or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law?

HELD/RATIO: *Taking into consideration legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Par. 2 Art 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties, who at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce degree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. The reckoning point in the provision is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.