Persons Marriage Case 2
-
Upload
marione-john-seto -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Persons Marriage Case 2
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
1/37
2
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 155733 January 27, 2006
DE LA ROSA an o!"#r $E%RS O& LU%S
DELGADO,na'#(y, $E%RS O& CONC$A )DA.
DE ARE)ALO, $E%RS O& LU%SA DELGADO
)DA. DE DANAO, ANGELA DELGADO
ARESPACOC$AGA, TERESA DELGADO
PERLAS, CAROL%NA DELGADO*
ARESPACOC$AGA, RODOL&O DELGADO,
+ENJAM%N DELGADO, GL%CER%A DELGADO
an CLEO&AS DELGADO an $E%RS O&GORGON%O DELGADO, na'#(y, RAMON
DELGADO CAMPO, CARLOS DELGADO
CAMPO, CLAR%TA DELGADO CAMPO*
RE%-A, OLANDA DELGADO ENC%NAS,
&EL%SA DELGADO CAMPO*ENC%NAS an
MEL%NDA DELGADO CAMPO*MADARANG,
Petitioners,
vs.
$E%RS O& MARC%ANA RUST%A )DA. DE
DAM%AN, na'#(y, GU%LLERMO R. DAM%AN
an JOSE R. DAM%AN $E%RS O&
$ORTENC%A RUST%A CRU-, na'#(y,TERES%TA CRU-*S%SON, $ORAC%O R. CRU-,
JOSE&%NA CRU-*ROD%L, AMEL%A CRU-*
ENR%/UE- an &%DEL R. CRU-, JR. $E%RS
O& ROMAN RUST%A, SR., na'#(y, JOSE&%NA
RUST%A AL+ANO, )%RG%N%A RUST%A
PARA%SO, ROMAN RUST%A, JR., SERG%O
RUST%A, &RANC%SCO RUST%A, LET%C%A
RUST%A*M%RANDA an GU%LLERM%NA
RUST%A, a Oo!oran GU%LLERMA
RUST%A, a %n!#r#nor,2Respon!ents."
D E C I S I O N
FACTS OF THE CASE
#his case concerns the settle$ent of the intestate
estates of Gu((#r'o Ru!aan! Jo#4a D#(ao.%
T"# 'an u# n !" a# r#(a!#(y '(#
8"o, 9#!8##n #!!on#r an r#on#n!, ar# !"#
(a84u( "#r o4 !"# ###n!.&o'ever, it is
atten!e! b( several collateral issues that co$plicate
its resolution.
#he clai$ants to the estates of )uiller$o Rustia an!
*osefa Del+a!o $a( be !ivi!e! into t'o +roups -
the alle+e! heirs of *osefa Del+a!o, consistin+ of her
half/ an! full/bloo! siblin+s, nephe's an! nieces, an!+ran!nephe's an! +ran!nieces, an! -2 the alle+e!
heirs of )uiller$o Rustia, particularl(, his sisters,0
his nephe's an! nieces,1his ille+iti$ate chil!,an!
the de facto a!opte! chil!3-ampun-ampunan of the
!ece!ents.
T"# a((## "#r o4 Jo#4a D#(ao
#he !ecease! *osefa Del+a!o 'as the !au+hter of
4elisaDel+a!o b( one 5ucio Ca$po.
6si!e fro$ *osefa, five other chil!ren 'ere born tothe couple, na$el(, Na7ario, E!ilberta, *ose, *acoba,
an! )or+onio, all surna$e! Del+a!o. 4elisa Del+a!o
'as never $arrie! to Luo Ca'o-secon! $an,
hence, *osefa an! her full/bloo! siblin+s 'ere all
natural chil!ren of 4elisa Del+a!o.
&o'ever, 5ucio Ca$po 'as not the first an! onl(
$an in 4elisa Del+a!o8s life. 9efore hi$ 'as Ra$on
Osorio2'ith 'ho$ 4elisa ha! a son, 5uis Del+a!o.
9ut, unli:e her relationship 'ith 5ucio Ca$po 'hich
'as a!$itte!l( one 'ithout the benefit of $arria+e,
the le+al status of Ra$on Osorio8s an! 4elisaDel+a!o8s union is in !ispute.
5uis Del+a!o is *osefa Del+a!o8s half/brother. #he
son borne b( her $other to Ra$on Osorio,previous
$an.
#he ;uestion of 'hether 4elisa Del+a!o an! Ra$on
Osorio ever +ot $arrie! is crucial to the clai$ants
because the ans'er 'ill !eter$ine 'hether their
successional ri+hts fall 'ithin the a$bit of the rule
a+ainst reciprocal intestate succession bet'een
le+iti$ate an! ille+iti$ate relatives."
If Ra$on Osorio an! 4elisa Del+a!o ha! been
vali!l( $arrie!, then their onl( chil! 5uis Del+a!o
'as a le+iti$ate half/bloo! brother of *osefa Del+a!o
an! therefore e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
2/37
couple 'ere never $arrie!, 5uis Del+a!o an! his
heirs 'oul! be entitle! to inherit fro$ *osefa
Del+a!o8s intestate estate, as the( 'oul! all be 'ithin
the ille+iti$ate line.
Petitioners alle+e that Ra$on Osorio an! 4elisa
Del+a!o 'ere never $arrie!. In support thereof, the(assert that no evi!ence 'as ever presente! to
establish it, not even so $uch as an alle+ation of the
!ate or place of the alle+e! $arria+e. =hat is clear,
ho'ever, is that 4elisa retaine! the surna$e Del+a!o.
So !i! 5uis, her son 'ith Ra$on Osorio. 5ater on,
'hen 5uis +ot $arrie!, hisPartida de Casamiento>
state! that he 'as ?hijo natural de Felisa Delgado"
-the natural chil! of 4elisa Del+a!o,@si+nificantl(
o$ittin+ an( $ention of the na$e an! other
circu$stances of his father.%Nevertheless,
oppositors -no' respon!ents insist that !"# a9#n#
o4 a r#or o4 !"# a((## 'arra# no!n##ar(y '#an !"a! no 'arra# ##r !oo:
(a#.
*osefa Del+a!o !ie! on Septe$ber 1, 02 'ithout a
'ill. She 'as survive! b( )uiller$o Rustia an! so$e
collateral relatives, the petitioners herein. Several
$onths later, on *une @, 0", )uiller$o Rustia
e,
33>, @3" -V6 4or$ @2% file! 'ith theVeterans 6!$inistration of the nite! States
of 6$erica b( Dr. )uiller$o *. Rustia
'herein Dr. )uiller$o *. Rustia hi$self
Bs'ore to his $arria+e to *osefa Del+a!o in
Manila on " *une 1
>. #itles to real properties in the na$e of
)uiller$o Rustia in!icate! that he 'as
$arrie! to *osefa Del+a!o.
T"# a((## "#r o4 Gu((#r'o Ru!a
)uiller$o Rustia an! *osefa Del+a!o never ha! an(
chil!ren. =ith no chil!ren of their o'n, the( too:
into their ho$e the (oun+sters )uiller$ina Rustia
Rustia an! Nanie Rustia. #hese chil!ren, never
le+all( a!opte! b( the couple, 'ere 'hat 'as :no'n
in the local !ialect as ampun-ampunan.
*osefa Del+a!o !on8t have an( natural chil!ren.
Durin+ his life 'ith *osefa, ho'ever,Gu((#r'o
Ru!a 'ana# !o 4a!"#r an ((#!'a!# "(,
the intervenor/respon!ent Gu((#r'a Ru!a, 'ithone 6$paro Sa+arbarria. 6ccor!in+ to )uiller$a,
)uiller$o Rustia treate! her as his !au+hter, his o'n
flesh an! bloo!, an! she enAo(e! open an!
continuous possession of that status fro$ her birth in
23 until her father8s !e$ise. In fact, *osefa
Del+a!o8s obituar( 'hich 'as prepare! b( )uiller$o
Rustia, na$e! the intervenor/respon!ent as one of
their chil!ren. 6lso, her report car! fro$ the
2
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_155733_2006.html#fnt19 -
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
3/37
niversit( of Santo #o$as i!entifie! )uiller$o
Rustia as her parentF+uar!ian.23
Oppositors -respon!ents here nonetheless posit
-(verb)(logic) a proposition that is accepted as true
in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning that
)uiller$a Rustia has no interest in the intestate estateof )uiller$o Rustia as she 'as never !ul(
ac:no'le!+e! as an ille+iti$ate chil!. #he( conten!
that her ri+ht to co$pulsor( ac:no'le!+e$ent
prescribe! 'hen )uiller$o !ie! in 0> an! that she
cannot clai$ voluntar( ac:no'le!+e$ent since the
!ocu$ents she presente! 'ere not the authentic
'ritin+s prescribe! b( the ne' Civil Co!e.2
On *anuar( 0, 0>, $ore than a (ear after the !eath
of *osefa Del+a!o, )uiller$o Rustia file! a petition
for the a!option22of their ampun-ampunan
)uiller$ina Rustia. &e state! un!er oath ;
a 'ill. &e 'as survive! b( his sisters Marciana
Rustia vda. deDa$ian an! &ortencia Rustia/Cru7,
an! b( the chil!ren of his pre!ecease! brother
Ro$an Rustia Sr., na$el(, *osefina Rustia 6lbano,
Vir+inia Rustia Paraiso, Ro$an Rustia, *r., Ser+io
Rustia, 4rancisco Rustia an! 5eticia RustiaMiran!a.2>
Sur#'# Cour!> Ru(n
&ence, this recourse.
#he issues for our resolution are
. 'hether there 'as a vali! $arria+e
bet'een )uiller$o Rustia an! *osefa
Del+a!o
2. 'ho the le+al heirs of the !ece!ents
)uiller$o Rustia an! *osefa Del+a!o are
". 'ho shoul! be issue! letters of
a!$inistration.
#he $arria+e of )uiller$o Rustia an! *osefa
Del+a!o
6 presu$ption is an inference of the e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
4/37
al'a(s proof that no $arria+e in fact too: place.>3
Once the presu$ption of $arria+e arises, other
evi!ence $a( be presente! in support thereof. #he
evi!ence nee! not necessaril( or !irectl( establish the
$arria+e but $ust at least be enou+h to stren+then
the presu$ption of $arria+e. &ere, the certificate of
i!entit( issue! to *osefa Del+a!o as Mrs. )uiller$oRustia,>the passport issue! to her as *osefa D.
Rustia,>2the !eclaration un!er oath of no less than
)uiller$o Rustia that he 'as $arrie! to *osefa
Del+a!o>"an! the titles to the properties in the na$e
of ?)uiller$o Rustia $arrie! to *osefa Del+a!o,?
$ore than a!e;uatel( support the presu$ption of
$arria+e.#hese are public !ocu$ents 'hich are
prima facieevi!ence of the facts state! therein.>>No
clear an! convincin+ evi!ence sufficient to overco$e
the presu$ption of the truth of the recitals therein
'as presente! b( petitioners.
Second, Elisa vda. de6nson, petitioners8 o'n 'itness
'hose testi$on( the( pri$aril( relie! upon to
support their position, confir$e! that )uiller$o
Rustia ha! propose! $arria+e to *osefa Del+a!o an!
that eventuall(, the t'o ha! ?live! to+ether as
husban! an! 'ife.? #his a+ain coul! not but
stren+then the presu$ption of $arria+e.
Third, the baptis$al certificate>@'as conclusive
proof onl( of the baptis$ a!$inistere! b( the priest
'ho bapti7e! the chil!. It 'as no proof of the
veracit( of the !eclarations an! state$ents containe!therein,>%such as the alle+e! sin+le or un$arrie!
-?Seorita? civil status of *osefa Del+a!o 'ho ha!
no han! in its preparation.
Petitioners faile! to rebut the presu$ption of
$arria+e of )uiller$o Rustia an! *osefa Del+a!o.In
this Auris!iction, ##ry n!#n'#n! o4 !"# (a8 (#an
!o8ar (#!'?n 'a!r'ony. P#ron 8#((n
!o#!"#r aar#n!(y n 'arra# ar# r#u'# !o
9# n 4a! 'arr#. #his is the usual or!er of thin+s
in societ( an!, if the parties are not 'hat the( hol!
the$selves out to be, the( 'oul! be livin+ in constant
violation of the co$$on rules of la' an! propriet(.
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. 6l'a(s
presu$e $arria+e.>0
@$ERE&ORE, the petition -'hich see:s to
reinstate the Ma( , 3 !ecision of the R#C
Manila, 9ranch @@ is hereb( DEN%ED. #he assaile!
October 2>, 2332 !ecision of the Court of 6ppeals is
A&&%RMED 'ith the follo'in+ $o!ifications
. )uiller$o Rustia8s *une @, 0"
affi!avit of self/a!Au!ication is hereb(
ANNULLED.
2. the intestate estate of )uiller$o Rustia
shall inherit half of the intestate estate of
*osefa Del+a!o. #he re$ainin+ half shall
pertain to -a the full an! half/siblin+s of
*osefa Del+a!o 'ho survive! her an! -b the
chil!ren of an( of *osefa Del+a!o8s full/ or
half/siblin+s 'ho $a( have pre!ecease! her,
also survivin+ at the ti$e of her !eath.
*osefa Del+a!o8s +ran!nephe's an!
+ran!nieces are e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
5/37
"
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
#&IRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 13322 O!o9#r 2, 2001
GRACE J. GARC%A, a.:.a. GRACE J. GARC%A*
REC%O,petitioner,
vs.
REDER%CB A. REC%O, respon!ents.
PANGAN%+AN,J.
6 !ivorce obtaine! abroa! b( an alien $a( be
reco+ni7e! in our Auris!iction, provi!e! such !ecree
is vali! accor!in+ to the national la' of the forei+ner.
&o'ever, the !ivorce !ecree an! the +overnin+
personal la' of the alien spouse 'ho obtaine! the!ivorce 'u! 9# ro#n. Our courts !o not ta:e
Au!icial notice of forei+n la's an! Au!+$ent hence,
li:e an( other facts, both the !ivorce !ecree an! the
national la' of the alien $ust be alle+e! an! proven
accor!in+ to our la' on evi!ence.
T"# &a!
Re!eric: 6. Recio, a 4ilipino, 'as $arrie! to E!itha
Sa$son, an 6ustralian citi7en, in Malabon, Ri7al, on
March , 10.>#he( live! to+ether as husban! an!
'ife in 6ustralia.
On Ma( 1, 1,@a !ecree of !ivorce, purporte!l(
!issolvin+ the $arria+e, 'as issue! b( an 6ustralianfa$il( court.
On *une 2%, 2, respon!ent beca$e an 6ustralian
citi7en, as sho'n b( a ?Certificate of 6ustralian
Citi7enship? issue! b( the 6ustralian +overn$ent.%
Petitioner a 4ilipina an! respon!ent 'ere $arrie!
on *anuar( 2, > in Our 5a!( of Perpetual &elp
Church in Cabanatuan Cit(.0In their applicationfor a
$arria+e license, respon!ent 'as !eclare! as ?sin+le?
an! ?4ilipino.?1
On March ", 1, petitioner file! a Co$plaint for
Declaration of Nullit( of Marria+e3in the court a
uo, on the +roun! of bi+a$( respon!ent alle+e!l(
ha! a prior subsistin+ $arria+e at the ti$e he $arrie!
her on *anuar( 2, >. She clai$e! that she learne!
of respon!entJs $arria+e to E!itha Sa$son onl( in
Nove$ber, 0.
In his 6ns'er, respon!ent averre! that, as far bac: as
", he ha! reveale! to petitioner his prior $arria+e
andits subse;uent !issolution.&e conten!e! that
his first $arria+e to an 6ustralian citi7en ha! beenvali!l( !issolve! b( a !ivorce !ecree obtaine! in
6ustralian in 12thus, he 'as le+all( capacitate!
to $arr( petitioner in >.!#phi!.n$t
On *ul( 0, 1 or about five (ears after the
coupleJs 'e!!in+ an! 'hile the suit for the
!eclaration of nullit( 'as pen!in+ respon!ent 'as
able to secure a !ivorce !ecree fro$ a fa$il( court in
S(!ne(, 6ustralia because the ?$arria+e haB!
irretrievabl( bro:en !o'n.?"
Respon!ent pra(e! in his 6ns'er that theCo$plaine! be !is$isse! on the +roun! that it state!
no cause of action.>#he Office of the Solicitor
)eneral a+ree! 'ith respon!ent.@#he court $ar:e!
an! a!$itte! the !ocu$entar( evi!ence of both
parties.%6fter the( sub$itte! their respective
$e$oran!a, the case 'as sub$itte! for resolution.0
5
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
6/37
#hereafter, the trial court ren!ere! the assaile!
Decision an! Or!er.
Ru(n o4 !"# Tra( Cour!
#he trial court !eclare! the $arria+e !issolve! on the
+roun! that the !ivorce issue! in 6ustralia 'as vali!
an! reco+ni7e! in the Philippines. It !ee$e! the
$arria+e en!e!, but not on the basis of an( !efect in
an essential ele$ent of the $arria+e that is,
respondent%s alleged lac& of legal capacit' to
remarr'. Rather, it base! its Decision on the !ivorce
!ecree obtaine! b( respon!ent. #he 6ustralian
!ivorce ha! en!e! the $arria+e thus, there 'as no
$ore $artial union to nullif( or annual.
&ence, this Petition.1
%u#
Petitioner sub$its the follo'in+ issues for our
consi!eration
?I
#he trial court +ravel( erre! in fin!in+ that
the !ivorce !ecree obtaine! in 6ustralia b(
the respon!ent ipso factoter$inate! his first
$arria+e to E!itha Sa$son thereb(
capacitatin+ hi$ to contract a secon!
$arria+e 'ith the petitioner.
?2
#he failure of the respon!ent, 'ho is no' a
naturali7e! 6ustralian, to present a
certificate of le+al capacit( to $arr(
constitutes absence of a substantial re;uisite
voi!in+ the petitionerJ $arria+e to the
respon!ent.
?"
#he trial court seriousl( erre! in the
application of 6rt. 2% of the 4a$il( Co!e in
this case.
?>
#he trial court patentl( an! +rievousl( erre!
in !isre+ar!in+ 6rts. , ", 2, "@, >3, @2
an! @" of the 4a$il( Co!e as the applicable
provisions in this case.
?@
#he trial court +ravel( erre! in pronouncin+
that the !ivorce +ravel( erre! in
pronouncin+ that the !ivorce !ecree
obtaine! b( the respon!ent in 6ustralia ipso
facto-a!verb o 4a!o-b( that ver( fact or act
capacitate! the parties to re$arr(, 'ithout
first securin+ a reco+nition of the Au!+$ent
+rantin+ the !ivorce !ecree before our
courts.?
#he Petition raises five issues, but for purposes of
this Decision, 'e shall concentrate on t'o pivotalones - 'hether the !ivorce bet'een respon!ent
an! E!itha Sa$son 'as proven, an! -2 'hether
respon!ent 'as proven to be le+all( capacitate! to
$arr( petitioner. 9ecause of our rulin+ on these t'o,
there is no $ore necessit( to ta:e up the rest.
T"# Cour! Ru(n
#he Petition is partl( $eritorious.
&r! %u#
Proving the Divorce Between Respondent and
Editha Samson
Petitioner assails the trial courtJs reco+nition of the
!ivorce bet'een respon!ent an! E!itha Sa$son.
Citin+(dong v. Cheong Seng )ee,23petitioner ar+ues
that the !ivorce !ecree, li:e an( other forei+n
Au!+$ent, $a( be +iven reco+nition in this
Auris!iction onl( upon proof of the e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
7/37
;uestion to the le+al re;uire$ents of the place 'here
the $arria+e 'as perfor$e!.
6t the outset, 'e la( the follo'in+ basic le+al
principles as the ta:e/off points for our !iscussion.
Philippine la' !oes not provi!e for absolute !ivorce
hence, our courts cannot +rant it.26 $arria+ebet'een t'o 4ilipinos cannot be !issolve! even b( a
!ivorce obtaine! abroa!, because of 6rticles @22an!
02"of the Civil Co!e.2>In $i an! 2@ of Rule "2, on the other
han!, a 'ritin+ or !ocu$ent $a( be proven as a
public or official recor! of a forei+n countr( b( either
- an official publication or
-2 a cop( thereof atteste!""b( the officer havin+
le+al custo!( of the !ocu$ent. If the recor! is not:ept in the Philippines, such cop( $ust be
-a acco$panie! b( a certificate issue! b( the proper
!iplo$atic or consular officer in the Philippine
forei+n service statione! in the forei+n countr( in
'hich the recor! is :ept an!
-b authenticate! b( the seal of his office.">
7
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
8/37
#he !ivorce !ecree bet'een respon!ent an! E!itha
Sa$son appears to be an authentic one issue! b( an
6ustralian fa$il( court."@&o'ever, appearance is not
sufficient co$pliance 'ith the afore$etione! rules
on evi!ence $ust be !e$onstrate!.
4ortunatel( for respon!entJs cause, 'hen the !ivorce!ecree of Ma( 1, 1 'as sub$itte! in evi!ence,
counsel for petitioner obAecte!, not to its
a!$issibilit(, but onl( to the fact that it ha! not been
re+istere! in the 5ocal Civil Re+istr( of Cabanatuan
Cit(."%#he trial court rule! that it 'as a!$issible,
subAect to petitionerJs ;ualification."0&ence, it 'as
a!$itte! in evi!ence an! accor!e! 'ei+ht b( the
Au!+e. In!ee!, petitionerJs failure to obAect properl(
ren!ere! the !ivorce !ecree a!$issible as a 'ritten
act of the 4a$il( Court of S(!ne(, 6ustralia."1
Co$pliance 'ith the ;uote! articles -, " an! @2of the 4a$il( Co!e is not necessar(respon!ent 'as
no lon+er boun! b( Philippine personal la's after he
ac;uire! 6ustralian citi7enship in 2."
Naturali7ation is the le+al act of a!optin+ an alien
an! clothin+ hi$ 'ith the political an! civil ri+hts
belon+in+ to a citi7en.>3
Naturali7e! citi7ens, free! fro$ the protective cloa:
of their for$er states, !on the attires of their a!optive
countries. 9( beco$in+ an 6ustralian, respon!ent
severe! his alle+iance to the Philippines an! thevinculum juristhat ha! tie! hi$ to Philippine
personal la's.
Brden o! Proving Astra"ian #aw
#he bur!en of proof lies 'ith ?the part( 'ho alle+es
the eIn civil cases,
plaintiffs have the bur!en of provin+ the $aterial
alle+ations of the co$plaint 'hen those are !enie! b(the ans'er an! !efen!ants have the bur!en of
provin+ the $aterial alle+ations in their ans'er 'hen
the( intro!uce ne' $atters.>2Since the !ivorce 'as a
!efense raise! b( respon!ent, the bur!en of provin+
the pertinent 6ustralian la' vali!atin+ it falls
s;uarel( upon hi$.
It is 'ell/settle! in our Auris!iction that our courts
cannot ta:e Au!icial notice of forei+n la's.>"5i:e an(
other facts, the( $ust be alle+e! an! prove!.
6ustralian $arital la's are not a$on+ those $atters
that Au!+es are suppose! to :no' b( reason of their
Au!icial function.>>#he po'er of Au!icial notice $ust
be e@
#here is no sho'in+ in the case at bar 'hich t(pe of
!ivorce 'as procure! b( respon!ent.
Respon!ent presente! a !ecree nisi or an
interlocutor( !ecree a con!itional or provisional
Au!+$ent of !ivorce. It is in effect the sa$e as a
separation fro$ be! an! boar!, althou+h an absolute
!ivorce $a( follo' after the lapse of the prescribe!
perio! !urin+ 'hich no reconciliation is effecte!.>%
Even after the !ivorce beco$es absolute, the court
$a( un!er so$e forei+n statutes an! practices, still
8
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
9/37
restrict re$arria+e. n!er so$e other Auris!ictions,
re$arria+e $a( be li$ite! b( statute thus, the +uilt(
part( in a !ivorce 'hich 'as +rante! on the +roun!
of a!ulter( $a( be prohibite! fro$ re$arr(in+ a+ain.
#he court $a( allo' a re$arria+e onl( after proof of
+oo! behavior.>0
On its face, the herein 6ustralian !ivorce !ecree
contains a restriction that rea!s
?. 6 part( to a $arria+e 'ho $arries a+ain
before this !ecree beco$es absolute -unless
the other part( has !ie! co$$its the
offence of bi+a$(.?>1
#his ;uotation bolsters our contention that the
!ivorce obtaine! b( respon!ent $a( have been
restricte!. %! no! a9o(u!#(y #!a9(" " (#a(
aa!y !o r#'arry aorn !o " na!ona( (a8.&ence, 'e fin! no basis for the rulin+ of the trial
court, 'hich erroneousl( assu$e! that the 6ustralian
!ivorce ipso factorestore! respon!entJs capacit( to
re$arr( !espite the paucit( of evi!ence on this
$atter.
=e also reAect the clai$ of respon!ent that the
!ivorce !ecree raises a !isputable presu$ption or
presu$ptive evi!ence as to his civil status base! on
Section >1, Rule ">of the Rules of Court, for the
si$ple reason that no proof has been presente! on the
le+al effects of the !ivorce !ecree obtaine! un!er6ustralian la's.
Signi!icance o! the Certi!icate o! #ega" Capacit%
Petitioner ar+ues that the certificate of le+al capacit(
re;uire! b( 6rticle 2 of the 4a$il( Co!e 'as not
sub$itte! to+ether 'ith the application for a $arria+e
license. 6ccor!in+ to her, its absence is proof that
respon!ent !i! not have le+al capacit( to re$arr(.
=e clarif(. #o repeat, the le+al capacit( to contract
$arria+e is !eter$ine! b( the national la' of thepart( concerne!. #he certificate $entione! in 6rticle
2 of the 4a$il( Co!e 'oul! have been sufficient to
establish the le+al capacit( of respon!ent, ha! he
!ul( presente! it in court. 6 !ul( authenticate! an!
a!$itte! certificate is pri$a facie evi!ence of le+al
capacit( to $arr( on the part of the alien applicant
for a $arria+e license.@3
6s it is, ho'ever, there is absolutel( no evi!ence that
proves respon!entJs le+al capacit( to $arr( petitioner.
6 revie' of the recor!s before this Court sho's that
onl( the follo'in+ e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
10/37
obtaine! in the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro
Manila !ate! March , 10 an! the other, in
Cabanatuan Cit( !ate! *anuar( 2, >.
=&ERE4ORE, in the interest of or!erl( proce!ure
an! substantial Austice, 'eRE&A'Dthe case to the
court a uofor the purpose of receivin+ evi!ence'hich conclusivel( sho' respon!entJs le+al capacit(
to $arr( petitioner an! failin+ in that, of !eclarin+
the partiesJ $arria+e voi! on the +roun! of bi+a$(, as
above !iscusse!. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
>
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
4IRS# DIVISION
G.R. No. 1530 O!o9#r 5, 2005
REPU+L%C O& T$E P$%L%PP%NES,Petitioner,
vs.
C%PR%ANO OR+EC%DO %%%,Respon!ent.
D E C I S I O N
/U%SUM+%NG,J()
&a!
. On Ma( 2>, 1, Cipriano Orbeci!o III
$arrie! 5a!( M(ros M. Villanueva in the
Philippines 'as blesse! 'ith a son an! a
!au+hter.
2. In 1%,Cipriano8s 'ifeleft for the nite!
States an! !iscovere! that his 'ife ha! been
naturali7e! as an 6$erican citi7en.
". So$eti$e in 2333, Cipriano his 'ifeha!
obtaine! a !ivorce !ecree an! then $arrie!.
>. Cipriano thereafter file! 'ith the trial courta petition for authorit( to re$arr( invo:in+
Para+raph 2 of 6rticle 2% of the 4a$il(
Co!e.
%u#
=&E#&ER OR NO# RESPONDEN# C6N
REM6RRH NDER 6R#IC5E 2% O4 #&E
46MI5H CODE>
#he OS) conten!s that Para+raph 2 of 6rticle 2% of
the 4a$il( Co!e is not applicable to the instant casebecause it onl( applies to a vali! $i
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
11/37
4or his part, respon!ent a!$its that 6rticle 2% is not
!irectl( applicable to his case but insists that 'hen
his naturali7e! alien 'ife obtaine! a !ivorce !ecree
'hich capacitate! her to re$arr(, he is li:e'ise
capacitate! b( operation of la' pursuant to Section
2, 6rticle II of the Constitution.0
6t the outset, 'e note that the petition for authorit( to
re$arr( file! before the trial court actuall(
constitute! a petition for !eclarator( relief. In this
connection, Section , Rule %" of the Rules of Court
provi!es
R5E %"
DEC56R6#ORH RE5IE4 6ND SIMI56R
REMEDIES
Section . ho ma' file petition/6n( personintereste! un!er a !ee!, 'ill, contract or other 'ritten
instru$ent, or 'hose ri+hts are affecte! b( a statute,
e, -@an! -%, "%, "0 an! "1.
here a marriage bet#een a Filipino citi0en and a
foreigner is validl' celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validl' obtained abroad b' the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarr'1 the
Filipino spouse shall have capacit' to remarr' under
Philippine la#. -E$phasis supplie!
On its face, the fore+oin+ provision !oes not appear
to +overn the situation presente! b( the case at han!.
It see$s to appl( onl( to cases 'here at the ti$e ofthe celebration of the $arria+e, the parties are a
4ilipino citi7en an! a forei+ner. #he instant case is
one 'here at the ti$e the $arria+e 'as sole$ni7e!,
the parties 'ere t'o 4ilipino citi7ens, but later on, the
'ife 'as naturali7e! as an 6$erican citi7en an!
subse;uentl( obtaine! a !ivorce +rantin+ her capacit(
to re$arr(, an! in!ee! she re$arrie! an 6$erican
citi7en 'hile resi!in+ in the .S.6.
11
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/gr_154380_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/gr_154380_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/gr_154380_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/gr_154380_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/oct2005/gr_154380_2005.html#fnt8 -
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
12/37
Note'orth(, in the Report of the Public &earin+son
the 4a$il( Co!e, the Catholic 9ishops8 Conference
of the Philippines -C9CP re+istere! the follo'in+
obAections to Para+raph 2 of 6rticle 2%
. The rule is discriminator'. 2t discriminates against
those #hose spouses are Filipinos #ho divorce themabroad. These spouses #ho are divorced #ill not be
able to re-marr'1 #hile the spouses of foreigners #ho
validl' divorce them abroad can.
2. #his is the be+innin+ of the reco+nition of the
vali!it( of !ivorce even for 4ilipino citi7ens. 4or
those 'hose forei+n spouses vali!l( !ivorce the$
abroa! 'ill also be consi!ere! to be vali!l( !ivorce!
here an! can re/$arr(. =e propose that this be
!elete! an! $a!e into la' onl( after $ore
'i!esprea! consultation. -E$phasis supplie!.
L#(a!# %n!#n!
Recor!s of the procee!in+s of the 4a$il( Co!e
!eliberations sho'e! that the intent of Para+raph 2 of
6rticle 2%, accor!in+ to *u!+e 6licia Se$pio/Di(, a
$e$ber of the Civil Co!e Revision Co$$ittee, is to
avoi! the absur! situation 'here the 4ilipino spouse
re$ains $arrie! to the alien spouse 'ho, after
obtainin+ a !ivorce, is no lon+er $arrie! to the
4ilipino spouse.
Interestin+l(, Para+raph 2 of 6rticle 2% traces itsori+in to the 1@ case of +an Dorn v. ,omillo,r.3
#he +an Dorn case involve! a $arria+e bet'een a
4ilipino citi7en an! a forei+ner. #he Court hel!
therein that a !ivorce !ecree vali!l( obtaine! b( the
alien spouse is vali! in the Philippines, an!
conse;uentl(, the 4ilipino spouse is capacitate! to
re$arr( un!er Philippine la'.
Does the sa$e principle appl( to a case 'here at the
ti$e of the celebration of the $arria+e, the parties
'ere 4ilipino citi7ens, but later on, one of the$
obtains a forei+n citi7enship b( naturali7ationK
#he Aurispru!ential ans'er lies latent in the 1 case
of 3uita v. Court of (ppeals.In 3uita, the parties
'ere, as in this case, 4ilipino citi7ens 'hen the( +ot
$arrie!. #he 'ife beca$e a naturali7e! 6$erican
citi7en in @> an! obtaine! a !ivorce in the sa$e
(ear. #he Court therein hinte!, b( 'a( of obiter
dictum, that a 4ilipino !ivorce! b( his naturali7e!
forei+n spouse is no lon+er $arrie! un!er Philippine
la' an! can thus re$arr(.
#hus, ta:in+ into consi!eration the le+islative intent
an! appl(in+ the rule of reason, 'e hol! that
Para+raph 2 of 6rticle 2% shoul! be interprete! to
inclu!e cases involvin+ parties 'ho, at the ti$e of thecelebration of the $arria+e 'ere 4ilipino citi7ens, but
later on, one of the$ beco$es naturali7e! as a
forei+n citi7en an! obtains a !ivorce !ecree. #he
4ilipino spouse shoul! li:e'ise be allo'e! to
re$arr( as if the other part( 'ere a forei+ner at the
ti$e of the sole$ni7ation of the $arria+e. #o rule
other'ise 'oul! be to sanction absur!it( an!
inAustice. =here the interpretation of a statute
accor!in+ to its e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
13/37
6s fate 'oul! have it, the naturali7e! alien 'ife
subse;uentl( obtaine! a vali! !ivorce capacitatin+
her to re$arr(. Clearl(, the t'in re;uisites for the
application of Para+raph 2 of 6rticle 2% are both
present in this case.
#hus Cipriano, the ?!ivorce!? 4ilipino spouse, shoul!be allo'e! to re$arr(.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
5
G.R. No. 152577 S#!#'9#r 21, 2005
REPU+L%C O& T$E P$%L%PP%NES,Petitioners,
vs.
CRASUS L. %O,Respon!ent.
D E C I S I O N
C$%CO*NA-AR%O,J.
. Respon!ent Crasus $arrie! 4el(on % Dece$ber
%at 9ra!for! Me$orial Church, *ones 6venue,
Cebu Cit(. #he( ha! five chil!ren.
2. 6fter the celebration of their $arria+e, respon!ent
Crasus !iscovere! that 4el('as ?hot/te$pere!, a
na++er -(noun)soeone (especiall! a "oan)
"ho anno!s people b! constantl! #nding fault
an! e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
14/37
%. 4el(returne! to the Philippines several ti$es.
0. 6t the ti$e the Co$plaint 'as file!, it ha! been "
(ears since 4el( left an! aban!one! respon!ent
Crasus, an! there 'as no $ore possibilit( of
reconciliation bet'een the$.
1. Respon!ent Crasus finall( alle+e! in his
Co$plaint that 4el(8s acts brou+ht !an+er an!
!ishonor to the fa$il(, an! clearl( !e$onstrate! her
ps(cholo+ical incapacit( to perfor$ the essential
obli+ations of $arria+e. Such incapacit(, bein+
incurable an! continuin+, constitutes a +roun! for
!eclaration of nullit( of $arria+e un!er Ar!(# 36, in
relation to 6rticles %1, 03, an! 02, of the 4a$il(
Co!e of the Philippines.
. 4el(refute! the other alle+ations $a!e b(
respon!ent Crasus in his Co$plaint, that she 'as no$ore hot/te$pere! than an( nor$al person, an! she
$a( ha! been in!i+nant -(Adjective)$ho"inganger or indignation% especiall! at soething
un&ust or "rong' at respon!ent Crasus on certain
occasions but it 'as because of the latter8s
!run:enness, 'o$ani7in+,an! lac: of sincere effort
to fin! e$plo($ent an! to contribute to the
$aintenance of their househol!. She coul! not have
been e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
15/37
#he +roun! bearin+ !efen!ant8s ps(cholo+ical
incapacit( !eserves a reasonable consi!eration. 6s
observe!, plaintiff8s testi$on( is !eci!e!l( cre!ible.
#he Court fin!s that !efen!ant ha! in!ee! e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
16/37
It 'oul! be the hei+ht of unfairness if, un!er these
circu$stances, plaintiff 'oul! still be consi!ere! as
$arrie! to !efen!ant, +iven her total incapacit( to
honor her $arital covenants to the for$er.#o
con!e$n plaintiff to re$ain shac:le! in a $arria+e
that in truth an! in fact !oes not e1 of the
4a$il( Co!e of the Philippines authori7es the
prosecutin+ attorne( or fiscal assi+ne! to the trial
court, not the Solicitor )eneral, to intervene on
behalf of the State, in procee!in+s for annul$ent an!
!eclaration of nullit( of $arria+es.
6fter havin+ revie'e! the recor!s of this case an! the
applicable la's an! Aurispru!ence, this Court fin!s
the instant Petition to be $eritorious.
2
The totalit' of evidence presented during trial is
insufficient to support the finding of ps'chological
incapacit' of Fel'.
6rticle "%, conce!e!l( one of the $ore controversial
provisions of the 4a$il( Co!e of the Philippines,
rea!s
6R#. "%. 6 $arria+e contracte! b( an( part( 'ho, at
the ti$e of the celebration, 'as ps(cholo+icall(
incapacitate! to co$pl( 'ith the essential $arital
obli+ations of $arria+e, shall li:e'ise be voi! even if
such incapacit( beco$es $anifest onl( after itssole$ni7ation.
Issues $ost co$$onl( arise as to 'hat constitutes
ps(cholo+ical incapacit(. In a series of cases, this
Court lai! !o'n +ui!elines for !eter$inin+ its
e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
17/37
-a )ravit( It $ust be +rave or serious such that the
part( 'oul! be incapable of carr(in+ out the or!inar(
!uties re;uire! in a $arria+e
-b *uri!ical 6ntece!ence It $ust be roote! in the
histor( of the part( ante!atin+ the $arria+e, althou+h
the overt $anifestations $a( e$er+e onl( after the$arria+e an!
-c Incurabilit( It $ust be incurable or, even if it
'ere other'ise, the cure 'oul! be be(on! the $eans
of the part( involve!.22
More !efinitive +ui!elines in the interpretation an!
application of 6rticle "% of the 4a$il( Co!e of the
Philippines 'ere han!e! !o'n b( this Court in
,epublic v. Court of (ppeals and 4olina,2"'hich,
althou+h ;uite len+th(, b( its si+nificance, !eserves
to be repro!uce! belo'
- #he bur!en of proof to sho' the nullit( of the
$arria+e belon+s to the plaintiff. 6n( !oubt shoul!
be resolve! in favor of the e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
18/37
Philippines, 'hile not controllin+ or !ecisive, shoul!
be +iven +reat respect b( our courtsL
-1 #he trial court $ust or!er the prosecutin+ attorne(
or fiscal an! the Solicitor )eneral to appear as
counsel for the state. No !ecision shall be han!e!
!o'n unless the Solicitor )eneral issues acertification, 'hich 'ill be ;uote! in the !ecision,
briefl( statin+ therein his reasons for his a+ree$ent
or opposition, as the case $a( be, to the petition. #he
Solicitor )eneral, alon+ 'ith the prosecutin+
attorne(, shall sub$it to the court such certification
'ithin fifteen -@ !a(s fro$ the !ate the case is
!ee$e! sub$itte! for resolution of the court. #he
Solicitor )eneral shall !ischar+e the e;uivalent
function of the defensor vinculiconte$plate! un!er
Canon [email protected]>
6 later case,4arcos v. 4arcos,2@
further clarifie! thatthere is no re;uire$ent that the !efen!antFrespon!ent
spouse shoul! be personall( e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
19/37
In an( case, an( !oubt shall be resolve! in favor of
the vali!it( of the $arria+e."No less than the
Constitution of 10 sets the polic( to protect an!
stren+then the fa$il( as the basic social institution
an! $arria+e as the foun!ation of the fa$il(."2
22
(rticle 561 paragraph 5 of the Famil' Code of the
Philippines is not applicable to the case at bar.
6ccor!in+ to 6rticle 2%, para+raph 2 of the 4a$il(
Co!e of the Philippines
=here a $arria+e bet'een a 4ilipino citi7en an! a
forei+ner is vali!l( celebrate! an! a !ivorce is
thereafter vali!l( obtaine! abroa! b( the alien spouse
capacitatin+ hi$ or her to re$arr(, the 4ilipino
spouse shall li:e'ise have capacit( to re$arr( un!erPhilippine la'.
6s it is 'or!e!, 6rticle 2%, para+raph 2, refers to a
special situation 'herein one of the couple +ettin+
$arrie! is a 4ilipino citi7en an! the other a forei+ner
at the ti$e the $arria+e 'as celebrate!. +y ! (an
an (!#ra( n!#rr#!a!on, !"# a roon
anno! 9# a(# !o !"# a# o4 r#on#n! Crau
an " 84# (y 9#au# a! !"# !'# (y
o9!an# "#r or#, "# 8a !(( a &(no
!?#n.6lthou+h the e1 of the 4a$il( Co!e of the
Philippines, respon!ent Crasus ar+ue! that onl( the
prosecutin+ attorne( or fiscal assi+ne! to the R#C$a( intervene on behalf of the State in procee!in+s
for annul$ent or !eclaration of nullit( of $arria+es
hence, the Office of the Solicitor )eneral ha! no
personalit( to file the instant Petition on behalf of the
State. 6rticle >1 provi!es
6R#. >1. In all cases of annul$ent or !eclaration of
absolute nullit( of $arria+e, the Court shall or!er the
prosecutin+ attorne( or fiscal assi+ne! to it to appear
on behalf of the State to ta:e steps to prevent
collusion bet'een the parties an! to ta:e care that the
evi!ence is not fabricate! or suppresse!.
#hat 6rticle >1 !oes not e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
20/37
Philippines once the case is brou+ht before this Court
or the Court of 6ppeals."@=hile it is the prosecutin+
attorne( or fiscal 'ho activel( participates, on behalf
of the State, in a procee!in+ for annul$ent or
!eclaration of nullit( of $arria+e before the R#C, the
Office of the Solicitor )eneral ta:es over 'hen the
case is elevate! to the Court of 6ppeals or this Court.Since it shall be eventuall( responsible for ta:in+ the
case to the appellate courts 'hen circu$stances
!e$an!, then it is onl( reasonable an! practical that
even 'hile the procee!in+ is still bein+ hel! before
the R#C, the Office of the Solicitor )eneral can
alrea!( e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
21/37
-" #he !ecision beco$es final upon the e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
22/37
%.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
#&IRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 16571 Auu! 11, 2010
GER+ERT R. CORPU-,Petitioner,
vs.
DA%SLN T%ROL STO. TOMAS an T"#
SOL%C%TOR GENERAL,Respon!ents.
D E C I S I O N
+R%ON,J()
9efore the Court is a !irect appeal fro$ the !ecision
of the Re+ional #rial Court -R#C of 5aoa+ Cit(,
9ranch , elevate! via a petition for revie' on
certiorari2un!er Rule >@ of the Rules of Court
-present petition.
Petitioner )erbert R. Corpu7 'as a for$er 4ilipino
citi7en 'ho ac;uire! Cana!ian citi7enship throu+h
naturali7ation onNove$ber 2, 2333."On *anuar(
1, 233@,)erbert $arrie! respon!ent Dais(l(n #.
Sto. #o$as, a 4ilipina, in Pasi+ Cit(.>
&e returne! to the Philippines so$eti$e in 6pril233@ to surprise Dais(l(n, but 'as shoc:e! to
o#rthat his 'ife 'as havin+ an affair 'ith
another $an.
&urt an! !isappointe!, )erbert returne! to Cana!a
an! file! a petition for !ivorce.#he Superior Court of
*ustice, =in!sor, Ontario, Cana!a +rante! )erbert8s
petition for !ivorce on Dece$ber 1, 233@. #he
!ivorce !ecree too: effect a $onth later, on *anuar(
1, 233%.@
#'o (ears after the !ivorce, )erbert has $ove! on
an! has foun! another 4ilipina to love. Desirous of
$arr(in+ his ne' 4ilipina fiance in the Philippines,
)erbert 'ent to the Pasi+ Cit( Civil Re+istr( Officean! re+istere! the Cana!ian !ivorce !ecree on his
an! Dais(l(n8s $arria+e certificate. Despite the
re+istration of the !ivorce !ecree, an official of the
National Statistics Office -NSO infor$e! )erbert
that the $arria+e bet'een hi$ an! Dais(l(n still
subsists un!er Philippine la' to be enforceable, the
4or#n or# #r## 'u! 4r! 9# ua((y
r#on?# 9y a o'#!#n! P"(n# our!,
pursuant to NSO Circular No. >, series of 12.%
6ccor!in+l(, )erbert file! a #!!on 4or ua(
r#on!on o4 4or#n or#an!For #(ara!on o4'arra# a o(# -petition 'ith the R#C.
6lthou+h su$$one!, Dais(l(n !i! not file an(
responsive plea!in+ but sub$itte! instea! a notari7e!
letterF$anifestation to the trial court. She offere! no
opposition to )erbert8s petition an!, in fact, alle+e!
her !esire to file a si$ilar case herself but 'as
prevente! b( financial an! personal circu$stances.
She, thus, re;ueste! that she be consi!ere! as a part(/
in/interest 'ith a si$ilar pra(er to )erbert8s.
R#ona( Tra( Cour!> Ru(n
In its October "3, 2331 !ecision,0the RTC #n#
)erbert8s petition. #he R#C conclu!e! that G#r9#r!
8a no! !"# ro#r ar!y !o n!!u!# !"# a!on 4or
ua( r#on!on o4 !"# 4or#n or# #r##
a "# a na!ura(?# Canaan !?#n. It rule! that
on(y !"# &(no ou# an aa( o4 !"# r#'#y,
un#r !"# #on arara" o4 Ar!(# 26of the
4a$il( Co!e,1in or!er for hi$ or her to be able to
re$arr( un!er Philippine la'.6rticle 2% of the
4a$il( Co!e rea!s
6rt. 2%. 6ll $arria+es sole$ni7e! outsi!e thePhilippines, in accor!ance 'ith the la's in force in
the countr( 'here the( 'ere sole$ni7e!, an! vali!
there as such, shall also be vali! in this countr(,
e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
23/37
thereafter vali!l( obtaine! abroa! b( the alien spouse
capacitatin+ hi$ or her to re$arr(, the 4ilipino
spouse shall li:e'ise have capacit( to re$arr( un!er
Philippine la'.
#his conclusion, the R#C state!, is consistent 'ith
the le+islative intent behin! the enact$ent of thesecon! para+raph of 6rticle 2% of the 4a$il( Co!e,
as !eter$ine! b( the Court in Republic v. Orbeci!o
III3the provision 'as enacte! to ?avoi! the absur!
situation 'here the 4ilipino spouse re$ains $arrie!
to the alien spouse 'ho, after obtainin+ a !ivorce, is
no lon+er $arrie! to the 4ilipino spouse.?
#&E PE#I#ION
4ro$ the R#C8s rulin+,2)erbert file! the present
petition."
)erbert asserts that his petition before the R#C is
essentiall( for !eclarator( relief, si$ilar to that file!
in Orbeci!o he, thus, si$ilarl( as:s for a
!eter$ination of his ri+hts un!er the secon!
para+raph of 6rticle 2% of the 4a$il( Co!e. #a:in+
into account the rationale behin! the secon!
para+raph of 6rticle 2% of the 4a$il( Co!e, he
conten!s that the provision applies as 'ell to the
benefit of the alien spouse. &e clai$s that the R#C
rulin+ un!ul( stretche! the !octrine in Orbeci!o b(
li$itin+ the stan!in+ to file the petition onl( to the
4ilipino spouse an interpretation he clai$s to becontrar( to the essence of the secon! para+raph of
6rticle 2% of the 4a$il( Co!e. &e consi!ers hi$self
as a proper part(, veste! 'ith sufficient le+al interest,
to institute the case, as there is a possibilit( that he
$i+ht be prosecute! for bi+a$(if he $arries his
4ilipina fiance in the Philippines since t'o $arria+e
certificates, involvin+ hi$, 'oul! be on file 'ith the
Civil Re+istr( Office.#he Office of the Solicitor
)eneral an! Dais(l(n, in their respective
Co$$ents,>both support )erbert8s position.
Essentiall(, the petition raises the issue of 'hetherthe secon! para+raph of 6rticle 2% of the 4a$il(
Co!e e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
24/37
#o $aintain < < < that, un!er our la's, Bthe 4ilipino
spouse has to be consi!ere! still $arrie! to Bthe alien
spouse an! still subAect to a 'ifeJs obli+ations < <
On > *anuar( 23, 4uAi:i file! a petition in the
R#C entitle! ?*u!icial Reco+nition of 4orei+n
*u!+$ent -or Decree of 6bsolute Nullit( of
Marria+e.? 4uAi:i pra(e! that - the *apanese
4a$il( Court Au!+$ent be reco+ni7e! -2 that thebi+a$ous $arria+e bet'een Marina( an! Mae:ara be
!eclare! voi! ab initioun!er 6rticles "@-> an! > of
the 4a$il( Co!e of the Philippines@an! -" for the
R#C to !irect the 5ocal Civil Re+istrar of ue7on
Cit( to annotate the *apanese 4a$il( Court Au!+$ent
on the Certificate of Marria+e bet'een Marina( an!
Mae:ara an! to en!orse such annotation to the Office
of the 6!$inistrator an! Civil Re+istrar )eneral in
the National Statistics Office -NSO.%
T"# Ru(n o4 !"# R#ona( Tra( Cour!
6 fe' !a(s after the filin+ of the petition, the R#C
i$$e!iatel( issue! an Or!er !is$issin+ the petition
an! 'ith!ra'in+ the case fro$ its active civil
!oc:et.0#he R#C cite! the follo'in+ provisions of
the Rule on Declaration of 6bsolute Nullit( of Voi!
Marria+es an! 6nnul$ent of Voi!able Marria+es
-6.M. No. 32//3/SC
Sec. 2. Petition for !eclaration of absolute nullit( of
voi! $arria+es.
-a ho ma' file. 6 petition for !eclaration ofabsolute nullit( of voi! $arria+e $a( be file! solel(
b( the husban! or the 'ife.
< < < . +enue. #he petition shall be file! in the
4a$il( Court of the province or cit( 'here the
petitioner or the respon!ent has been resi!in+ for at
least si< $onths prior to the !ate of filin+, or in the
case of a non/resi!ent respon!ent, 'here he $a( be
foun! in the Philippines, at the election of the
petitioner. < < " of the
Civil Co!e.%#he Civil Re+ister 5a' i$poses a !ut(
on the ?successful petitioner for !ivorce or annul$ent
of $arria+e to sen! a cop( of the final !ecree of the
court to the local re+istrar of the $unicipalit( 'here
the !issolve! or annulle! $arria+e 'assole$ni7e!.?0Section 2 of Rule 31 provi!es that
entries in the civil re+istr( relatin+ to ?$arria+es,?
?Au!+$ents of annul$ents of $arria+e? an!
?Au!+$ents !eclarin+ $arria+es voi! fro$ the
be+innin+? are subAect to cancellation or correction.1
#he petition in the R#C sou+ht -a$on+ others to
annotate the Au!+$ent of the *apanese 4a$il( Court
on the certificate of $arria+e bet'een Marina( an!
Mae:ara.
4uAi:i8s $otion for reconsi!eration in the R#C also
asserte! that the trial court ?+ravel( erre!? 'hen, onits o'n, it !is$isse! the petition base! on i$proper
venue. 4uAi:i state! that the R#C $a( be confusin+
the concept of venue 'ith the concept of Auris!iction,
because it is lac: of Auris!iction 'hich allo's a court
to !is$iss a case on its o'n. 4uAi:i cite!Daco'co' v.
2ntermediate (ppellate Court'hich hel! that the
?trial court cannot pre/e$pt the !efen!ant8s
prero+ative to obAect to the i$proper la(in+ of the
venue b( $otu proprio -on his o'n i$pulse of oneJs
o'n initiative !is$issin+ the case.?23Moreover,
petitioner alle+e! that the trial court shoul! not have
?i$$e!iatel( !is$isse!? the petition un!er Section @
of 6.M. No. 32//3/SC because he substantiall(
co$plie! 'ith the provision.
On 2 March 23, the R#C resolve! to !en(
petitioner8s $otion for reconsi!eration. In its
Resolution, the R#C state! that 6.M. No. 32//3/
SC applies because the petitioner, in effect, pra(s for
a !ecree of absolute nullit( of $arria+e.2#he trial
court reiterate! its t'o +roun!s for !is$issal, i.e. lac:
of personalit( to sue an! i$proper venue un!er
Sections 2-a an! > of 6.M. No. 32//3/SC. #he
R#C consi!ere! 4uAi:i as a ?thir! person?22in the
procee!in+ because he ?is not the husban! in the
!ecree of !ivorce issue! b( the *apanese 4a$il(
Court, 'hich he no' see:s to be Au!iciall(
reco+ni7e!,< <
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
30/37
Bthe subse;uent spouse $a( onl( be e3'hich !eclare! that
?Bthe vali!it( of a voi! $arria+e $a( be collaterall(
attac:e!.?>
Marina( an! Mae:ara in!ivi!uall( sent letters to the
Court to co$pl( 'ith the !irective for the$ to
co$$ent on the petition.>2Mae:ara 'rote that
Marina( conceale! fro$ hi$ the fact that she 'as
previousl( $arrie! to 4uAi:i.>"Mae:ara also !enie!
that he inflicte! an( for$ of violence on Marina(.>>
On the other han!, Marina( 'rote that she ha! noreason to oppose the petition.>@She 'oul! li:e to
$aintain her silence for fear that an(thin+ she sa(
$i+ht cause $isun!erstan!in+ bet'een her an!
4uAi:i.>%
T"# %u#
Petitioner raises the follo'in+ le+al issues
- =hether the Rule on Declaration of
6bsolute Nullit( of Voi! Marria+es an!
6nnul$ent of Voi!able Marria+es -6.M.No. 32//3/SC is applicable.
-2 =hether a husban! or 'ife of a prior
$arria+e can file a petition to reco+ni7e a
forei+n Au!+$ent nullif(in+ the subse;uent
$arria+e bet'een his or her spouse an! a
forei+n citi7en on the +roun! of bi+a$(.
-" =hether the Re+ional #rial Court can
reco+ni7e the forei+n Au!+$ent in a
procee!in+ for cancellation or correction of
entries in the Civil Re+istr( un!er Rule 31of the Rules of Court.
T"# Ru(n o4 !"# Cour!
=e +rant the petition.
#he Rule on Declaration of 6bsolute Nullit( of Voi!
Marria+es an! 6nnul$ent of Voi!able Marria+es
-6.M. No. 32//3/SC !oes not appl( in a petition
to reco+ni7e a forei+n Au!+$ent relatin+ to the status
of a $arria+e 'here one of the parties is a citi7en of a
forei+n countr(. Moreover, inuliano-;lave v.,epublic,>0this Court hel! that the rule in 6.M. No.
32//3/SC that onl( the husban! or 'ife can file a
!eclaration of nullit( or annul$ent of $arria+e ?!oes
not appl( if the reason behin! the petition is
bi+a$(.?>1
%.
30
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt48 -
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
31/37
4or Philippine courts to reco+ni7e a forei+n Au!+$ent
relatin+ to the status of a $arria+e 'here one of the
parties is a citi7en of a forei+n countr(, the petitioner
onl( nee!s to prove the forei+n Au!+$ent as a fact
un!er the Rules of Court. #o be $ore specific, a cop(
of the forei+n Au!+$ent $a( be a!$itte! in evi!ence
an! proven as a fact un!er Rule "2, Sections 2> an!2@, in relation to Rule ", Section >1-b of the Rules
of Court.>Petitioner $a( prove the *apanese 4a$il(
Court Au!+$ent throu+h - an official publication or
-2 a certification or cop( atteste! b( the officer 'ho
has custo!( of the Au!+$ent. If the office 'hich has
custo!( is in a forei+n countr( such as *apan, the
certification $a( be $a!e b( the proper !iplo$atic
or consular officer of the Philippine forei+n service in
*apan an! authenticate! b( the seal of office.@3
#o hol! that 6.M. No. 32//3/SC applies to a
petition for reco+nition of forei+n Au!+$ent 'oul!$ean that the trial court an! the parties shoul! follo'
its provisions, inclu!in+ the for$ an! contents of the
petition,@the service of su$$ons,@2the investi+ation
of the public prosecutor,@"the settin+ of pre/trial,@>the
trial@@an! the Au!+$ent of the trial court.@%#his is
absur! because it 'ill liti+ate the case ane'. It 'ill
!efeat thepurpose of reco+ni7in+ forei+n Au!+$ents,
'hichis ?to li$it repetitive liti+ation on clai$s an!
issues.?@0#he interpretation of the R#C is tanta$ount
to reliti+atin+ the case on the $erits. In4ijares v.
,aada,@1this Court e1-b, Rule " of the Rules of Court provi!es
that a forei+n Au!+$ent or final or!er a+ainst a person
creates a ?presu$ptive evi!ence of a ri+ht as bet'een
the parties an! their successors in interest b( a
subse;uent title.? Moreover, Section >1 of the Rules
of Court states that ?the Au!+$ent or final or!er $a(
be repelle! b( evi!ence of a 'ant of Auris!iction,
'ant of notice to the part(, collusion, frau!, or clear
$ista:e of la' or fact.? #hus, Philippine courts
e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
32/37
Since 22 in(dong v. Cheong Seng )ee1%"
Philippine courts have reco+ni7e! forei+n !ivorce
!ecrees bet'een a 4ilipino an! a forei+n citi7en if
the( are successfull( proven un!er the rules of
evi!ence.%>Divorce involves the !issolution of a
$arria+e, but the reco+nition of a forei+n !ivorce
!ecree !oes not involve the e1-b of the Rules of
Court.
%%.
Since the reco+nition of a forei+n Au!+$ent onl(
re;uires proof of fact of the Au!+$ent, it $a( be
$a!e in a special procee!in+ for cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil re+istr( un!er Rule
31 of the Rules of Court. Rule , Section " of the
Rules of Court provi!es that ?Ba special procee!in+
is a re$e!( b( 'hich a part( see:s to establish astatus, a ri+ht, or a particular fact.? Rule 31 creates a
re$e!( to rectif( facts of a person8s life 'hich are
recor!e! b( the State pursuant to the Civil Re+ister
5a' or 6ct No. "0@". #hese are facts of public
conse;uence such as birth, !eath or $arria+e,%%'hich
the State has an interest in recor!in+. 6s note! b( the
Solicitor )eneral, in Corpu0 v. Sto. Tomasthis Court
!eclare! that ?Bthe reco+nition of the forei+n !ivorce
!ecree $a( be $a!e in a Rule 31 procee!in+ itself,
as the obAect of special procee!in+s -such as that in
Rule 31 of the Rules of Court is precisel( to
establish the status or ri+ht of a part( or a particularfact.?%0
Rule 31, Section of the Rules of Court states
Sec. . ho ma' file petition. G 6n( person
n!#r#!#in an( a!, ##n!, or#r or #r##
concernin+ the ( !a!u o4 #ron 8"" "a
9##n r#or# n !"# ( r#!#r,$a( file a
verifie! petition for the cancellation or correction of
an( entr( relatin+ thereto, 'ith the Re+ional #rial
Court of the province 'here the correspon!in+ civil
re+istr( is locate!. -E$phasis supplie!
4uAi:i has the personalit( to file a petition to
reco+ni7e the *apanese 4a$il( Court Au!+$ent
nullif(in+ the $arria+e bet'een Marina( an!
Mae:ara on the +roun! of bi+a$( because the
Au!+$ent concerns his civil status as $arrie! to
Marina(. 4or the sa$e reason he has the personalit(
to file a petition un!er Rule 31 to cancel the entr( of
$arria+e bet'een Marina( an! Mae:ara in the civil
re+istr( on the basis of the !ecree of the *apanese
4a$il( Court.
#here is no !oubt that the prior spouse has a personal
an! $aterial interest in $aintainin+ the inte+rit( of
the $arria+e he contracte! an! the propert( relations
arisin+ fro$ it. #here is also no !oubt that he is
intereste! in the cancellation of an entr( of a
bi+a$ous $arria+e in the civil re+istr(, 'hich
co$pro$ises the public recor! of his $arria+e. #he
interest !erives fro$ the substantive ri+ht of the
32
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt67 -
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
33/37
spouse not onl( to preserve -or !issolve, in li$ite!
instances%1 his $ost inti$ate hu$an relation, but
also to protect his propert( interests that arise b(
operation of la' the $o$ent he contracts $arria+e.%
#hese propert( interests in $arria+e inclu!e the ri+ht
to be supporte! ?in :eepin+ 'ith the financial
capacit( of the fa$il(?03an! preservin+ the propert(re+i$e of the $arria+e.0
Propert( ri+hts are alrea!( substantive ri+hts
protecte! b( the Constitution,02but a spouse8s ri+ht in
a $arria+e e of the 4a$il( Co!e, bi+a$ous $arria+es arevoi! fro$ the be+innin+. #hus, the parties in a
bi+a$ous $arria+e are neither the husban! nor the
'ife un!er the la'. #he husban! or the 'ife of the
prior subsistin+ $arria+e is the one 'ho has the
personalit( to file a petition for !eclaration of
absolute nullit( of voi! $arria+e un!er Section 2-a
of 6.M. No. 32//3/SC.
6rticle "@-> of the 4a$il( Co!e, 'hich !eclares
bi+a$ous $arria+es voi! fro$ the be+innin+, is the
civil aspect of 6rticle "> of the Revise! Penal
Co!e,0%'hich penali7es bi+a$(. 9i+a$( is a public
cri$e. #hus, an(one can initiate prosecution for
bi+a$( because an( citi7en has an interest in the
prosecution an! prevention of cri$es.00If an(one can
file a cri$inal action 'hich lea!s to the !eclaration of
nullit( of a bi+a$ous $arria+e,01there is $ore reason
to confer personalit( to sue on the husban! or the
'ife of a subsistin+ $arria+e. #he prior spouse !oes
not onl( share in the public interest of prosecutin+
an! preventin+ cri$es, he is also personall(
intereste! in the purel( civil aspect of protectin+ his
$arria+e.
=hen the ri+ht of the spouse to protect his $arria+e
is violate!, the spouse is clearl( an inAure! part( an!
is therefore intereste! in the Au!+$ent of the suit.0uliano-;laverule! that the prior spouse ?is clearl(
the a++rieve! part( as the bi+a$ous $arria+e not
onl( threatens the financial an! the propert(
o'nership aspect of the prior $arria+e but $ost of
all, it causes an e$otional bur!en to the prior
spouse.?139ein+ a real part( in interest, the prior
spouse is entitle! to sue in or!er to !eclare a
bi+a$ous $arria+e voi!. 4or this purpose, he can
petition a court to reco+ni7e a forei+n Au!+$ent
nullif(in+ the bi+a$ous $arria+e an! Au!iciall(
!eclare as a fact that such Au!+$ent is effective in the
Philippines. Once establishe!, there shoul! be no$ore i$pe!i$ent to cancel the entr( of the bi+a$ous
$arria+e in the civil re+istr(.
%%%.
In8ra0a v. The Cit' Civil ,egistrar of 9imama'lan
Cit'1 7egros :ccidental, this Court hel! that a ?trial
court has no Auris!iction to nullif( $arria+es? in a
special procee!in+ for cancellation or correction of
entr( un!er Rule 31 of the Rules of Court.1#hus,
the ?vali!it( of $arria+eB < < < can be ;uestione!
onl( in a !irect action? to nullif( the $arria+e.12
#heR#C relie! on8ra0ain !is$issin+ the petition for
reco+nition of forei+n Au!+$ent as a collateral attac:
on the $arria+e bet'een Marina( an! Mae:ara.
8ra0ais not applicable because8ra0a!oes not
involve a reco+nition of a forei+n Au!+$ent
nullif(in+ a bi+a$ous $arria+e 'here one of the
parties is a citi7en of the forei+n countr(.
#o be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of
an entr( in the civil re+istr( cannot substitute for an
action to invali!ate a $arria+e. 6 !irect action isnecessar( to prevent circu$vention of the substantive
an! proce!ural safe+uar!s of $arria+e un!er the
4a$il( Co!e, 6.M. No. 32//3/SC an! other
relate! la's. 6$on+ these safe+uar!s are the
re;uire$ent of provin+ the li$ite! +roun!s for the
!issolution of $arria+e,1"supportpendente lite of the
spouses an! chil!ren,1>the li;ui!ation, partition an!
!istribution of the properties of the spouses,1@an! the
33
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_196049_2013.html#fnt85 -
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
34/37
investi+ation of the public prosecutor to !eter$ine
collusion.1%6 !irect action for !eclaration of nullit(
or annul$ent of $arria+e is also necessar( to prevent
circu$vention of the Auris!iction of the 4a$il(
Courts un!er the 4a$il( Courts 6ct of 0
-Republic 6ct No. 1"%, as a petition for
cancellation or correction of entries in the civilre+istr( $a( be file! in the Re+ional #rial Court
?'here the correspon!in+ civil re+istr( is locate!.?10
In other 'or!s, a 4ilipino citi7en cannot !issolve his
$arria+e b( the $ere e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
35/37
public polic( as e of the Revise! Penal
Co!e. #he 4ilipino spouse has the option to un!er+o
full trial b( filin+ a petition for !eclaration of nullit(
of $arria+e un!er 6.M. No. 32//3/SC, but this is
not the onl( re$e!( available to hi$ or her.
Philippine courts have Auris!iction to reco+ni7e aforei+n Au!+$ent nullif(in+ a bi+a$ous $arria+e,
'ithout preAu!ice to a cri$inal prosecution for
bi+a$(.
In the reco+nition of forei+n Au!+$ents, Philippine
courts are inco$petent to substitute their Au!+$ent on
ho' a case 'as !eci!e! un!er forei+n la'. #he(
cannot !eci!e on the ?fa$il( ri+hts an! !uties, or on
the status, con!ition an! le+al capacit(? of the forei+n
citi7en 'ho is a part( to the forei+n Au!+$ent. #hus,
Philippine courts are li$ite! to the ;uestion of
'hether to e
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
36/37
What are the requirements of the
Local Civil Registrar if either of
the contracting parties was
previously married?
he previousl! arried applicant ust
furnish ((verb)give soething useful or
necessar! to)% instead of the birth or
baptisal certi#cate% the death
certi#cate of the deceased spouse% or
thejudicial decree of the absolute
divorce,or thejudicial decree of
annulment or declaration of
nullity of the previous arriage'
*n case the death certi#cate cannot be
secured% the part! ust a+e an
a,davit stating this circustance%
actual civil status% and the nae and
date of death of the deceased spouse'
(-rticle 13)
What is the eectivity of the
marriage license once issued?
he license is valid in an! part of the
.hilippines for a period of one
hundred twenty days from the
date of issue,and it is autoaticall!
canceled at the e/piration of the
period if the contracting parties have
not used it' he e/pir! date ust be
staped in bold characters on the
face of ever! license issued' (-rticle
20)
What are the requirements if a
foreigner wants to get married
here in the hilippines?
hen either or both of the contracting
parties are citiens of a foreign
countr!% they must submit a
certi!cate of legal capacity to
contract marriage% issued b! their
respective diploatic or consular
o,cials% before a arriage license can
be obtained'
$tateless persons or refugees fro
other countries ust% instead of the
certi#cate of legal capacit!% submit
an a"davit stating the
circumstances showing their
capacity to contract marriage#
(-rticle 21)
What are the rules for marriages
entered into by $ilipinos in
foreign countries?
-ll arriages solenied outside the
.hilippines under the la"s in force in
the countr! "here the! "ere
solenied% and valid there as such%
are also be valid in this countr!%
e/cept those prohibited under -rticles
35 (1)% (4)% (5) and (6)% 36% 37 and 38'
here a arriage bet"een a ilipino
citien and a foreigner is validl!
celebrated and a divorce is after"ards
validl! obtained abroad b! the alien
spouse capacitating hi or her to
rearr!% the ilipino spouse has the
capacit! to rearr! under .hilippine
36
-
7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 2
37/37
la"' (-rticle 26% as aended b!
/ecutive rder 227)
%nder what circumstances will a
marriage license no longer be
required?
*n case either or both of the
contracting parties are at the
point of death% the arriage a! be
solenied "ithout necessit! of a
arriage license and "ill reain valid
even if the ailing part! subseuentl!
survives' (-rticle 27)
*f the residence of either part! is so
located that there is no means of
transportation to enable the party
to appear personally before the
local civil registrar,the arriage
a! be solenied "ithout necessit!
of a arriage license' (-rticle 28)
&arriages among &uslims or
among members of the ethnic
cultural communities may be
performed validly without the
necessity of marriage license%
provided the! are solenied in
accordance "ith their custos% rites or
practices' (-rticle 33)
'o license is necessary for the
marriage of a man and a woman
who have lived together as
husband and wife for at least !ve
yearsand without any legal
impediment to marry eachother'
he contracting parties ust state
these facts in an a,davit before an!
person authoried b! la" to
adinister oaths' he soleniing
o,cer ust also state under oath that
he ascertained the uali#cations of the
contracting parties and found no legal
ipedient to the arriage' (-rticle
34 please read uic+ie arriages
under -rticle 34 of the ail! ode: *s
the arriage void if the a,davit of
arital cohabitation is false;