Gue vs Republic

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

Petitioner and appellant: Angelina L. Gue

Oppositor and appellee: Republic of the Philippines Oppositor and appellee: Republic of the Philippines

Nature of the case: Appeal from the order of the CFI of Manila Nature of the case: Appeal from the order of the CFI of Manila POnente: Montemayor, J. POnente: Montemayor, J. Issue: Issue: Facts: Facts: 1)

1) Appeal Appeal from afrom an orden order of tr of the CFI he CFI Manila Manila dismissing dismissing the pethe petition tition of Anof Angelina gelina GueGue

2)

2)

Oct 11, 1944: married to William Gue and had a child Anthony Gue; another child EulogioOct 11, 1944: married to William Gue and had a child Anthony Gue; another child Eulogio

3)

3)

on January 5, 1946 her husband left Manila and went to Shanghai China but since then had not been heardon January 5, 1946 her husband left Manila and went to Shanghai China but since then had not been heard of, neither had he written to her nor in any way communicated with her and she failed to locate him of, neither had he written to her nor in any way communicated with her and she failed to locate him despite of her efforts and diligence

despite of her efforts and diligence 4)

4) they hthey had noad not acqt acquireuired any pd any properoperty drty durinuring the mg the marriarriageage 5)

5) she asked tshe asked the court fhe court for a declor a declaration oaration of the presumf the presumption of deption of death of Wilath of William gue (Arliam gue (Art 390 of tht 390 of the CC)e CC) CFI: after publication and hearing, issued the order of dismissal

CFI: after publication and hearing, issued the order of dismissal

-- no rigno right had beht had been esten establiablished by tshed by the pethe petitiitioner uoner upon whpon which a judich a judiciaicial decrel decree may be pre may be predicedicateated and thid and thiss action is not for settlement of the estate of the absentee as it is clear he did not leave any

action is not for settlement of the estate of the absentee as it is clear he did not leave any

--

* A judicial presumption even if final and executor, would still be a prima facie presumption only and it still* A judicial presumption even if final and executor, would still be a prima facie presumption only and it still disputable—it is for this reason that it cannot be a subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration— disputable—it is for this reason that it cannot be a subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration— proof of actual death would still have to be determined

proof of actual death would still have to be determined 6)

6) AppeAppealedaled- invok- invoked the provied the provisionsions of Art 390 of s of Art 390 of the New Civthe New Civil Code—il Code—abseabsence of 7 years—fnce of 7 years—for succeor successiossionn shall not be presumed dead till after an absence of 10 years

shall not be presumed dead till after an absence of 10 years 7)

7) AccoAccordinrding to appellag to appellant with promnt with promulgaulgatiotion of n of the NCC in 1950, the courthe NCC in 1950, the courts are now authots are now authorizerized to declared to declare persons presumptively dead

persons presumptively dead

SOLICITOR GENERAL:opposed to the petition; same reason as above (*) SOLICITOR GENERAL:opposed to the petition; same reason as above (*) SC: the appeal order dismissing the petition is AFFIRMED

SC: the appeal order dismissing the petition is AFFIRMED

ARMAS vs.

ARMAS vs. CALISTERIOCALISTERIO GR NO. 136467 April 6, 2000 GR NO. 136467 April 6, 2000 Petitioner: Antonia Armas Y Calisterio

Petitioner: Antonia Armas Y Calisterio Respondent: Marietta Calisterio Respondent: Marietta Calisterio

Nature of the case: Petition on certiorari of a decision of the CA Nature of the case: Petition on certiorari of a decision of the CA Ponente: Vitug, J.

Ponente: Vitug, J. Issu

Issue: e: ValValiditidity y of of the the marrmarriage betweiage between en decedeceased Teodorased Teodorico and ico and resprespondondent ent MarMarrietrieta, a, that in that in turturn n woulwould d bebe determinative of her right as a surviving spouse

determinative of her right as a surviving spouse Facts:

Facts:

1)

1)

April 24, 1992: Teodorico Calisterio died intestate leaving several parcels of land (value: P604,750.00)April 24, 1992: Teodorico Calisterio died intestate leaving several parcels of land (value: P604,750.00) 2)

2) He was surHe was survivevived by his wife (rd by his wife (respoespondenndent- Mart- Mariettietta Calisa Calisteriterio)o) 3)

3) TeodoricTeodorico was seo was second huscond husband of band of MariettMarietta—marriea—married previoud previously to Jsly to James Wilames William Bounliam Bound (jan 13, d (jan 13, 1946)1946) 4)

4) JameJames Bous Bound dind disappsappeareeared w/o td w/o trace race on Febon Februarruary 11, 19y 11, 194747 5)

5) 11 years lat11 years later Marier Mariettetta and teodoa and teodorico werico were marrire married (may 8, 1958) w/o Maried (may 8, 1958) w/o Mariettetta having seca having secured a courured a courtt declaration that James was presumptively dead

declaration that James was presumptively dead 6)

6) Oct 9, Oct 9, 1992: pe1992: petitionetitioner, survivr, surviving sisting sister of er of teodoriteodorico fileco filed d with with RTC oRTC of QC f QC a peta petition ition entitleentitled “In d “In the Mthe Matteratter of Intestate Estate of

of Intestate Estate of the Deceased Teodorico Calisterio y the Deceased Teodorico Calisterio y CacabeloCacabelos, Antonia s, Antonia Armas, petitioneArmas, petitioner” claimingr” claiming to be the sole surviving heir of the deceased- marriage between Marietta and Teodorico as bigamous to be the sole surviving heir of the deceased- marriage between Marietta and Teodorico as bigamous thereby null and void

thereby null and void 7)

7) PrayPrayed that her soed that her son Sinfron Sinfronianniano C. Armas Jr. be appoo C. Armas Jr. be appointeinted admind administristratoator w/o bond of the estr w/o bond of the estate of theate of the deceased and that the inheritance be adjudicated to her after all

deceased and that the inheritance be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the estate would havethe obligations of the estate would have been settled

been settled

8)

8)

mArmArieietttta a oppoppososed ed the the petpetititioion—fn—firsirst t marmarriariage ge w/ w/ BouBound nd hahad d beebeen n didissossolvelved d dudue e to to his his ababsensencece,, whereabo

whereabouts being uts being unknownunknown—contend—contends to s to be the be the surviving spouse of surviving spouse of teodoricteodorico and o and sought priority in thesought priority in the administration of the estate of the decedent

administration of the estate of the decedent RTC

RTC: : issuissued ed ordorder er appappointointing ing SinfSinfronironiano ano C. C. ArmaArmas s Jr Jr and and resprespondondent ent MariMariettetta a admiadministnistratorator r andand administratix of the intestate estate of teodorico

administratix of the intestate estate of teodorico 9)

9) MaMarierietttta appa appeaealed tled the dehe deciscisioion to Cn to CAA

CA: decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered CA: decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered a)

a) mArimAriettetta Calia Calistersterio’s maio’s marriarriage witge with teodoh teodorico rerico remaimains valins validd b)

b) house and lhouse and lot situaot situated as 32 Batted as 32 Batangas St Saangas St San Francisco dn Francisco del Montel Monte QC belong e QC belong to conjuto conjugal partnegal partnershiprship property

property c)

c) marrmarrietieta Calistea Calisterio beinrio being teodorg teodorico’ico’s compuls compulsory heir is entitsory heir is entitled to one half of led to one half of husbhusbandand’s estate and’s estate and sister of Teodorico the other half 

d)

d)

ordered TC to determine competence of MArrieta Calisterio to act as administrator of Teodorico’sordered TC to determine competence of MArrieta Calisterio to act as administrator of Teodorico’s estate

estate

-- CA CA dedeninied med mototioion fon for rr rececononsisidederaratitionon

SC DECISION: Assailed judgment of the CA is AFFIRMED except in so far only as it decreed in par © of the SC DECISION: Assailed judgment of the CA is AFFIRMED except in so far only as it decreed in par © of the dispositive portion thereof that the children of petitioner are likewise entitled, along with her to the other half of the dispositive portion thereof that the children of petitioner are likewise entitled, along with her to the other half of the inheritance in lieu of which it is DECLARED that said one-half share of the decedent’s estate pertains solely to the inheritance in lieu of which it is DECLARED that said one-half share of the decedent’s estate pertains solely to the petitioner to the exclusion of her children

petitioner to the exclusion of her children REASONS:

REASONS: 1)

1) Marriage Marriage happened happened in 1958—lin 1958—law in foaw in force at rce at that tthat time was ime was the Civithe Civil Code nl Code not the ot the family cofamily codede 2)

2) Art 83 of tArt 83 of the new Civihe new Civil Code—rel Code—retroactitroactive only wheve only when it would n it would not prejunot prejudice ort imdice ort impair vestpair vested acquired ed acquired rightsrights in accordance wit Civil code and other laws

in accordance wit Civil code and other laws 3)

3) A judicial A judicial declaratdeclaration of abion of absence of tsence of the absenthe absentee spouse ee spouse is not neis not necessary as cessary as long as tlong as the prescrihe prescribed periobed periodd of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by the explicit of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by the explicit mandate of Art 83

mandate of Art 83 to be deemed valid “until declared null and to be deemed valid “until declared null and void by a void by a competecompetent court”—the burden of nt court”—the burden of  proof would be, in these cases, on the party assailing the second marriage

proof would be, in these cases, on the party assailing the second marriage 4)

4) MarMariettietta’s fia’s first hrst husbausband, Jand, James Wmes Williilliam Bouam Bounds hands had been d been abseabsent or hnt or had diad disappsappeareeared d for tfor than ehan elevelevenn years before she

years before she entered into second marriage—secoentered into second marriage—second marriage having nd marriage having been contracted during thebeen contracted during the regime of the Civl Code, should thus be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of judicial declaration regime of the Civl Code, should thus be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of judicial declaration of presumptive death of james Bounds

of presumptive death of james Bounds 5)

5) ConjConjugal prugal properoperty of Teodty of Teodoricorico and Maro and Mariettietta a pertpertains to tains to them in comhem in common—mon—upoupon its disson its dissolutlution, thion, thee property should rightly be divided in two equal portions—one portion going to surviving spouse and the property should rightly be divided in two equal portions—one portion going to surviving spouse and the other to the estate of the deceased spouse

other to the estate of the deceased spouse 6)

6) AppeAppellatllate court erred in grane court erred in granting to petiting to petitiotioner’ner’s s chichildreldren, along witn, along with their motheh their mother Antonir Antonia who herself isa who herself is invoking successional rights over the estate of deceased brother

invoking successional rights over the estate of deceased brother

 JONES vs.

 JONES vs. HORTIGUELAHORTIGUELA No. 43701 March 6, 1937 No. 43701 March 6, 1937 petitioner-appellant: Angelita Jones

petitioner-appellant: Angelita Jones

Oppositor-Appellant and appellee: Felix hortiguela as administrator, widower and heir Oppositor-Appellant and appellee: Felix hortiguela as administrator, widower and heir Nature of the case: appeal from an order of the CFI of cebu

Nature of the case: appeal from an order of the CFI of cebu Ponente: Concepcion, J.

Ponente: Concepcion, J.

Issue: WON Felix Hortiguela’s alleged marriage to marciana Escano was celebrated Issue: WON Felix Hortiguela’s alleged marriage to marciana Escano was celebrated Facts:

Facts:

1)

1)

CFI of Cebu denying: a) motion to appoint a new CFI of Cebu denying: a) motion to appoint a new administadministrator and b) to rator and b) to set aside the order declaring theset aside the order declaring the heirs of deceased; c) holding it unwarranted to declare that the properties of the intestate estate are heirs of deceased; c) holding it unwarranted to declare that the properties of the intestate estate are para

parapherphernal propertnal properties of ies of decedeceased but ased but resereservinrving g to the to the partparties the ies the righright t to discuss which of to discuss which of saidsaid pro

properpertities es are are paparahraherernal nal anand d whiwhich ch arare e coconjunjugal gal and and d) d) setsettiting ng asiaside de ththe e ororder der gragrantinting ng to to thethe administrator fees in the sum of P10,000 and that order approving the project of partition and the final administrator fees in the sum of P10,000 and that order approving the project of partition and the final account an e) ordering the presentation of another project partition and final account

account an e) ordering the presentation of another project partition and final account 2)

2) MarMarcianciana Escano died intesta Escano died intestateate—wi—widowdower er FeliFelix x HortHortigueiguela was la was appoappointeinted d judjudiciaicial l admiadmisnitsnitratrator of or of herher entire estate

entire estate 3)

3) OrdeOrder (may 9, 1932)—ar (may 9, 1932)—angelngelita Joneita Jones (daughs (daughter bu her first marter bu her first marriagriage) and Felix (wie) and Felix (widowedower by r by he seconhe secondd marriage) were declared only heirs

marriage) were declared only heirs 4)

4) FelFelix ix praprayed thyed that his feeat his fees as s as adadminminististratrator be fixeor be fixed d at P10at P10000 (gr000 (grananteted by d by coucourt and cort and confonformirmity of ty of  guardian of heiress Angelita)

guardian of heiress Angelita) 5)

5) AdmiAdmin: presen: presented invented inventontory of ry of propropertpertied left by deceasied left by deceased, a final accoued, a final account of his nt of his admiadministnistratration and aion and a project of partition of the intestate estate

project of partition of the intestate estate

6)

6)

He He adadjudjudicaicateted d to to himhimselself f a a parpart t of of ththe e estestatate, e, in in papaymeyment nt of of ththe e coconjunjugal propgal propertertieies s anand d of of hishis usufructuary right and the remaining part to Angelita Jones—represented by guardian Paz Escano de usufructuary right and the remaining part to Angelita Jones—represented by guardian Paz Escano de Corominas since a minor then

Corominas since a minor then 7)

7) ProjProject of partiect of partitiotion and final accoun and final account was appront was approved and propved and propertierties were turnes were turned over to the respeed over to the respectivctivee grantees

grantees

8)

8)

MAy 3, 1934: MAy 3, 1934: heirees Angeliheirees Angelita, married to Ernesto lardizabalta, married to Ernesto lardizabal, filed a , filed a motion allegimotion alleging that she was ng that she was the onlythe only heir of her mother—no valid marriage between mother and felix (or it was null and void)

heir of her mother—no valid marriage between mother and felix (or it was null and void)

9)

9)

She prayed for: 1) reopening of the proceedings; 2) her husband be appointed special administrator w/oShe prayed for: 1) reopening of the proceedings; 2) her husband be appointed special administrator w/o bond; 3) her mother’ s alleged marriage to Felix be declared null and void and 4) that the partition of the bond; 3) her mother’ s alleged marriage to Felix be declared null and void and 4) that the partition of the properties made by felix be declared null and void and that petitioner be declared the only universal heir properties made by felix be declared null and void and that petitioner be declared the only universal heir of the

of the decedeceasedased; ; and 5) and 5) if marriagif marriage be e be a a valivalid d marrmarriageiage, , HorHortigutiguela be ela be decldeclared not entitlared not entitled ed to theto the widower

widower’s usufruct; the errors in ’s usufruct; the errors in the admin account be corrected; the latter be granted a remuneration of the admin account be corrected; the latter be granted a remuneration of  only P4 a day and a new partition of the properties be made

only P4 a day and a new partition of the properties be made 10)

10) 1914: Marcia1914: Marciana Escano marna Escano married Arthuried Arthur Jones in San NIcor Jones in San NIcolas Provinclas Province of Cebue of Cebu 11)

12)

12) OctoOctober 1919: proceber 1919: proceedinedings were gs were instinstituituted in ted in the CFI of the CFI of MaaMaasin Leyte to sin Leyte to have her husbanhave her husband d judijudicialciallyly declared an absentee—co

declared an absentee—court issued an urt issued an order declaring Jones an absentee from Phil order declaring Jones an absentee from Phil Islands (Art 186 of Islands (Art 186 of thethe CC)

CC) 13)

13) April 23, 1921: court issued another orApril 23, 1921: court issued another order for the taking effect if the declaratder for the taking effect if the declaration of absence, publication of absence, publicationion made in the OG and in EL Ideal

made in the OG and in EL Ideal 14)

14) May 6, 1927: FeMay 6, 1927: Felix Hortglix Hortguela marriuela married to MAred to MArciana Escaciana Escanono 15)

15) Angelita contAngelita contends: declaraends: declaration of absence must be undtion of absence must be understood to have been maerstood to have been made not in the order of Octde not in the order of Oct 1919 but April 1921—only 6 years and 14 days elapsed—marriage null and void

1919 but April 1921—only 6 years and 14 days elapsed—marriage null and void DECISION OF THE SC: Court REVERSED the appealed order

DECISION OF THE SC: Court REVERSED the appealed order REASONS:

REASONS:

1)

1)

For the purpose of civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared anFor the purpose of civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an abse

absenteentee—th—this is decldeclaraaratiotion n madmade e was was only to only to the the necenecessarssary y precprecautiautions ons for for the the admiadministnistratiration on of of thethe estate of the absentee

estate of the absentee 2)

2) For civil For civil marriagemarriage—the o—the only requnly requirement irement is that is that the forthe former spoumer spouse has se has been abbeen absent for sent for seven coseven consecutivensecutive years at the time of the second marriage

years at the time of the second marriage 3)

3) Absence cAbsence counted founted from Janrom January 10, 1uary 10, 1918 to M918 to May 6, 1927—ay 6, 1927—nine yearnine years elapsed-s elapsed-marriage marriage is valiis valid and lad and lawfulwful 4)

4) Although nAlthough no marriago marriage contrace contract appearint appearing in the marrg in the marriage registiage register of the Muer of the Municipalitnicipality of Malitby of Malitbog—does noog—does nott invalidate the marriage

invalidate the marriage 5)

5) MarMarcianciana Escana Escano belieo believed husbved husband waand was dead when shs dead when she contre contractacted marred marriageiage 6)

6) MarMarriahriahe was valide was valid—no—not doubt Felt doubt Felix is entitix is entitled to inheled to inherit in usufrit in usufructruct, not only in test, not only in testate but alsate but also in theo in the intestate succession

intestate succession 7)

7) No reasoNo reason to ann to annul the onul the order of Mrder of May 9, 1932 ay 9, 1932 declarindeclaring the heg the heirs were wirs were widower aidower and daughtnd daughter and ter and the orderhe order of June 26, 1933 approving the partition of the properties of the intestate estate

of June 26, 1933 approving the partition of the properties of the intestate estate

8)

8)

Fees to administrator P10000 reasonable and moderate compensation—used also to pay professional feesFees to administrator P10000 reasonable and moderate compensation—used also to pay professional fees of the lawyer

of the lawyer 9)

9) OrdeOrders have becrs have become finaome final on the grounl on the ground that no apped that no appeal was ever taal was ever taken theken therefrrefrom, the couom, the court has lostrt has lost  jurisdiction over the case

 jurisdiction over the case

LUKBAN vs REPUBLIC

LUKBAN vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESOF THE PHILIPPINES No L- 8492 February 29, 1956

No L- 8492 February 29, 1956 Petitioner and appellant: Lourdes G. Lukban

Petitioner and appellant: Lourdes G. Lukban Oppositor and Appellee: RP

Oppositor and Appellee: RP

Nature of the Case: Appeal from an order of the CFI of Rizal Nature of the Case: Appeal from an order of the CFI of Rizal Ponente: Bautista Angelo J.

Ponente: Bautista Angelo J. Issue:

Issue: Facts: Facts:

1)

1)

CFI to declare that petitioner is a widow of her husband Francisco Chuidian who is presumed to be deadCFI to declare that petitioner is a widow of her husband Francisco Chuidian who is presumed to be dead and has no legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage

and has no legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage 2)

2) Lourdes LukLourdes Lukban coban contractentracted marriage d marriage with Frawith Francisco Cncisco Chuidian huidian December December 10, 1933 10, 1933 (paco Ma(paco Manila)nila) 3)

3) Dec 27 same yeaDec 27 same year husbar husband left aftnd left after violer violent quaent quarrel anrrel and since thed since then he has not been hean he has not been heard from derd from despitspitee diligent search made by her

diligent search made by her 4)

4) She belShe believeieves he has been dead bes he has been dead being absing absent for moent for more than 20 yeare than 20 years and becars and because she intuse she intends to marends to marryry again, she desires that her civil status be defined in order that she may be relieved of any liability under again, she desires that her civil status be defined in order that she may be relieved of any liability under law

law

CFI: petition cannot be entertained because not authorized by law—much less can the court determine the status of  CFI: petition cannot be entertained because not authorized by law—much less can the court determine the status of  petitioner as a widow since this matter must of necessity depend upon the fact of death of the husband—court can petitioner as a widow since this matter must of necessity depend upon the fact of death of the husband—court can declare upon proper evidence but not decree that he is merely presumed to be dead

declare upon proper evidence but not decree that he is merely presumed to be dead

SOLICITOR GENERAL: opposed the petition on the ground that the same is not authorized by law SOLICITOR GENERAL: opposed the petition on the ground that the same is not authorized by law CFI: sustained the opposition and dismissed the petition

CFI: sustained the opposition and dismissed the petition DECISION OF SC: decision appealed from is AFFIRMED DECISION OF SC: decision appealed from is AFFIRMED REASONS:

REASONS:

1)

1)

A judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if final and executor would still beA judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if final and executor would still be  prima facie prima facie presumptionpresumption only. It is still disputable. It is for that reason that it cannot be subject of a judicial pronouncement or only. It is still disputable. It is for that reason that it cannot be subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration

declaration

2)

2)

Art 349 of penal code—ProceeArt 349 of penal code—Proceedings referred to here refers only to dings referred to here refers only to those authorithose authorized by law such as zed by law such as thosethose which refer to administration or settlement of the estate of the deceased person (jones vs HOrtiguela) which refer to administration or settlement of the estate of the deceased person (jones vs HOrtiguela)

SSS vs. JARQUE Vda. De

SSS vs. JARQUE Vda. De BAILONBAILON GR NO. 165545 March 24, 2006 GR NO. 165545 March 24, 2006 Petitioner: SSS

Respondent: Teresita Jarque Vda. De Bailon Respondent: Teresita Jarque Vda. De Bailon

Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J. Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J. Issue: Issue: Facts: Facts:

1)

1)

CA reversed decision of SSCCA reversed decision of SSC 2)

2) April April 25, 19525, 1955: mar5: marriage riage of Cof Clemente lemente G. BaiG. Bailon alon and Alnd Alice Pice P. Diaz . Diaz in Bin Barcelona, arcelona, SorsogonSorsogon 3)

3) MorMore than 15 ye than 15 years lears lateater: Octr: October 9ober 9, 1970: B, 1970: Bailoailon filen filed d befobefore re CFI of SoCFI of Sorsogrsogon peon petittition to deion to declarclare Alice Alicee presumptively dead

presumptively dead 4)

4) Dec 1Dec 10, 190, 1970: C70: CFI grFI grananteted the pd the petetititioionn 5)

5) After alAfter almost 13 most 13 years: Baiyears: Bailon conlon contracted tracted marriage marriage with Tewith Teresita Jresita Jarque in arque in casiguracasiguran Sorsogon Sorsogonn 6)

6) Jan 30, 19Jan 30, 1998, bai98, bailon, melon, member omber of SSS sincf SSS since 1980 ane 1980 and a retird a retiree pensee pensioneioner diedr died 7)

7) RespondenRespondent filed clat filed claim for funeim for funeral benefiral benefits and was grts and was granted P12,anted P12,000 by SSS and a000 by SSS and additionadditional claim for dl claim for deatheath benefits granted on April 6, 1998

benefits granted on April 6, 1998

8)

8)

Cecilia Bailon-Yap, claimed to be a daughter of Bailon and one Elisa jayona contested before the SSS theCecilia Bailon-Yap, claimed to be a daughter of Bailon and one Elisa jayona contested before the SSS the release to respondent of

release to respondent of the death and the death and funeral benefits—clfuneral benefits—claims Bailon contracted three marriages (Alice,aims Bailon contracted three marriages (Alice, mother or elisa and respondent—all are still alive)

mother or elisa and respondent—all are still alive) 9)

9) Elisa clElisa claimed thaaimed that their t their mother mother and Bailand Bailon cohabon cohabited toited together agether as husband s husband and widand wide since (19e since (1958)58) 10)

10) Hermes P. Diaz broHermes P. Diaz brother of Alice fither of Alice filed before SSS a clled before SSS a claim for deataim for death benefitsh benefits

11)

11)

Elisa and seven of her children also filed claims for death benefits as bailon’s beneficiariesElisa and seven of her children also filed claims for death benefits as bailon’s beneficiaries

12)

12)

Atty MArites C. dela Torre: legal unit of SSS: recommended cancellation of payment of deathAtty MArites C. dela Torre: legal unit of SSS: recommended cancellation of payment of death pension benefits to respondent and issuance of order to refund amount paid to her

pension benefits to respondent and issuance of order to refund amount paid to her from Feb 1998 to from Feb 1998 to MayMay 1999; denied the claim of alice and payment of balance of the five-year guaranteed pension to Bailon’s 1999; denied the claim of alice and payment of balance of the five-year guaranteed pension to Bailon’s beneficiaries after the amount erronesouly paid to respondent has been collected

beneficiaries after the amount erronesouly paid to respondent has been collected

13)

13)

Said that marriage between bailon and jarque is bigamous and void, there s Said that marriage between bailon and jarque is bigamous and void, there s no disappearancno disappearance of e of  Alice—no need to present affidavit of reappearance since alice never disappeared

Alice—no need to present affidavit of reappearance since alice never disappeared 14)

14) SSS cancelled monthSSS cancelled monthly pension of respondent-mly pension of respondent-marriage was void since contracarriage was void since contracted when Bailon’s marriated when Bailon’s marriagege with alice was still subsisting

with alice was still subsisting

15)

15)

Respondent protested cancellation of pension-asserted release of her pension her marriage w/Respondent protested cancellation of pension-asserted release of her pension her marriage w/ Bailon not declared by the court as bigamous and unlawful—valid and subsisting

Bailon not declared by the court as bigamous and unlawful—valid and subsisting 16)

16) SSS dismissed her petSSS dismissed her petition—deition—declaring her “commclaring her “common law wife” and ordeon law wife” and ordered payment to alicred payment to alice of the deathe of the death benefit

benefit 17)

17) Appealed tAppealed to CA after motio CA after motion for reconon for reconsideratiosideration was denied by SSSn was denied by SSS

CA: reversed and set aside the April 2, 2003 resolution and June 4, 2003 order of the SSc and thus ordered the SSS CA: reversed and set aside the April 2, 2003 resolution and June 4, 2003 order of the SSc and thus ordered the SSS to pay respondent all the pension benefits

to pay respondent all the pension benefits ISSUE: Could the SSC and SSS

ISSUE: Could the SSC and SSS re-evalure-evaluate validly the findings of RTC ate validly the findings of RTC and on its own and on its own declare the latter’declare the latter’s decision tos decision to be bereft of any basis—can they declate the first marriage subsisting and the second marriage null and void?

be bereft of any basis—can they declate the first marriage subsisting and the second marriage null and void? CA:

CA:

-- It is oIt is only tnly the cohe competmpetent cent court ourt thathat can nt can nulliullify the fy the secosecond mand marriarriage (Arge (Art 87 of t 87 of CC)CC)

-- RespRespondeondent SSS cant SSS cannonnot arrot arrogate ugate upon itpon itself thself the authoe authority trity to revieo review the decw the decisioision of the ren of the regulagular courr courtsts -- SSS is corSSS is correct in strect in statiating that afng that affidafidavit for revit for reappeappearaarance was irnce was irrelerelevant sivant since no firnce no first marrst marriage tiage to restoo restore asre as

marital bond between Alice and Clemente already terminated by death of Clemente; neither a second marital bond between Alice and Clemente already terminated by death of Clemente; neither a second marriage to terminate since also dissolved by Bailon’s death

marriage to terminate since also dissolved by Bailon’s death

-- BuBut t SSSSS S is not cois not corrrrecect t to conto conclcludude e ththat it has the autat it has the authohoririty to ty to rereviview the decew the decisisioion n of the RTof the RTC C anandd consequently declare the second marriage null and void

consequently declare the second marriage null and void

SSC and SSS filed motion for reconsideration but both denied- hence, present review—said that observations and SSC and SSS filed motion for reconsideration but both denied- hence, present review—said that observations and findings relative to CFI proceedings are considered

findings relative to CFI proceedings are considered obiter dictaobiter dicta DECISION OF

DECISION OF SC: petition SC: petition fails; DENIEDfails; DENIED REASONS:

REASONS:

1)

1)

SSC empowered to settle dispute w/ SSC empowered to settle dispute w/ respect to SSS coverarespect to SSS coverage benefits and contribge benefits and contributions, howeveutions, however, itr, it cannot review much less reverse, decisions rendered by the courts of law—with respect to the validity of  cannot review much less reverse, decisions rendered by the courts of law—with respect to the validity of  BAilon’s and Alice’s marriage and the invalidity of bailon and respondent’s marriage

BAilon’s and Alice’s marriage and the invalidity of bailon and respondent’s marriage 2)

2) Two marrTwo marriageiages solemns solemnized befized before the effeore the effectivctivity of the FC August 3, 1988—ity of the FC August 3, 1988—appapplicalicable law to deteble law to determinrminee validity is the CC (art 83)

validity is the CC (art 83) 3)

3) In this caIn this case, as founse, as found by the CFI. Alid by the CFI. Alice had beece had been absenn absent for 15 const for 15 consecutecutive yeaive years when Bairs when Bailon soulon soughtght declarat

declaration of her presumptive deation of her presumptive death which judicial declarah which judicial declaration was not even a requiremetion was not even a requirement nt then forthen for purpose of remarriage

purpose of remarriage 4)

4) When a persoWhen a person has entern has entered into a subseqed into a subsequent maruent marriagriage the secone the second marrid marriage is presuage is presumed valimed valid and thed and the burden is o the party assailing the marriage to prove that the first marriage had not been dissolved

burden is o the party assailing the marriage to prove that the first marriage had not been dissolved 5)

5) Under the CUnder the CC- subsequeC- subsequent marriant marriage being voige being voidable is tdable is terminateerminated by final judgd by final judgment of anment of annulment in nulment in a casea case instituted by the absent spouse who reappears or by either of the spouses in the subsequent marriage instituted by the absent spouse who reappears or by either of the spouses in the subsequent marriage

6)

7)

7) If the absIf the absententee reapee reappearpears, s, but no stbut no step to terep to terminaminate the sute the subseqbsequent mauent marriarriage, eitge, either by affher by affidavidavit or byit or by court action, such ab

court action, such absentee’s sentee’s mere reappeamere reappearance even if made known to the spouses in the subseqrance even if made known to the spouses in the subsequentuent marriage will

marriage will not terminate not terminate such marriagesuch marriage

8)

8)

If the subsequent marriaIf the subsequent marriage is not terminated by ge is not terminated by registratregistration of an affidavit of reappearaion of an affidavit of reappearance or by thence or by the   judicial declaration but by death of either spouse –a voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally   judicial declaration but by death of either spouse –a voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally

except in a direct proceeding – upon the death of

except in a direct proceeding – upon the death of either, the marriage cannoeither, the marriage cannot be impeached, and is madet be impeached, and is made good

good ab initioab initio

9)

9)

In this In this case at case at bar, no bar, no step was taken to step was taken to nullnullify, in ify, in accoaccordanrdance ce witwith h lawlaw, , bailbailon’s and on’s and resprespondondent’ent’ss marriage prior to former’s death in 1998—respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of  marriage prior to former’s death in 1998—respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of  Bailon

Bailon

(note: judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse in the new CC is not necessary as long as the (note: judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse in the new CC is not necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met)

prescribed period of absence is met)

ROEHR vs. RODRIGUEZ ROEHR vs. RODRIGUEZ GR NO. 142820 June 20, 2003 GR NO. 142820 June 20, 2003 Petitioner: Wolfgang O. Roehr

Petitioner: Wolfgang O. Roehr

Respondents: Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez. Hon, Judge Josefina Guevara-Salonga (pres Judge of Makati RTC Br 149) Respondents: Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez. Hon, Judge Josefina Guevara-Salonga (pres Judge of Makati RTC Br 149) Nature of the Case; Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari

Nature of the Case; Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari Ponente: Quisumbing, J.

Ponente: Quisumbing, J. Issue;

Issue; a)

a) GravGrave abuse oe abuse of discrf discretietion alleon allegedlgedly commiy committetted by publid by public respoc respondenndentt b)

b) Lack of jurLack of jurisdiction isdiction of the RTC of the RTC in matterin matters that spris that spring from a dng from a divorce decivorce decree obtairee obtained abroaned abroad by petitid by petitioneroner Facts:

Facts: 1)

1) SpecSpecial civiial civil action for cerl action for certiotiorari petirari petitiotioner assaner assails a) the order dateils a) the order dated Sept 30, 1999 of d Sept 30, 1999 of publpublic respoic respondenndentt  Judge Josefina salonga for declaration of nullity of marriage and b) order dated march 31, 2000 denying his  Judge Josefina salonga for declaration of nullity of marriage and b) order dated march 31, 2000 denying his

motion for reconsiderati

motion for reconsideration—partion—partially set ally set aside the trial aside the trial court’s order dismissing the Civil court’s order dismissing the Civil case No 96-1389case No 96-1389 for the purpose of resolving issues relating to the property settlement of the spouses and the custody of  for the purpose of resolving issues relating to the property settlement of the spouses and the custody of  their children

their children

2)

2)

Wolfgang roehr (German citizen) married Carmen Rodriguez (Filipina) Decmeber 11, 1980 in Hamburg,Wolfgang roehr (German citizen) married Carmen Rodriguez (Filipina) Decmeber 11, 1980 in Hamburg, Germany—ratified on Feb 14, 1981 Tayasan Negros oriental—children: Caroline and Alexandra Kristine Germany—ratified on Feb 14, 1981 Tayasan Negros oriental—children: Caroline and Alexandra Kristine 3)

3) August 26, 199August 26, 1996: private r6: private respondent fiespondent filed petitled petition for declion for declaration oaration of nullity of mf nullity of marriage bearriage before RTC fore RTC MakatiMakati city

city 4)

4) Feb 6, 1997 moFeb 6, 1997 motion to dition to dismiss filed by psmiss filed by petitionetitioner but denier but denied and moted and motion for reion for reconsideraconsideration also tion also denieddenied 5)

5) Sept 5. 1Sept 5. 1997: peti997: petitioner ftioner filed motiled motion for ion for certiorcertiorari to Cari to CA but deA but denied and nied and remanded remanded to RTCto RTC 6)

6) PetiPetitiotioner obtaner obtained a decreined a decree of divorce froe of divorce from the CFI of Hamburgm the CFI of Hamburg-Bla-Blankennkenese (dec 16, 1997) decese (dec 16, 1997) declarlaringing marriage dissolved and custody of children to father

marriage dissolved and custody of children to father 7)

7) PetiPetitiotioner filener filed second motd second motion to dismiion to dismiss on the grounss on the ground that RTC had no jurid that RTC had no jurisdicsdictiotion over the subjen over the subjectct matter of the ation or suit as

matter of the ation or suit as a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage –a decree of divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage – petition granted

petition granted 8)

8) PrivPrivate respate respondondent fileent filed motion for pard motion for partiatial reconsil reconsideraderatiotion with a n with a praprayer that the case proyer that the case proceed for theceed for the purp

purpose of ose of detdetermiermining the ning the issuissues es of of custcustody of ody of chilchildren and dren and the distribthe distributiution on of of propropertperties ies betwbetweeneen petitioner and private respondent

petitioner and private respondent 9)

9) Aug 18, 1999: OpposiAug 18, 1999: Oppositiotion to n to the Motithe Motion for Partiaon for Partial Reconsl Reconsiderideratiation was filed by on was filed by petipetitiotioner—ner—nothnothing theying they could do anymore—

could do anymore—decree of divorce alreadecree of divorce already recognized by the RTC dy recognized by the RTC through the implemthrough the implementatioentation of then of the mandate of Art 26 of the FC endowing petitioner w/ the capacity to remarry under Phil Law

mandate of Art 26 of the FC endowing petitioner w/ the capacity to remarry under Phil Law 10)

10) Sept 30, 1999 – respondent juSept 30, 1999 – respondent judge issued order pardge issued order partially settitially setting aside her order dateng aside her order dated July 14, 1999 for thed July 14, 1999 for the purpose of tackling the

purpose of tackling the issues of property relations issues of property relations and support and and support and custody of their childrencustody of their children 11)

11) PetitioPetitioner’s motioner’s motion fore recon fore reconsideratinsideration was denion was denieded ISSUES:

ISSUES: 1)

1) WON responWON respondent judge dent judge gravely abgravely abused her diused her discretion iscretion in issuing hen issuing her order dar order dated Sept 3ted Sept 30, 1999 w/c pa0, 1999 w/c partiallyrtially modified her order dated July 14, 1999 and

modified her order dated July 14, 1999 and 2)

2) WON respoWON respondent jundent judge gravedge gravely abused hly abused her discreer discretion whetion when she assun she assumed and rmed and retained etained jurisdictjurisdiction over ion over thethe present case despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from german court present case despite the fact that petitioner has already obtained a divorce decree from german court FIRST ISSUE:

FIRST ISSUE:

Petitioner: asserts that assailed order of respondent judge is completely inconsistent w/ her previous order Petitioner: asserts that assailed order of respondent judge is completely inconsistent w/ her previous order and is contrary to Sec 3 rule 16 of rules of civil procedure (resolution of motion)

and is contrary to Sec 3 rule 16 of rules of civil procedure (resolution of motion)

-- CourCourt’s actt’s action is liion is limitmited to dised to dismissmissing thing the actie action or claon or claim, deim, denyinnying the motg the motion or oion or orderdering amring amendmendment of ent of  the pleading

the pleading

Respondent: argues that RTC can validly reconsider its order because it had not yet attained finality, given Respondent: argues that RTC can validly reconsider its order because it had not yet attained finality, given the timely filing of respondent’s motion for reconsideration

the timely filing of respondent’s motion for reconsideration

-- SectSection 3 relion 3 relatioation to Sec 7 Ruln to Sec 7 Rule 37 of the 19e 37 of the 1997 Rul97 Rules on Cives on Civil Proil Proceducedure (acre (action ution upon mopon motiotion for new tn for new trialrial or reconsideration and partial new trial or reconsideration)

or reconsideration and partial new trial or reconsideration)

SECOND ISSUE: SECOND ISSUE: Petitioner:

Petitioner: claims that respondent judge claims that respondent judge committed grave abuse of committed grave abuse of discretion when she partially set discretion when she partially set asideaside her order

her order despdespite the ite the fact that petitifact that petitioner has oner has alrealready obtainady obtained ed a a divodivorce decree from rce decree from CFI HamburgCFI Hamburg Germany

Germany

COURT: court consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our COURT: court consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our  jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner (

 jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner ( Garcia v. Recio,Garcia v. Recio, Van Dorn v. Romillo,Jr. and Llorente v. CA)

Van Dorn v. Romillo,Jr. and Llorente v. CA)

-- The The divodivorce rce decrdecree ee not not chalchallenglenged ed save save for for the the issuissue oe of paf parentrental cal custoustodydy

--

As As a a gengeneral rule, eral rule, divodivorce rce decrdecrees obtaineees obtained d by by foreforeigneigners rs in in othother er councountrietries s are recogniare recognizablzable e in in ourour  jurisidcit

 jurisidcition, but the legal effects thereof (on ion, but the legal effects thereof (on custody and support of children) must still be custody and support of children) must still be determinedetermined byd by our courts

our courts

--

In In this jurisdthis jurisdictiiction, our on, our RulRules es of of CourCourt t cleaclearly rly provprovide ide thathat t witwith h resprespect to ect to actactionsions in personamin personam, , asas distinguished from actions

distinguished from actions in remin rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes, a foreign judgment merely constitutes   prima facie  prima facie evidence of theevidence of the  justness of the claim of a party and as such, is subject to proof to the contrary

 justness of the claim of a party and as such, is subject to proof to the contrary

--

In the present case, private respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of theIn the present case, private respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring the judgment as

German court so that there is basis for declaring the judgment as res judicatares judicata w/ regard to the rights of w/ regard to the rights of  petitioner to have parental custody of their two children—proceedings of German court were summary— petitioner to have parental custody of their two children—proceedings of German court were summary— decision given based on the German civil code provision to the effect that when couple lived separately for decision given based on the German civil code provision to the effect that when couple lived separately for thre

three e yearyears, s, the the marrmarriage is iage is deedeemed med irreirrefutafutably bly dissdissolveolved—no determd—no determinatination ion of of the the issuissue e if if parparentaentall custody, care, support and education mindful of the best interests of children

custody, care, support and education mindful of the best interests of children

•

• On matter of On matter of propertproperty y relatiorelations, petitioner asserts that public ns, petitioner asserts that public respondent exceedrespondent exceeded the ed the bounds of bounds of herher

  jur

  jurisdiisdictiction on when she when she claiclaimed med cogcognizanizance nce of of the the issuissue e conconcerncerning ing propproperterty y relrelatioations ns betwbetweeneen petitioner and private respondent

petitioner and private respondent

-- GivGiven facen factutual al admadmisissiosion by partn by partieies in theis in their plear pleadindings thags that thet there is no prore is no propeperty trty to be accoo be accountunted fored for,, respondent judge has no basis to assert jurisdiction in this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in respondent judge has no basis to assert jurisdiction in this case to resolve a matter no longer deemed in controversy

controversy

DECISION OF SC: the orders of RTC Makati Br 149

DECISION OF SC: the orders of RTC Makati Br 149 issued Sept 30, 1999 and March 31, issued Sept 30, 1999 and March 31, 2000 are AFFIRMED2000 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATI

with MODIFICATION. Court declares that the trial court has jurisdictioON. Court declares that the trial court has jurisdiction over the issue n over the issue between the partiesbetween the parties as to parental custody, including child care, support and education of children—records remanded to the as to parental custody, including child care, support and education of children—records remanded to the  Trial court for continuation of appropriate proceedings

 Trial court for continuation of appropriate proceedings

-- TC can prTC can proceeoceed on takid on taking cogng cognizanizance of thnce of the chile children cudren custodstody issue buy issue but it errt it erred in taked in taking coging cognizanizance of thnce of thee property issue or relations of the parties

property issue or relations of the parties

GARCIA vs. RECIO GARCIA vs. RECIO

GR NO. 138322 October 2, 2001 GR NO. 138322 October 2, 2001 Petitioner: Grace J. Garcia (Grace Garcia-recio)

Petitioner: Grace J. Garcia (Grace Garcia-recio) Respondent: Rederick A. Recio

Respondent: Rederick A. Recio Nature of the case : Petition

Nature of the case : Petition for review on certiorari for review on certiorari of a decision of the of a decision of the RTC of Cabanatuan city Br. 28RTC of Cabanatuan city Br. 28 Ponente: Panganiban. J. Ponente: Panganiban. J. Issue; Issue; Facts: Facts: 1)

1) PetiPetitiotion for revin for review ew undeunder Rule 45 of thr Rule 45 of the Rulee Rules of Court ses of Court seekieking to nullng to nullify the Jaify the Januarnuary 7,1999 dey 7,1999 decisicision andon and the mArch 24, 1999 Order of the RTC of Cabanatuan city br 28 in Civil case no 3026-AF

the mArch 24, 1999 Order of the RTC of Cabanatuan city br 28 in Civil case no 3026-AF 2)

2) Rederick Rederick Recio (fiRecio (fil) marriel) married to Edid to Editha Samtha Samson (Austrson (Austrial citial citizen) in Mizen) in Malabon, alabon, Rizal MaRizal March 1, rch 1, 19871987 3)

3) May 18, 1May 18, 1989 a de989 a decree of cree of divorce divorce purportepurportedly dissolvdly dissolving the ing the marriage marriage was issuwas issued by Aued by Austrian fastrian family courtmily court 4)

4) June 26, June 26, 1992: re1992: respondent spondent became became AustraliAustralian citian citizen (cerzen (cert of t of AustraliaAustralian citn citizenship)izenship)

5)

5)

PetitioPetitioner and ner and respondent marrierespondent married in d in Jan 12, Jan 12, 1994 in 1994 in CabanatCabanatuan City—applicauan City—application for tion for a marriage license,a marriage license, respondent was declared as single and Filipino

respondent was declared as single and Filipino 6)

6) Lived separLived separately w/o jately w/o judicial diudicial dissolution ssolution of their mof their marriagearriage—conjugal —conjugal assets weassets were divided re divided on mAy 16, 1on mAy 16, 1996996 in accordance with Statutory Declarations secured in Australia

in accordance with Statutory Declarations secured in Australia

7)

7)

March 3, 1998: petitioMarch 3, 1998: petitioner filed Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of ner filed Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of Marriage on the ground of bigamy—bigamy— respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time they got married

respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time they got married

8)

8)

Respondent: as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequentRespondent: as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution

dissolution 9)

9) He waHe was caps capacitacitateated to md to marry arry petipetitiotioner iner in 199n 19944 10)

10) July 7, July 7, 19981998: : whilwhile e suit for declasuit for declaratration of ion of nulnullitlity y was pendiwas pending—ng—resprespondeondent was nt was able to secure divorable to secure divorcece decree in Sydney Australia since marriage has broken down

decree in Sydney Australia since marriage has broken down 11)

11) RespondenRespondent prayed in his answer that Comt prayed in his answer that Complaint be dismisseplaint be dismissed—stated—stated no cause of actiond no cause of action 12)

RTC: declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in RTC: declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Phils

the Phils

-- It basIt based its deed its decisicision on thon on the divoe divorce derce decree ocree obtaibtained by rened by responspondentdent. The Aus. The Austratralian dlian divorivorce had ece had endended thed the marriage, thus, there was no more marital union to nullify or annul

marriage, thus, there was no more marital union to nullify or annul

ISSUES: petition raised five issues but for purposes of this decision concentrate on two pivotal issues: ISSUES: petition raised five issues but for purposes of this decision concentrate on two pivotal issues:

1)

1) WhetWhether the diher the divorcvorce betwe between Reeen Responspondent adent and Edind Editha Ratha Ramos wamos was proves provenn 2)

2) Whether Whether respondent respondent was prowas proven to ven to be legabe legally capally capacitated citated to marto marry petiry petitionertioner

DECISION OF SC: Petition is meritorious; interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, court REMANDS the DECISION OF SC: Petition is meritorious; interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, court REMANDS the case to court

case to court a quoa quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent’s legal capacity tofor the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent’s legal capacity to remarry petitioner and failing in that, of declaring the parties’ marriage void on the ground of bigamy

remarry petitioner and failing in that, of declaring the parties’ marriage void on the ground of bigamy REASONS;

REASONS; First Issue:

First Issue: Proving the divorce between Respondent and Editha RamosProving the divorce between Respondent and Editha Ramos

-- PhilPhilippiippine law doene law does not pros not provide for avide for absolbsolute divute divorceorce, hence, or co, hence, or courts caurts cannot grnnot grant itant it. A marria. A marriage betwge betweeneen two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because Arts 15, 17 of the CC

two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because Arts 15, 17 of the CC

-- MixeMixed marrd marriageiages: s: a fil aa fil and a fond a foreireigner Agner Art 26 ort 26 of FC alf FC allowlows the fos the former trmer to conto contract ract a subsa subsequeequent marnt marriariage inge in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by alien spouse capacitating him to remarry

case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by alien spouse capacitating him to remarry

--

 Therefore, before any foreign divorce can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove Therefore, before any foreign divorce can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it—presentation solely of  the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it—presentation solely of  the divorce decree is insufficient

the divorce decree is insufficient

-- UndeUnder Sectr Section 24 anion 24 and 25 of Ruld 25 of Rule 132, a we 132, a writriting or doing or documecument may be pnt may be proveroven as a pubn as a public or olic or officfficial reial record ocord of f  a foreign country by either

a foreign country by either a)

a) An oAn offfficiciaial pul publblicicatatioionn b)

b) A copy thA copy thereoereof attef attested by thsted by the offie officer havcer having leing legal custgal custody of thody of the docue documentment c)

c) If recoIf record is not kerd is not kept in the Phipt in the Phils—sls—such a copy muuch a copy must be accost be accompanmpanied by a certied by a certificificate issate issued by theued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Phil foreign service stationed in the foreign country in proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Phil foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office

which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office

-- The diThe divorcvorce decree decree betwe between reseen respondpondent anent and Edithd Editha Samsoa Samson appen appears to be auars to be authenthentic hotic howevewever appear appearancrancee is not sufficient, compliance with the aforementioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated

is not sufficient, compliance with the aforementioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated

--

BurdBurden of en of provproving Austraing Australian law: lies lian law: lies witwith h the party who the party who allalleges the eges the exisexistenctences es of a of a fact or fact or thinthingg necessary in the prosecut

necessary in the prosecution of defense of an action—since defeion of defense of an action—since defense raised by respondent—nse raised by respondent—the the burden of burden of  proving pertinent Australian law to validate it falls on him

proving pertinent Australian law to validate it falls on him -- Our Our coucourtrts cas cannonnot tat take jke judiudicicial noal notitice oce of fof foreireign lgn lawawss Second issue: respondent’s legal capacity to remarry 

Second issue: respondent’s legal capacity to remarry 

-- DivoDivorce mrce means teans the leghe legal dial dissolssolutioution of a ln of a lawfuawful uniol union for a cn for a causause arie arising asing after mfter marrarriageiage

--

Different types: 2 common: 1) absolute divorce or aDifferent types: 2 common: 1) absolute divorce or a viniculo matrimoniiviniculo matrimonii and 2) limited divorce orand 2) limited divorce or a mansaa mansa et thoro

et thoro – first kind terminates the marriage while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force– first kind terminates the marriage while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force

--

  Th  This is cacase, se, no no shoshowiwing ng of of the the kikind nd of of didivorvorce ce decdecreree—e—resrespopondendent nt prepresensenteted d a a dedecrecree e ninisi si pr pr anan interlocutory decree—a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce

interlocutory decree—a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce

--

Some courts may restrict remarriage even after divorce is granted (some limited by statute- guilty partySome courts may restrict remarriage even after divorce is granted (some limited by statute- guilty party not tor remarry again)

not tor remarry again)

-- TherThere is conte is contentiention thaon that divort divorce obtace obtained be rined be respoespondenndent may have bet may have been resen restrictricted—ted—did not adid not absolbsolutelutelyy establish his legal capacity to remarry

establish his legal capacity to remarry

--

 TC erred in  TC erred in assuming that Australiaassuming that Australian divorcen divorce ipso factoipso facto restored respondent’s capacity to remarry despiterestored respondent’s capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter

the paucity of evidence on this matter

--

LegaLegal l capcapacitacity y to contracto contract t marrmarriage is iage is detdetermiermined by ned by the nationthe national al law of law of the party the party concconcernerned—ted—thehe certificate (mentioned in Art 21 of FC) could have established his legal capacity to remarry if presented certificate (mentioned in Art 21 of FC) could have established his legal capacity to remarry if presented -- TherThere is abse is absolutolutely no eely no evidevidence thnce that prat proves roves respoespondenndent’s let’s legal cagal capacipacity to maty to marry perry petittitioneionerr

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

Respondent: Cipriano Orbecido III Respondent: Cipriano Orbecido III

Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the RTC of Molave, Zamboanga Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the RTC of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur Br 23

del Sur Br 23

Ponente: Quisumbing, J Ponente: Quisumbing, J Issue: given a

Issue: given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalilater naturalized as zed as a foreign citizena foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under and obtains a valid divorce capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law? (applicability of Art 26 of the FC)

Philippine law? (applicability of Art 26 of the FC) Facts:

1)

1) In this petIn this petition for ition for review, SG areview, SG assails the ssails the decision odecision of RTC and f RTC and denying motdenying motion for reion for reconsideraconsideration—ttion—the courthe court declared that herein respondent is capacitated to remarry

declared that herein respondent is capacitated to remarry 2)

2) May 24, 1981May 24, 1981: Cipriano O: Cipriano Orbecido Irbecido III marrieII married Lady Myrod Lady Myros M. Villanues M. Villanueva at the va at the UCCP in LaUCCP in Lam-an Ozamim-an Ozamis, Citys, City 3)

3) Blessed wBlessed with a soith a son and n and daughter: daughter: KristoffeKristoffer Simbortr Simbortriz V. Orriz V. Orbecido abecido and Lady Knd Lady Kimberly Vimberly V. Obercido. Obercido 4)

4) 1986: Cipri1986: Cipriano’s wiano’s wife left fofe left for the US r the US bringing bringing along Kralong Kristoffer—istoffer—a few yeaa few years later rs later discoverediscovered by Ciprid by Cipriano thatano that wife had been naturalized as American citizen

wife had been naturalized as American citizen 5)

5) 2000: Cip2000: Cipriariano learnno learned from son that wied from son that wife obtaife obtained a divorcned a divorce decree ane decree and then marrid then married a certaied a certain Innocen Innocentnt Stanley (now living at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Ave San Gabriel California)

Stanley (now living at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Ave San Gabriel California) 6)

6) Cipriano Cipriano filed beffiled before RTC ore RTC petitiopetition for aun for authority thority to remarto remarry invokry invoking Par 2 ing Par 2 of Art of Art 26 of t26 of the FChe FC 7)

7) No oNo opposppositiition fion filed. led. RTC RTC grangranted tted the pehe petittitionion 8)

8) SolicitoSolicitor gener general rral representepresenting thing the ree republic public sought sought reconsidereconsideration ration but debut deniednied

-- ContContends tends that pahat par 2 Art 26 is nr 2 Art 26 is not appot appliclicable table to the ino the instanstant case bt case becauecause it onse it only applly applies to a vies to a valid malid mixedixed marriage; that is a marriage between a fil citizen and an alien

marriage; that is a marriage between a fil citizen and an alien -- PropProper rer remeemedy idy is to s to file file a pea petittition ion for afor annulnnulment ment or lor legal egal sepaseparatrationion

-- ArguArgues that no les that no law goveaw governs resrns respondpondent’ent’s situas situatiotion—a matn—a matter of leter of legislgislatioation and not a matn and not a matter of judter of judiciaiciall determination

determination SC:

SC: petitiopetition by RP is n by RP is GRANTEDGRANTED. The assailed decision date. The assailed decision dated May 15, 2002 and resolution dated July 4, 2002 of thed May 15, 2002 and resolution dated July 4, 2002 of the RTC Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur Br 23 are hereby SET ASIDE.

RTC Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur Br 23 are hereby SET ASIDE.

-- HoldHolds that ps that par 2 of Arar 2 of Art 26 of tht 26 of the FC amee FC amended bnded by EO 227 shy EO 227 should bould be intee interprerpreted tted to allo allow a Fil ciow a Fil citizetizen who han who hass been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried also to remarry—but been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried also to remarry—but declaration could only be made properly upon respondent’s submission of aforecited evidence in his favor declaration could only be made properly upon respondent’s submission of aforecited evidence in his favor

REASONS: REASONS:

1)

1) At the outAt the outset, the petset, the petition for aition for authority to uthority to remarry filremarry filed actualled actually constity constituted a petituted a petition for declaion for declaratory reratory relief lief  (sec 1Rule 63 of the Rules of Court)

(sec 1Rule 63 of the Rules of Court) 2)

2) ReqRequiuisitsites es for declfor declaraaratition on of of decdeclalaratratorory y relrelieief: f: a) a) thethere re mumust st be a be a jusjustiticiaciable contble controvroverersy; b) sy; b) ththee controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; c) that the party seeking the relief has controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; c) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy and d) the issue is ripe for judicial determination

a legal interest in the controversy and d) the issue is ripe for judicial determination 3)

3) The insThe instatant case is nt case is onone e whwhere at the time of ere at the time of mamarrrriaiage was ge was solsolememniznized, the parted, the partieies s wewere two Filire two Filipinpinoo citizens, but later on the

citizens, but later on the wife was naturalized as an wife was naturalized as an American citizeAmerican citizen and n and subsequentsubsequently obtained a divorcely obtained a divorce granting her capacity tor remarry ad indeed she remarried an American citizen

granting her capacity tor remarry ad indeed she remarried an American citizen 4)

4) (hist(historiorical backgcal backgrouround) CBCP: says that Art 26 nd) CBCP: says that Art 26 is discrimis discriminatinatory-ory-discdiscrimiriminatenates s agaiagainst those who spounst those who spousesses are Filipinos

are Filipinos who divorce them awho divorce them abroad. These spouses who are broad. These spouses who are divorced will divorced will not be able not be able to remarry whileto remarry while the spouses of foreigners who validly divorce them abroad can remarry

the spouses of foreigners who validly divorce them abroad can remarry 5)

5) This is This is the begithe beginning of nning of the recthe recognitioognition of the n of the validity ovalidity of divorce f divorce even for even for Fil citiFil citizenszens 6)

6) LegislativLegislative intent: Fae intent: Family Code delmily Code deliberatioiberation records: an records: art 26 was airt 26 was aimed to avomed to avoid the absurid the absurd situatiod situation wheren where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien

the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who after obtaining a divorce is spouse who after obtaining a divorce is no longer marriedno longer married to the fil citizen

to the fil citizen

7)

7)

 The answer to the question if this applies to Filipinos and to this case?—lies latent in the 1998 case of  The answer to the question if this applies to Filipinos and to this case?—lies latent in the 1998 case of  quita vs CA

quita vs CA—by way of —by way of  obiter dictumobiter dictum that A Fil divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longerthat A Fil divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Phil laws and can thus remarry

married under Phil laws and can thus remarry

8)

8)

 Thus, Art 26 par 2 of the FC should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who at the time of the Thus, Art 26 par 2 of the FC should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who at the time of the celebration of marriage were fil citizens but later on one becomes naturalized and obtains a divorce decree celebration of marriage were fil citizens but later on one becomes naturalized and obtains a divorce decree —to rule otherwise would post injustice and absurdity

—to rule otherwise would post injustice and absurdity 9)

9) The proviThe provision should sion should be constrbe construed to its ued to its spirit and spirit and reason, direason, disregarding sregarding as far as neas far as necessary thcessary the letter e letter of theof the law

law 10)

10) The reckoniThe reckoning point is not the citizenng point is not the citizenship of the parties during the tiship of the parties during the time of the marriage but durime of the marriage but during the timeng the time a valid divorce decree has been obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry a valid divorce decree has been obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry 11)

11) About the SC remeAbout the SC remedy given: the court cady given: the court cannot sustainnot sustain: annulment won: annulment would be a long and tediould be a long and tedious process andus process and not possible since marriage is valid; legal separation on the

not possible since marriage is valid; legal separation on the other hand would not be other hand would not be sufficient remedy forsufficient remedy for it would not sever marriage ties

it would not sever marriage ties 12)

12) However, recorHowever, records presented are bereft of competds presented are bereft of competent evidence duly submittent evidence duly submitted by respondent concernied by respondent concerningng the divorce decree and naturalization of wife

the divorce decree and naturalization of wife

13)

13)

Must prove his allegation that wife is naturalized and has obtained divorce and demonstrate itsMust prove his allegation that wife is naturalized and has obtained divorce and demonstrate its conformity with foreign law allowing it—showing also that wife was allowed to remarry

conformity with foreign law allowing it—showing also that wife was allowed to remarry

SAN LUIS vs. LUIS SAN LUIS vs. LUIS

GR NO. 133743 february 6, 2007 GR NO. 133743 february 6, 2007

Petitioner: edgar San Luis Petitioner: edgar San Luis Respondent: Felicidad San luis Respondent: Felicidad San luis

GR NO. 134929 february 6, 2007 GR NO. 134929 february 6, 2007 Petitioner:Rodolfo San Luis

Petitioner:Rodolfo San Luis

Respondent: Felicidad Sagalongos alias felicidad San Luis Respondent: Felicidad Sagalongos alias felicidad San Luis