Scribd
Upload
137 views1 page

Filipino Divorce Rights Clarified

1) Cipriano Orbecido and Lady Myros were married in the Philippines but Lady Myros later became a US citizen and obtained a divorce and remarriage in the US. Cipriano sought permission to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. 2) Article 26 allows the Filipino spouse to remarry if the marriage was to a foreigner who obtained a valid divorce abroad. The OSG argued it did not apply since both were Filipino at marriage. 3) The Court ruled Article 26 did apply because the relevant time is the parties' citizenship when divorce is obtained, not at marriage. Since Lady Myros was a US citizen when divorced, Cipriano

Uploaded by

Jeov
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
137 views1 page

Filipino Divorce Rights Clarified

1) Cipriano Orbecido and Lady Myros were married in the Philippines but Lady Myros later became a US citizen and obtained a divorce and remarriage in the US. Cipriano sought permission to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. 2) Article 26 allows the Filipino spouse to remarry if the marriage was to a foreigner who obtained a valid divorce abroad. The OSG argued it did not apply since both were Filipino at marriage. 3) The Court ruled Article 26 did apply because the relevant time is the parties' citizenship when divorce is obtained, not at marriage. Since Lady Myros was a US citizen when divorced, Cipriano

Uploaded by

Jeov
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Republic vs.

Obrecido
GR No. 154380, October 5, 2005

Facts:
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva in Ozamis City. In 1986, Lady
Myros left for the United States, bringing one of their children with her. A few years later, Cirpriano
discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen, and sometime in 2000, he learned
that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and was remarried to Innocent Stanley. Because of this,
Cipriano filed a petition for authority to remarry, invoking Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of
the Philippines which states
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse incapacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law
The Office of the Solicitor General contended that the said provision cannot be applicable in this case
since Article 26 talks about mixed marriages, i.e., that of a Filipino to a foreigner. However, this was not
the case in Cipriano and Lady Myros’ marriage since both were Filipinos at the time of the marriage.

Issue:
Does paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code apply in this case?

Ruling:
Yes. The Court looked at the legal intent of the provision and found out that the Civil Code Revision
Committee’s intent in including Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation wherein the Filipino spouse is
deemed to remain married to the foreigner when, after obtaining the divorce, the foreigner is no longer
married to the Filipino. The Court then set the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2, Article
26 as follows:

1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

The Court made it clear that the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad. Hence,
since Lady Myros was already an American citizen at the time she obtained the divorce abroad, Article
26 may be applied to the case.

You might also like