Title
Republic vs. Orbecido III
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 154380 Oct 5, 2005
A Filipino citizen seeks permission to remarry after his spouse, who obtained
American citizenship, divorces him and remarries, leading the Supreme Court to
interpret the Family Code and rule in favor of the Filipino citizen's capacity to
remarry under Philippine law.
Case Summary (G.R. No. 154380)
Case Background and Parties Involved
The case involves Cipriano Orbecido III, a Filipino citizen, and his wife Lady Myros
M. Villanueva.
Lady Myros obtained American citizenship and a divorce decree, and remarried an
American citizen.
Cipriano filed a petition for authority to remarry, invoking Article 26 of the Family
Code of the Philippines.
Main Issue: Interpretation of Article 26
The main issue in the case is the interpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the
Family Code.
Article 26 states that when a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is
validly celebrated and a divorce is obtained abroad by the foreign spouse, the
Filipino spouse shall have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Arguments of the Solicitor General
The Solicitor General argues that Article 26 does not apply to Cipriano's case since
both parties were Filipino citizens at the time of marriage.
The Solicitor General also contends that this is a matter of legislation and not of
judicial determination.
Arguments of Cipriano
Cipriano argues that although Article 26 is not directly applicable, he should be
capacitated to remarry by operation of law.
He argues that his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce decree that granted her
the capacity to remarry.
Court's Determination of Petition for Declaratory Relief
The Supreme Court determines that Cipriano's petition is a petition for declaratory
relief.
It requires a justiciable controversy, adverse interests between the parties, a legal
interest in the controversy, and a ripe issue for judicial determination.
The Court finds that these requirements are met in this case.
Legislative Intent and Historical Background of Article 26
The Court delves into the legislative intent behind Article 26 and its historical
background.
It notes that the provision was added to the Family Code in 1987 to address
marriages between Filipino citizens and foreigners where the foreign spouse
obtains a valid divorce decree.
The Court cites a previous case, Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr., which held that a Filipino
divorced by a naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law
and can remarry.
Court's Interpretation of Article 26
Based on legislative intent and the rule of reason, the Court interprets Paragraph 2
of Article 26 to include cases where the parties were Filipino citizens at the time of
marriage but one later becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a
divorce decree.
The Court argues that ruling otherwise would lead to absurdity and injustice.
Twin Elements for Application of Article 26
The Court establishes the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article
26:
1. A valid marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner.
2. A valid divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
The citizenship of the parties at the time of divorce is the determining factor, not
their citizenship at the time of marriage.
Lack of Competent Evidence
The Court notes that the records lack competent evidence regarding the divorce
decree and the naturalization of Cipriano's wife.
It emphasizes that the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it, and mere
allegations are not sufficient.
Cipriano must provide evidence of his wife's naturalization, the divorce decree, and
its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
He must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry.
Conclusion and Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court grants the petition by the Republic of the Philippines, setting
aside the decision of the trial court.
The Court emphasizes that while Cipriano may be capacitated to remarry under
Article 26, he must provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.
