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


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


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


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


5/37

"


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


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


7/37

;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


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


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


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.

>


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


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


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


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(.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


21/37

-" #he !ecision beco$es final upon the e


22/37

%.


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


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


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!,< <


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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;

persons marriage case 2

Documents