UPLOAD

Log in
Sign up

Browse
DOWNLOAD
STANDARD VIEW
FULL VIEW

1
1

OF 261

CIVILLAWREVIEW-1-CASEDIGEST
Ratings: (1)|Views: 446 |Likes: 0
Published by HANZJIREH
civil law review digest
See more
CIVIL LAW REVIEW I
LLB4402
(2010-2011)
Atty. Viviana Martin-Paguirigan
b ased as well as the evidenc e required to sustain either were different. Because there is no identity
ast o t h e
c a u s e o f a c t i o n , p e t i t i o n e r c l a i m s t h a t r e s judicata does not lie to bar the second petition. Inthis
connection, petitioner maintains that there wasno violatio n o f the rule on foru m sh opp ing or o f
ther u l e w h i c h p r o s c r i b e s t h e s p l i t t i n g o f a c a u s e o f action.O n t h e o t h e r
h a n d , r e s p o n d e n t , i n h e r c o m m e n t counters that while the present suit is anchored on adifferent ground,
it still involvesthe same issue raised in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95,tha t is, the va lidity o f p etitio ner an d
res pond en t'sm arriag e, and pra ys fo r the sam e rem ed y, th at
is,t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f n u l l i t y o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e . Resp ond en t thus con ten
ds th at p etitio ner vio la tedthe ru le on fo rum shopp ing . Mo reover , res pond en t asserts that petitioner
violated the rule on multiplicityof suits as the ground he cites in this p etitio n cou ld ha ve b een ra is ed
du ring the tr ia l in Civil C ase No. SP 4341-95.ISSUE:The issue before this Court is one of first impression.Should
the matter of the invalidity of a marriage dueto th e abs enc e of an essentia l requ is ite pres cr ib ed b y
A r t i c l e 4 o f t h e Fa m i l y C o d e b e r a i s e d i n
t h e s a m e p r o c e e d i n g w h e r e t h e m a r r i a g e i s b e i n g im pugn ed on the ground of a
p arty's psych ologica l incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code?HELD: Petitioner insists that because the
action for d ec la ra tion o f nu llity o f m arriag e on the ground
o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n c a p a c i t y a n d t h e a c t i o n f o r declar atio n of nullity of
marriag e on the ground of a b s e n c e o f m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e c o n s t i t u t e s e p a r a t e c a u s e s o f
a c t i o n , t h e p r e s e n t c a s e w o u l d n o t f a l l under the prohibition against splitting a single causeof action
no r wou ld it b e ba rred b y the pr in ciple o f res judicata.The contention is untenable. Res judicata is definedas
"a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted uponor decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. Italso refers to
the rule that a final judgment or decreeon the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction isconclusive of the rights
of the parties or their priviesin all later suits on points and matters determined inthe former suit."This do ctrine is
a rule wh ich p er va des ever y well- regu la ted sys tem of ju rispru denc e an d is fo und ed upon the
following precepts of common law, namely:(1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to thein terest of th e
S tate that th ere shou ld b e a n en d to litigation, and (2) the hardship on the individual thath e s h o u l d b e
v e x e d t w i c e f o r t h e s a m e c a u s e . A contrary doctrine would subject the public peace andquiet to the will
and neglect of individuals and prefer the gratification of the litigious disposition on the partof suitors to the
preservation of the public tranquilityand happiness.Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrenceof the
following requisites: (1) the former judgment isfinal; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdictionover the
sub ject matter an d the par ties ; (3 ) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is
b e t w e e n t h e fi r s t a n d t h e s e c o n d a c t i o n s identity of parties, of subject matter, and
of causes of action.Petitioner does not dispute the existence of the firstthree req uis ites . Wha t is in issu e is
the p resen ce o f t h e f o u r t h r e q u i s i t e . I n t h i s r e g a r d , t h e t e s t t o determine whether the
causes of action are identicali s t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e s a m e e v i d e n c e w i l l sustain
bo th action s, or wh ether th ere is an identityin the fa cts ess en tial to the m ain tena nc e of th e
two actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustainboth, the two actions are considered the same,
anda j u d g m e n t i n t h e fi r s t c a s e i s a b a r t o t h e subsequent action.Based on
this test, petitioner would contend that thetwo petitions brought by him seeking the declarationof nullity of his

marriag e are anch ored on

s eparate c a u s e s o f a c t i o n f o r t h e e v i d e n c e n e c e s s a r y t o sustain the first petition which
was anchored on thealleged psych olog ic al inc apa city of respo ndent is different from the evidence
necessary to sustain thepresent petition which is anchored on the purportedabsence of a marriage
license.P e t i t i o n e r , h o w e v e r , f o r g e t s t h a t h e i s s i m p l y i n v o k i n g d i ff e r e n t g r o u n d s
f o r t h e s a m e c a u s e o f a ctio n. B y d efi n itio n, a c aus e o f a ctio n is the ac t
o r o m i s s i o n b y w h i c h a p a r t y v i o l a t e s t h e r i g h t o f an other. In bo th petition s,
p etitio ner has th e s am ecause the declaration of nullity of his marriage torespo ndent. Wh at diff er s is the
g roun d upo n wh ic hthe c ause o f a ctio n is pred ic ated . Th es e
g roun dsc i t e d b y p e t i t i o n e r e s s e n t i a l l y s p l i t t h e v a r i o u s aspects of the pivotal issue that
holds the key to ther e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y , t h a t i s , t h e a c t u a l status of petitioner and
respondent's marriage.Fu rtherm ore, the ins ta nt c ase is prem is ed on theclaim th at the ma rr ia ge is
nu ll and vo id b ec ause no va lid celebr atio n of th e sa me too k p la ce du e to the
45

CIVIL LAW REVIEW I

LLB4402
(2010-2011)
Atty. Viviana Martin-Paguirigan

alleged lack of a marriage license. In Civil Case No.SP 4341-95, however, petitioner impliedly
concededt h a t t h e m a r r i a g e h a d b e e n s o l e m n i z e d a n d celebrated in accordance with
law. Petitioner is nowboun d by th is adm is sion. Th e a lleg ed a bsenc e o f a ma rr ia ge lic en se which
p etitio ner r ais es now c ould have been presented and heard in the earlier case.Suffice it to state that parties are
bound not only asregards every matter offered and received to sustainor defeat their claims or demand but as to
any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could
havebeen adjudged in that case.
It must be emphasized that a party cannot evade
or a v o i d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f r e s j u d i c a t a b y s i m p l y varying the form of his action or
adopting a different meth od of presentin g h is c ase. It bears stressing that a party cannot divide the
grounds for recovery. A plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading, all the issues existing when the suit
began. A lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal. The plaintiff isbound to set forth in his first action every ground
for relief wh ic h h e c la im s to exist an d upo n wh ic h h e relied, and cannot be permitted to rely upon
them by piecemeal in successive action to recover for thesame wrong or injury.
47) NAVARRO vs. DOMAGTOYA.M. No. MTJ-96-108. July 19, 1996
FACTS:Th e com plainan t in this a dministra tive c ase is th e Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte,
RodolfoG. Navarro. He has submitted evidence in relation totwo specific acts committed by respondent
MunicipalC i r c u i t Tr i a l C o u r t J u d g e H e r n a n d o D o m a g t o y , which , he c on tends , exhibits gros s
mis cond uct a swell as in effi cien cy in o ffi c e and ign or anc e of
thelaw.F i r s t , o n S e p t e m b e r 2 7 , 1 9 9 4 , r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e s o l e m n i z e d t h e w e d d i n g b
e t w e e n G a s p a r A . Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga, despite the knowledget h a t t h e
g r o o m i s m e r e l y s e p a r a t e d f r o m h i s fi r s t wife.S ec ond , it is alleged th at he performed a
marriag e c e r e m o n y b e t w e e n F l o r i a n o D a d o r S u m a y l o a n d G e m m a G . d e l R o s a r i o
o u t s i d e h i s c o u r t ' s jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Respondent
judgeh o l d s o ffi c e a n d h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e M u n i c i p a l Circ uit Tr ia l C our t of Sta. Mo nicaBu rg os , Suriga o d e l N o r t e . T h e w e d d i n g w a s s o l e m n i z e d a t t h e respo ndent ju dge's
res id en ce in th e mu nicipa lity of Da pa , which do es no t fa ll within his ju risdictio na l area of the
municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos,l o c a t e d s o m e 4 0 t o 4 5 k i l o m e t e r s a w a y f r o m
t h e municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte.Respondent judge seeks exculpation from his act
of havin g so lemn iz ed the ma rr ia ge b etween Gas pa r Tag ad an , a ma rr ied man sep ar ated fro m h is
wife,an d Ar lyn F. Bo rg a b y s ta ting th at he merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial
Judgeo f B a s e y , S a m a r , c o n fi r m i n g t h e f a c t t h a t M r . Tagadan and his first wife have not seen
each other for almost seven years. With respect to the
secondc h a r g e , h e m a i n t a i n s t h a t i n s o l e m n i z i n g t h e marriage between Sumaylo
and del Rosario, he didnot violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family Codewhich states that: "Marriage may be
solemnized by:(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within thecourt's jurisdiction;" and that article 8 thereof
appliesto the case in question.Th e ma rr ia ge c ontra ct b etween Gas pa r Tag ad an and Arlyn Borga states that
Tagadan's civil status is"sepa ra ted." Des pite this d ec la ra tion , th e wedd in gceremony was solemnized by
respondent judge. Hepresented in evidence a joint affidavit by Maurecio A.Lab ado , Sr. and Eugen io Bu llecer ,
sub scr ib ed ands wo rn to befo re Jud ge Dem os th enes C . Duq uilla, MTC of Basey, Samar. In their affidavit,
the affiantsstated that they knew Gaspar Tagadan to have beencivilly ma rr ied to Ida D. Pea ra nda in
S ep temb er 19 83; th at a fter thirteen year s of coh ab itatio n andh avin g bo rn e fi ve child ren, Id a
Pe ar and a left th e conjugal dwelling in Valencia, Bukidnon and that shehas not returned nor been heard of for
almost sevenyear s, thereby g ivin g r is e to the pres ump tion th at she is already dead.ISSUE:1.Whether or not
the joint affidavit is sufficient proof of the wife's presumptive death?2.Wh ether or n ot th e res pon den t jud ge
erred wh en h e s o l e m n i z e d t h e m a r r i a g e o u t s i d e h i s c o u r t ' s jurisdiction?HELD:1. The Supreme
Court ruled that the joint affidavit isi n s u ffi c i e n t p r o o f t o d e c l a r e w i f e ' s p r e s u m p t i v e death. Article
41 of the Family Code expressly provides
that f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f c o n t r a c t i n g t h e s u b s e q u e n t marriage under the preceding
paragraph, the spousep r e s e n t m u s t i n s t i t u t e a s u m m a r y p r o c e e d i n g a s
46

CIVIL LAW REVIEW I

LLB4402
(2010-2011)
Atty. Viviana Martin-Paguirigan
p r o v i d e d i n t h i s C o d e f o r t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f presumptive death
o f t h e a b s e n t e e , w i t h o u t prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absentspouse.Even if the

spouse present has a well-founded

belief t h a t t h e a b s e n t s p o u s e w a s a l r e a d y d e a d , a s u m m a r y p r o c e e d i n
g f o r t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f presumptive death is necessary in order to contracta sub sequent
marriag e, a m and ator y requirement w h i c h h a s b e e n p r e c i s e l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e Family
C ode to d isc our ag e subs eq uent ma rr ia ges where it is not proven that the previous marriage hasb een
d iss olved or a missing sp ouse is fa ctua lly o r p resump tively dead ,
in accordanc e with pertin en t provisions of
law.G a s p a r T a g a d a n d i d n o t i n s t i t u t e a s u m m a r y p r o c e e d i n g f o r t h e d e c l a r a
t i o n o f h i s fi r s t w i f e ' s presumptive death. Absent this judicial
declaration,h e r e m a i n s m a r r i e d t o I d a P e a r a n d a . W h e t h e r witting ly o r un wittin gly, it was
manifest error on thepa rt of resp ond ent judg e to h ave ac cepted th e jo in ta ffi d avit subm itted b y
the groo m. Such neglec t or ignorance of the law has resulted in a bigamous, andtherefore void, marriage.2.
Th e Su prem e Cour t ruled th at Judg e Doma gtoyerred wh en h e so em nized the ma rr ia ge outside
h isc o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o a r t i c l e 8 o f t h e Fa miliy Cod e T he ma rr ia ge
sh all be solem nized publicly in the chambers the judge or in open court,in the church, chapel or temple, or in the
office of thecon sul-g enera l, cons ul or vice- cons ul, as the
case m a y b e , a n d n o t e l s e w h e r e , e x c e p t i n c a s e s o f m a r r i a g e s c o n t r a c t e d o n t h e
p o i n t o f d e a t h o r i n rem ote plac es in ac co rd anc e with Ar ticle 2 9 o f this Code, or where both parties
request the solemnizingofficer in writing in which case the marriage may besolemnized at a house or place
designated by themin a sworn statement to that effect.There is no proof that either Sumaylo or del Rosariow a s a t
t h e p o i n t o f d e a t h o r i n t h e r e m o t e p l a c e . Moreover, the written request presented
addressedt o t h e r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e w a s m a d e b y o n l y o n e party, Gemma del
Rosario.O n e o f t h e f o r m a l r e q u i s i t e s o f m a r r i a g e i s t h e "authority of the solemnizing
officer." Article 8, whichis a d irec to ry p ro vision , refer s only to th e venu e o f the marriage ceremony and
does not alter or qualifythe authority of the solemnizing officer as provided inthe p receding provis io n. N oncomp lian ce h erewith will not invalidate the marriage.Jud ges wh o a re ap pointed to sp ec ifi c
jur isd iction s, may officiate in weddings only within said areas andno t beyo nd. Wh ere a judg e so lemn izes
a marr iageou ts id e his cou rt's jur is dictio n, there is a resulta nt irregularity in the formal requisite, which
while it maynot a ff ec t th e valid ity of th e marriag e, ma y subjec t the officiating official to administrative
liability.R e s p o n d e n t j u d g e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n c o v e r s t h e mun ic ip alities o f S ta . Mon ica
an d Bu rg os , h e was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage inthe municipality of Dapa, Surigao del
Norte.The Supreme Court finds respondent to have actedin gro ss igno ran ce of th e la w. Th e leg al
pr in ciples applicable in the cases brought to our attention
aree l e m e n t a r y a n d u n c o m p l i c a t e d , p r o m p t i n g u s t o c onc lu de th at resp ond ent's fa ilure to
apply th em is due to a lac k of co mp rehen sion o f the law. Judge Domagtoy is SUSPENDED for a period of 6
months.The ma rr ia ge b etween Gas pa r Tag ad an an d Ar lyn Borga is considered bigamous and void, there
beinga subsisting marriage between Gaspar Tagadan andIda Pearanda.
48) BESO vs. DAGUMANA.M. No. 99-1211, January 28, 2000
FACTS:On August 28, 1997, the marriage between ZenaidaB e s o a n d B e r n a r d i t o Y m a n w a s s o l e m n i z e d
b y J u d g e J u a n D a g u m a n a t J . P . R . S u b d i v i s i o n i n C a l b a y o g C i t y , S a m a r. A f t e r t h e w
e d d i n g , Y m a n a band on ed Petitio ner. Thereafter , Petition er fo undt h a t h e r m a r r i a g e w a s
n o t r e g i s t e r e d a t t h e C i v i l Registry. She then filed an administrative complaintagainst the Respondent
charging him with Neglect of D u t y a n d A b u s e o f A u t h o r i t y f o r s o l e m n i z i n g marriage
outside of his jurisdiction and
of negligencei n n o t r e t a i n i n g a c o p y a n d n o t r e g i s t e r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e c o n t r a c t w
i t h t h e o ffi c e o f t h e L o c a l Registrar.In his Co mm ent, Resp ond ent a verred th at the
civil marriage had to be solemnized outside his
territoryb e c a u s e o n t h a t d a t e r e s p o n d e n t w a s p h y s i c a l l y indisposed and unable to report to his
station in Sta.Ma rg ar ita and th at B eso and Yman
un expected ly c a m e t o h i s h o u s e u r g e n t l y r e q u e s t i n g t h e c e l e b r a t i o n
o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e r i t e s s i n c e t h e co mplaina nt, wh o is an over seas wo rker , wou ld be
47

CIVIL LAW REVIEW I

LLB4402

(2010-2011)
Atty. Viviana Martin-Paguirigan
o u t o f t h e c o u n t r y f o r a l o n g p e r i o d a n d t h e i r marriage license would la
p s e b e f o r e s h e c o u l d return to the Philippines. He further averred that after h a n d l i n g t o Y m a n t h e
fi r s t c o p y o f t h e m a r r i a g e certificate, he left the three remaining copies on topo f t h e d e s k i n h i s
p r i v a t e o ffi c e i n t e n d i n g l a t e r t o register the dup lica te and triplic ate cop ies a nd to k e e p t h e
f o u r t h i n h i s o ffi c e b u t s a i d c o p i e s w e r e los t; th at he diligently search ed for th em and
even subpoenad Yman to further inquire but was told
thatC o m p l a i n a n t p u t t h e c o p i e s o f t h e m a r r i a g e certifi c ate in her ba g dur ing
the wedd in g pa rty and that Complainant already left for abroad.ISSUE:Whether or not the respondent is guilty of
Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority?HELD:Yes. As presiding judge of the MCTC Sta. MargaritaTa r a n g n a n Pa g s a n j a n , S a m a r , h i s a u t h o r i t y t o s o l e m n i z e m a r r i a g e i s o n l y l i m i t e d t o t h
o s e municipalities under his jurisdiction. Considering
thatr e s p o n d e n t s J u d g e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n c o v e r s t h e municipality of Sta. MargaritaTarangan-Pagsanjan,S a m a r o n l y , h e w a s n o t c l o t h e d w i t h a u t h o r i t y t o solem nize a ma rr iage in
the City of Calba yo g. As provided by Article 8 of the Family Code, wherein amarriage may be solemnized by a
judge outside hisch am ber[s] or at a p la ce other tha n his sa la , to wit: (1) when either or both of the
contracting parties is atth e p oint of death; (2 ) wh en the res id en ce of eith er party is located in a remote
place; (3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writingin which case the marriage may be
solemnized at
ah o u s e o r p l a c e d e s i g n a t e d b y t h e m i n a s w o r n s t a t e m e n t
t o
t h a t
e
ff e c t .
T h e
f o r e g o i n g circumstances are unavailing in the instant case.Moreover, as
solemnizing officer, respondent Judgen e g l e c t e d h i s d u t y w h e n h e f a i l e d t o r e g i s t e r t h e marriage.
Such duty is entrusted upon him pursuantto Article 23 of the Family Code requiring the samenot later than
fi fteen d ays a fter th e m arriag e.
Th er e c o r d s s h o w t h a t t h e l o s s w a s o c c a s i o n e d b y ca reless ness on respo ndent
Jud ge's p art. Hen ce, Respondent is guilty of neglect of duty and abuse of authority.
49) REPUBLIC vs. IYOYG.R. No. 152577 September 21, 2005
FACTS:Private respondent Crasus Iyoy filed a complaint
for d e c l a r a t i o n o f n u l l i t y o f m a r r i a g e d u e t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n c a p
a c i t y u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 6 o f t h e Family Code, in relation with Articles 68, 70, and 72,w i t h F e l y A d a
Ro s a l. Ac c o rd in g
t o h i m , t h e y g o t m a r r i e d i n 1 9 6 1 . T h e m a r r i a g e p r o d u c e d fi v e children. But the
marriage faded because Fely was anagger, extravagant and hot-tempered. In 1984, Felyleft for the United States.
Barely a year after she left,Crasus received a letter from her requesting that hesign the divorce papers. But he
ignored the requestSo metime in 198 5, h e wa s informed th at Fely h ada lrea dy m arried a n Am er ic an . In
1 987 , she ca me back to the Philippines with her American family. In1990, she came back to attend the wedding of
their e l d e s t s o n , b u t i n t h e i n v i t a t i o n s , s h e u s e d t h e surname of her American husband.
She returned in1 992 fo r the op er atio n o f their four th child . In h er Answer to the Complaint, she asserted
that she wasalready an American citizen in 1988, that she was nolo nger h ot-tem pered, nagg er and
extravag an t an dtha t the on ly rea son she went to the Un ited States w a s t h a t t h e i r i n c o m e w a s
not enough to
s u s t a i n t h e i r f a m i l y , t h a t i t w a s C r a s u s w h o w a s irres po ns ib le and
in fact living with ano th er wo ma n who bore her a child. She also denied that she senta letter req uestin g
h im to sig n th e divo rc e
p apers . After hearing both sides, the RTC rendered ad e c i s i o n d e c l a r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e n u l l a n d v o i d
a b i n i t i o u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 6 o f t h e F a m i l y C o d e . O n appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of t h e l o w e r c o u r t b u t t h i s t i m e i t h a d a d d e d a ratiocination,
stating that Article 26, 2
nd
paragraph of the Family Code is applicable also to this case.ISSUES:1. Whether or not there was psychological
incapacityon the part of Fely?2. Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26of the Family Code is applicable?
HELD1. The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Article36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability totake
cognizance of and to assume the basic maritalobligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty,much less, ill will,
on the part of the errant spouse.
Itw a s h e l d i n p r e v i o u s r u l i n g s t h a t i r r e c o n c i l a b l e d i ff e r e n c e s , c o n fl i c t i n g p e r s o n a l i t i e s
, e m o t i o n a l i m m a t u r i t y a n d i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , p h y s i c a l a b u s e , hab itua l alcoh olis m, s exual
infi d elity or p er vers io n, a n d a b a n d o n m e n t , b y t h e m s e l v e s , a l s o d o n o t
48
CIVIL LAW REVIEW I
LLB4402
(2010-2011)
Atty. Viviana Martin-Paguirigan
warrant a fi nd ing of psych olog ic al in ca pa city under the said Article.2 . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r u l e d
i n t h e n e g a t i v e . T h e second paragraph of Article 26 is not applicable.
Asp l a i n l y w o r d e d , t h e p r o v i s i o n r e f e r s t o a s p e c i a l s i t u a t i o n w h e r e i n a f o r e i g n e r d i v o r

c e s h i s o r h e r Filipino spouse. However, in this case, it cannot beapp lied b ec aus e o f the simple fa ct that
at th e time F e l y s e c u r e d a d i v o r c e d e c r e e , s h e w a s s t i l l a Filipino. Fely admitted in her
Answer filed before theRTC that she married her American spouse in
1985b u t s h e a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t s h e b e c a m e a n d American citizen only
in 1988. Thus, she was still aF i l i p i n o c i t i z e n a n d A r t i c l e 1 5 o f t h e C i v i l C o d e app lies , sh e was
s till b ound by Ph ilip pine la ws on fa mily rig hts and duties, status, c ondition an d
leg al c a p a c i t y , e v e n t h o u g h s h e w a s a l r e a d y l i v i n g abroad.
50) REPUBLIC vs. ORBECIDO IIIGR No. 154380 October 5, 2005
FACTS:I n 1 9 8 1 , C i p r i a n o O r b e c i d o a n d L a d y M y r o s V i l l a n u e v a w e r e m a r r i e d
i n O z a m i s C i t y . T h e i r m arriag e wa s b lessed with a so n and a da ugh ter, Krsitoffer and Kimberly.
In 1986, Lady Myros left for t h e U S b r i n g i n g a l o n g t h e i r s o n K r i s t o ff e r. A f e w year s later ,
C ip riano dis co vered th at h is wife ha d been naturalized as an American citizen.Som etim e in 20 00 ,
C ip riano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and thenmarried an American,
Innocent Stanley. Thereafter,C i p r i a n o fi l e d w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p e t i t i o n f o r authority to
remarry invoking paragraph 2 of Article26 of the Family Code. Finding merit on the petition,th e c our t gra nted
the same. The Repub lic, throug hthe Offi ce o f the So licito r G en er al (OS G), sough treconsideration but
it was denied.In this petition, the Republic contends that Par. 2
of Art. 26 of the Family Code is not applicable to theinstant case because it only applies to a valid mixedma rr iage;
that is, a ma rr ia ge c eleb ra ted between a Filipino and an alien.ISSUE:Whether or not respondent can remarry
pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code?HELD:The Supreme Court was unanimous in holding
thatp a r . 2 , A r t . 2 6 o f t h e F a m i l y C o d e s h o u l d b e interpreted to allow a Filipino
citizen, who has beend i v o r c e d b y a s p o u s e w h o h a d a c q u i r e d f o r e i g n citizenship and remarried, also
to remarry.The twin elements of Par. 2 of Art. 26 of the FamilyC ode are as follo ws : (1 ) th ere is a va lid
marriag etha t has been celebr ated b etween a Filip in o citizena nd a foreign er and (2 ) a va lid divo rce
is ob tain ed ab ro ad b y the a lien spou se ca pa cita ting him o r her to remarry. The reckoning point is not the
citizenshipat th e tim e of th e celebr atio n of marriag e, but their c itiz en sh ip at the time a va lid
d ivorce is ob ta in ed abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter
tor e m a r r y . I n t h i s c a s e , w h e n L a d y M y r o s w a s naturalized as an American citizen,
there was still avalid marriage that has been celebrated between
her a n d C i p r i a n o . S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e w i f e o b t a i n e d a divorce capacitating him to remarry. Clearly,
the twinr e q u i s i t e s a r e b o t h p r e s e n t i n t h e c a s e . T h u s , Cipr ian o, the d ivorced Filipino
sp ouse, shou ld be allowed to remarry.However, for respondents plea to prosper, he mustprove that his wife was
naturalized as an Americancitizen and must show sufficient proof of the divorced ec ree. Ciprian o failed to do
this so th e p etitio n of the Republic was granted.
51) Atienza vs. BrillantesA.M. No. MTJ-92-706, 29 March 1995
Quiason,
J.:FA C T S : A c o m p l a i n t fi l e b y c o m p l a i n a n t L u p o A . Atienza (Atienza) for gross immorality andappe
arance of impropriety against respondent JudgeFrancisco Brillantes,
Jr. (Brillantes). Atienza has two children with Yolanda DeC a s t r p ( D e C a s t r o ) . T h e r e w a s a t i m
e w h e n Atienza chanced upon Brillantes sleeping on hisb e d r o o m a n d w a s l a t e r o n i n f o r m
e d b y t h e i r h o u s e b o y t h a t B r i l l a n t e s i s c o h a b i t i n g w i o t h D e Castro. Atienza claims that
Brillantes was married toZena id a Ong kiko (On gkiko) wh om th e latter h as five children.B rillan tes
d enied having ma rr ied Ong kiko , b e c a u s e i t w a s c e l e b r a t e d w i t h o u t a m a r r i a g e licens e
, the same inc id en t also h app ened on
their s e c o n d m a r r i a g e . B r i l l a n t e s w a s t h e r e a f t e r abandoned by Ongkiko seventeen
years ago.
49
Activity (1)

FILTERS
Add to collectionReviewAdd NoteLike
1 hundred reads
Similar to CIVILLAWREVIEW-1-CASEDIGEST
Wills and Succession Course Outline and Cases (New)
PAULINE MAE ARANETA

Negotiable Instruments Law.notes

STUBBORN_DAWG

Civil Law Digested Cases 2013-2014

JON SANTOS

UST GOLDEN NOTES Civil

EINS BALAGTAS

UP Bar Reviewer 2013 - Civil Law

PAULJOHNGALERA

Civil Law 1 (B)

IVES JASON

Pfr Cases Compilation Final b1

DODONG123

Civil Law Review II - With Answers

MTABCAO

Uribe Notes
AZY IGNACIO

2006 Civil Law Case Digests

JACQUELINE PULIDO DAGUIAO

Albano 2010-2012 Survey of Cases (Civil Law)

JEREMY RYAN CHUA

UPSolid2010CivilLawPre Week
MITROMNEY

Persons and Family Relations (civil law)

LOVE LEE HALLARSIS

Civil Law
GLENN MARK FREJAS RINION

UribeNotes
LUCHI_PEREZ3434

Conflicts Sempio Diy Book Reviewer

DIANE STEFFI TITONG GUILLAMON

Up Succession
KIKOY ILAGAN

Awesomes Succession Atty. Legarda Compilation Digest

KIKOY ILAGAN

209_Suggested Answers in Civil Law Bar Exams(1990-2006)

BEN_TEN_13

Mickey Mouse Notes

NIKIBOIGENIUS

2012 Civil Law Review

JEIMUEL SILVESTRE

Important Provisions in Civil Law Mat

IBIANG DELEOZ

110020363 ALBANO Persons and Family Relations

ESME KYLIE DELA CRUZ

146490260 Torts and Damages

ZACK SEIFER

Conflict
IBIANG DELEOZ

54431289 Law on Sales Digested Cases

ESME KYLIE DELA CRUZ

Persons
AZEHJ

More From This User

98293126 Summarized Villanueva Book CORPO
HANZJIREH

Revised+Ortega+Lecture+Notes+I
HANZJIREH

Dangerous+Drug+Act
HANZJIREH

Affidavit+Complaint+for+Rape
HANZJIREH

TR, LOC and WRL

HANZJIREH

TR, LOC and WRL (1)

HANZJIREH

Affidavit+Complaint+for+Rape
HANZJIREH

Selected+Cases+in+Crim.+Rev.+1
HANZJIREH

2012+Criminal+Law+Summer+Reviewer Book1 Final Printversion

HANZJIREH

Primer on Writ of Amparo

HANZJIREH

RP v. Sandigan
HANZJIREH

Liang vs. People

HANZJIREH

Affidavit Complaint for Rape

HANZJIREH

ejectment
HANZJIREH

Criminal Law Book2 UP Sigma Rho

HANZJIREH

sccrim
HANZJIREH

KEYTE
HANZJIREH

Dava Sawmill
HANZJIREH

Property
HANZJIREH

Download and print this document

Read and print without ads
Download to keep your version

Edit, email or read offline

Choose a format:
.DOC

.PDF

DOWNLOAD
Recommended

Wills and Succession Course Outline a...

Pauline Mae Araneta
Succession Course Outline and New Cases

Negotiable Instruments Law.notes

stubborn_dawg
Negotiable Instruments Law.Notes with digests

Civil Law Digested Cases 2013-2014

Jon Santos
case

UST GOLDEN NOTES Civil

Eins Balagtas
UST GOLDEN NOTES
Previous|NextPage 1 of 7
.DOC

.PDF

DOWNLOAD
ABOUT
Browse books
Browse documents

About Scribd

Team

Blog

Join our team!

Contact Us

SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe today
Your subscription

Gifts

ADVERTISE WITH US
AdChoices

SUPPORT
Help
FAQ

Press

Purchase help

PARTNERS
Publishers
Developers / API
LEGAL

Terms

Copyright

Privacy

Copyright 2014 Scribd Inc.

Mobile Site
Language:
English