Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
RODRIGUEZ,
HON.
JUDGE
JOSEFINA
GUEVARASALONGA, Presiding Judge of Makati RTC, Branch 149,
respondents.
G.R. No. 142820 | June 20, 2003 (2D)
Facts:
Held: No
Rebecca an American Citizen in the Purview of This Case
The
following
are
compelling
circumstances
indicative of her American citizenship:
o
she was born in Agaa, Guam, USA;
o
the principle of jus soli is followed in this
American
territory
granting
American
citizenship to those who are born there; and
o
she was, and may still be, a holder of an
American passport
As aptly found by the CA, Rebecca had consistently
professed, asserted, and represented herself as an
American citizen, particularly:
o
during her marriage as shown in the
marriage certificate;
o
in the birth certificate of Alix; and
o
when she secured the divorce from the
Dominican Republic.
o
Mention may be made of the Affidavit of
Acknowledgment in which she stated being
an American citizen.
It is true that Rebecca had been issued by the Bureau
of Immigration (Bureau) of Identification (ID)
Certificate No. RC 9778 and a Philippine Passport.
o
However, such recognition was given only
on June 8, 2000 upon the affirmation by the
Secretary of Justice of Rebecca's recognition
pursuant to the Order of Recognition issued
by Bureau Associate Commissioner
Validity of Divorce Decree: Civil Decrees issued by the
Dominican court are valid.
First, at the time of the divorce, as above elucidated,
Rebecca was still to be recognized, assuming for
argument that she was in fact later recognized, as a
Filipino citizen, but represented herself in public
documents as an American citizen. At the very least,
she chose, before, during, and shortly after her
divorce, her American citizenship to govern her
marital relationship.
Second, she secured personally said divorce as an
American citizen, as is evident in the text of the Civil
Decrees
Third, being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound
by the national laws of the United States of America,
a country which allows divorce. Fourth, the property
relations of Vicente and Rebecca were properly
adjudicated through their Agreement executed on
December 14, 1996.
Garcia v. Recio: A foreign divorce can be recognized
here, provided the divorce decree is proven as a fact
and as valid under the national law of the alien
spouse.
o
Be this as it may, the fact that Rebecca was
clearly an American citizen when she
secured the divorce and that divorce is
recognized and allowed in any of the States
of the Union, the presentation of a copy of
foreign divorce decree duly authenticated
by the foreign court issuing said decree is,
as here, sufficient.
Finally, the fact that Rebecca may have been duly
recognized as a Filipino citizen by force of the June 8,
2000 affirmation by Secretary of Justice Tuquero of
the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition will
not, standing alone, work to nullify or invalidate the
foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American
citizen on February 22, 1996.
o
In determining whether or not a divorce
secured abroad would come within the pale
of the country's policy against absolute
divorce, the reckoning point is the
citizenship of the parties at the time a valid
divorce is obtained.
Legal Effects of the Valid Divorce
Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by
Rebecca, the same shall be given a res judicata
effect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the
divorce decree obtained, the marital vinculum
between Rebecca and Vicente is considered severed;
they are both freed from the bond of matrimony.
Consequent to the dissolution of the marriage,
Vicente could no longer be subject to a husband's
obligation under the Civil Code. He cannot, for
instance, be obliged to live with, observe respect and
fidelity, and render support to Rebecca.
The divorce decree in question also brings into play
the second paragraph of Art. 26 of the Family Code,
providing as follows:
Art. 26. x x x x
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise
have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As
amended by E.O. 227)
Held:
ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines
in accordance with the laws in force in the country where
they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also
be valid in this country, except those prohibited under
Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Emphasis
supplied)
dissolved
or
annulled
marriage
was
solemnized."
o
Section 2 of Rule 108 provides that entries
in the civil registry relating to "marriages,"
"judgments of annulments of marriage" and
"judgments declaring marriages void from
the beginning" are subject to cancellation or
correction. The petition in the RTC sought
(among others) to annotate the judgment of
the Japanese Family Court on the certificate
of marriage between Marinay and Maekara.
The Solicitor General contended that the petition to
recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment may
be made in a Rule 108 proceeding.
o
Corpuz v. Santo Tomas: The recognition of
the foreign divorce decree may be made in
a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of
special proceedings (such as that in Rule
108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to
establish the status or right of a party or a
particular fact.
o
While Corpuz concerned a foreign divorce
decree, in the present case the Japanese
Family Court judgment also affected the civil
status of the parties, especially Marinay,
who is a Filipino citizen.
o
The Solicitor General asserted that Rule 108
of the Rules of Court is the procedure to
record "[a]cts, events and judicial decrees
concerning the civil status of persons" in the
civil registry as required by Article 407 of
the Civil Code. In other words, "[t]he law
requires the entry in the civil registry of
judicial
decrees
that
produce
legal
consequences upon a persons legal
capacity and status x x x." The Japanese
Family Court judgment directly bears on the
civil status of a Filipino citizen and should
therefore be proven as a fact in a Rule 108
proceeding.
Issue: W/N the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign
judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of
entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court.
Held: Yes
Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only
requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may be
made in a special proceeding for cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of the
Rules of Court provides that "[a] special proceeding is
a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact."
Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a
persons life which are recorded by the State
pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753.
These are facts of public consequence such as birth,
death or marriage, which the State has an interest in
recording. As noted by the Solicitor General, in
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that "[t]he
recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be
made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of
special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or
right of a party or a particular fact."
Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:
PATRICIA
FIGUEROA,
complainant,
BARRANCO, JR., respondent.
SBC Case No. 519 | July 31, 1997 (EB)
Facts:
vs.
SIMEON
Issue: CA erred in holding the petitioners liable for illegal pretermination of contract
Held: No
The Court affirms the conclusion of CA that there is
no violation of the contract by respondents for the
following reasons:
o
First, respondents cannot be faulted for the
absorption of personnel who failed to meet
the minimum qualifications of at least 2nd
year of college and 56" in height.
10
11
12
13
xxx
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil
action. No reservation to file such civil action separately
shall be allowed.
14
Even
before
the
decree
nullifying
private
respondents marriage with Anna Maria Villanueva,
private respondent wed Ofelia P. Ty, herein petitioner.
Subsequently, private respondent filed with RTC for
nullity of his marriage with petitioner, alleging that
they had no marriage license when they got married.
He also averred that at the time he married
petitioner, he was still married to Anna Maria. He
stated that at the time he married petitioner the
decree of nullity of his marriage to Anna Maria had
not been issued.
RTC granted the petition. This was affirmed by the
CA.
15
Held:
AMORES,
16
17
Facts:
18
19
20
21
Art. 124.
The administration and enjoyment of
the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses
jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision
shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife
for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five
years from the date of the contract implementing such
decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise
unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal
properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration. These powers do not include disposition or
encumbrance without authority of the court or the written
consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such
authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall
be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a
continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and
the third person, and may be perfected as a binding
contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by
either or both offerors.
Art. 99. The absolute community terminates:
(1) Upon the death of either spouse;
(2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
(3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or
(4) In case of judicial separation of property during the
marriage under Article 134 to 138.
Art. 126.
Section 2.
Meaning of word "incompetent."
Under this rule, the word "incompetent" includes persons
suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are
hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are
unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind,
even though they have lucid intervals, and persons not
being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease,
weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without
outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their
property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and
exploitation.
CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
HON.
ACCREDITED
VOLUNTARY
ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTAO and NAGKAKAISANG
MANGGAGAWA NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATIONSOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR
EMPOWERMENT
AND
REFORMS
(NMCSC-SUPER),
Respondents.
G.R. No. 182836 | October 13, 2009 (3D)
Facts:
22
23
Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family
domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide.
The court may exempt one spouse from living with the
other if the latter should live abroad or there are other
valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However,
such exemption shall not apply if the same is not
compatible with the solidarity of the family.
24