Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas and Sol Gen G.R.

No. 186571, 11 August 2010

posted in RESWRI2 cases by katcobing
Nature of the Case: Direct Appeal from RTC decision, a petition for review on certiorari

Facts: Petitioner was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization. He was married to
the respondent but was shocked of the infidelity on the part of his wife. He went back to Canada and filed a petition for divorce and
was granted. Desirous to marry another woman he now loved, he registered the divorce decree in the Civil Registry Office and was
informed that the foreign decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court. Petitioner filed for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of marriage as dissolved with the RTC where respondent failed to submit any
response. The RTC denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner lacked locus standi. Thus, this case was filed before the
Court.

Issues: WON the second paragraph of Art 26 of the FC extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction fro the
recognition of a foreign divorce decree.

Decision: The alien spouse cannot claim under the second paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code because the substantive
right it establishes is in favour of the Filipino spouse. Only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second par of Art 26 of the Family
Code.

The unavailability of the second paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip the petitioner of legal
interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The petitioner, being a naturalized Canadian citizen
now, is clothed by the presumptive evidence of the authenticity of foreign divorce decree with conformity to aliens national law.

The Pasig City Civil Registry acted out of line when it registered the foreign decree of divorce on the petitioner and respondents
marriage certificate without judicial order recognizing the said decree. The registration of the foreign divorce decree without the
requisite judicial recognition is void.

The petition for review on certiorari is granted, the RTC decision is reversed and Court ordered t6he remand of the case to the trial
court for further proceedings in light of the ruling.

CORPUZ VS. STO. TOMAS AND SOLICITOR-GENERAL

MARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

GERBERT R. CORPUZ vs. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and The SOLICITOR GENERAL
G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010

Facts: Petitioner (Gerbert Corpuz) is a former Filipino citizen who became a Canadian citizen
through naturalization. Subsequently, the petitioner married the respondent (Daisylyn Sto.
Tomas), a Filipina, in Pasig City. After the wedding, petitioner went back to Canada due to work
commitments; however, when he came back he was shocked to discover that the respondent is
having an affair with another man. Thus, petitioner went back to Canada and filed a petition for
divorce. The Superior Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted the petitioners
petition for divorce. The divorce decree took effect a month later, January 8, 2006.
Two years later, the petitioner has already moved on and found another woman that he wants
to marry. Thus, for his love to his fiance; the petitioner went to the Pasig Civil Registry Office
and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and the respondents marriage certificate.
 Despite the registration of the divorce decree, an official of the National Statistics Office (NSO)
informed the petitioner that the marriage between him and the respondent still subsists under
the Philippine Law and to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be judicially
recognized by a competent Philippine court, pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4, Series of 1982.

Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or
declaration of marriage dissolved with the RTC. The RTC denied his petition, hence this recourse
by the petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens
the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree.

CORPUZ VS. STO. TOMAS & OSG

GR 186571

Facts
Corpuz was a former Filipino who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization
He married Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City
Corpuz went to Canada for work and when he returned to the Philippines he found out that his wife was having an affair with
another man
He filed a petition for divorce in Canada and the same was granted
After two years from the effectivity of the divorce decree, Corpuz found a new Filipina to love
Corpuz went to the Pasig Civil Registry Office and registered the divorce decree on his and Sto. Tomas' marriage certificate
Corpuz filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce before the RTC
RTC denied his petition, it ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy under Art. 26(2) of the Family Code

Issue
W/N Art. 26(2) of the Family Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce
decree

Ruling
The alien spouse can claim no right undert Art. 26(2) of the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the
Filipino spouse
The legislative intent behind Art 26(2) is to avoid the absurd situation whre the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse
who, after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse by
clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree
Art. 17 of the New Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a
foreign country. The inclusion of Art. 26(2) of the Family Code provides the direct exception to the rule and serves as basis for recognizing
the dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse
An action based on Art. 26(2) is not limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If the court finds that the decree
capacitated the aliens spouse to remarry, the courts can declare the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marriage. No
court in this jurisdiction, however, can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that already established by the decree)
whose status and legal capacity are generally governed by his national law
Remedy Available to Alien Spouse
The availability under Art 26(2) of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip the alien spouse of legal interest to petition
the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree
The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the alien's national law have been duly proven according
to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence in favor of the alien spouse, pursuant to Sec. 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
which provides for the effect of foreign judgment (Please see pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly Sec. 48, Rule 39 and
Sec. 24 Rule 132)
* Please take note: In this case, the SC considered the recording of the divorce decree on Corpuz and Sto. Tomas' marriage certificate as
legally improper. No judicial order yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree, thus, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office acted totally out
of turn and without authority of law when it annotated the Canadian divorce decree of Corpuz and Sto. Tomas' marriage certificate, on the
strength alone of the foreign decree presented by Corpuz (Please see Art. 407 of the New Civil Code and the Law on Registry of Civil Status
-Act No. 3753)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, G. R. No.

154380 October 5, 2005
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III,
G. R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboaga del Sur, Branch 23, granting
respondents petition for authority to remarry invoking par. 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva were married in Lam-an, Ozamis City and were blessed with a son and a
daughter. In 1986, Lady Myros left for the U. S. bringing along their son and after a few years she was naturalized as an American citizen.

Sometime in 2000, respondent Orbecido learned from his son who was living with his wife in the States that his wife had remarried after obtaining
her divorce decree. Thereafter, he filed a petition for authority to remarry with the trial court invoking par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code.

Having no opposition, on May 15, 2002, the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur granted the petition of the respondent and allowed him to
remarry.

The Solicitor Generals motion for reconsideration was denied. In view of that, petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court. Herein petitioner raised the issue of the applicability of Art. 26 par. 2 to the instant case.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER THE ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Held:

Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof, failed to submit competent evidence showing his allegations that his naturalized American wife
had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried. Therefore, the Petition of the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The Decision and
Resolution of the RTC Br. 32 of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur is hereby SET ASIDE.

Art. 26 (2) 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 the Philippine laws.

Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was
naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an American
citizen while residing in the U. S. A. Therefore, the 2nd par. of Art. 26 does not apply to the instant case.

However, the legislative intent must be taken into consideration and rule of reason must be applied. The Supreme Court ruled that par. 2 of Art. 26
should be construed and interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but
later on, one of then becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry
as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be sanction absurdity and injustice.
Were the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the
legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A stature may therefore be
extended to case not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirits or intent.

Republic vs Orbecido
Republic vs. Orbecido
GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS:
Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of Christ in
the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly, respectively. In
1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Orbecido discovered that his
wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his wife sometime in 2000 had
obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for
authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

HELD:

The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26
Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the
marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains
a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a
foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.

Hence, the courts unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen
who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to remarry under
Philippine law.