Republic v.

Obrecido

Facts:

1. Cipriano Obrecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church
of Christ in Ozamis City.
2. Ciprianos wife left for America in 1986 and became a naturalized American citizen after a few
years.
3. Ciprianos wife obtained a decree of divorce in America sometime in America and subsequently
married Innocent Stanley. Cipriano was informed of this by his son.
4. Cipriano filed a petition for authority to remarry in the RTC. He used the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code which states:

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.

No opposition was filed. The RTC granted the petition.

5. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration but the same RTC denied
said motion in a subsequent resolution.
6. Hence, the OSG filed a petition for review of the decision of said RTC.
7. The Supreme Courts 1st Division states that the respondents petition is actually a petition for
declaratory relief. The following are the requisites in order to institute a petition of declaratory
relief:

(1) There must be a justiciable controversy.

(2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse.
(3) That the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy.
(4) That the issue is ripe for judicial determination.

The Court finds that the respondent fulfilled the aforementioned requisites:

This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a marriage between two
Filipino citizens where one later acquired alien citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, and
remarried while in the U.S.A. The interests of the parties are also adverse, as petitioner
representing the State asserts its duty to protect the institution of marriage while respondent, a
private citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to remarry. Respondent, praying for relief,
has legal interest in the controversy. The issue raised is also ripe for judicial determination
inasmuch as when respondent remarries, litigation ensues and puts into question the validity of
his second marriage.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Article 26[2] of the Family Code allows the remarriage of a person whose
spouse, who was a Filipino citizen at the time of their marriage, obtained a foreign citizenship
and subsequently obtained a decree of divorce from his/her own country.
2. Whether or not the respondent can remarry.
Ruling:

1. Yes, Article 26[2] of the Family Code allows the remarriage of a person whose spouse, who was
a Filipino citizen at the time of their marriage, obtained a foreign citizenship and subsequently
obtained a decree of divorce from his/her own country.

A statute must not be interpreted as such that would cause it to contravene the legislative
intent behind said statute.

Records from the Family Code deliberations shows that the provision in question was enacted in
order to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien
spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. In addition,
the Courts obiter dictum in Quita v. Court of Appeals states that Filipino divorced by his
naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry. To
narrow the scope of the provision in question to marriages between foreign citizens and
Filipinos would contravene the legislative intent of said provision. If this interpretation is given
effect, spouses that have already been divorced by their naturalized foreign spouse will still be
married to said spouse.

The Court further states that:

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating the latter to remarry.

Therefore, Article 26[2] of the Family Code allows the remarriage of a person whose spouse,
who was a Filipino citizen at the time of their marriage, obtained a foreign citizenship and
subsequently obtained a decree of divorce from his/her own country.

2. No, the respondent cannot remarry.

Foreign laws must be must be proved in the court as said courts cannot take judicial notice of
foreign laws. Such laws must be alleged and proved.

In the present case, the respondent failed to show documents that will corroborate his
allegation that his wife undergone the naturalization process. Likewise, the respondent also
failed to validate his claim that his wife has obtained a decree of divorce and is allowed to
remarry by failing to present evidence that said decree was given.

Therefore, the respondent cannot remarry.