Noveras v.

Noveras

G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014

DOCTRINE:

Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. For Philippine courts to
recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage, the foreign judgment and its authenticity
must be proven as facts under our Rules of Evidence.

FACTS:

David and Leticia Noveras are US citizens who own properties in the US and in the Philippines.
Upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair, Leticia obtained a decree of divorce from the Superior
Court of California wherein the court awarded all the properties in the US to Leticia. With respect to their
properties in the Philippines, Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Separation of Conjugal Property before the
RTC. The RTC awarded the properties in the Philippines to David, with the properties in the US remaining
in the sole ownership of Leticia. The trial court ruled that in accordance with the doctrine of processual
presumption, Philippine law should apply because the court cannot take judicial notice of the US law since
the parties did not submit any proof of their national law.On appeal, the CA directed the equal division of
the Philippine properties between the spouses. David insists that the CA should have recognized the
California Judgment which awarded the Philippine properties to him. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the California properties.

RULING:

NO.

Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. For Philippine courts to
recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage, the foreign judgment and its authenticity
must be proven as facts under our Rules of Evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to
show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action
instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an
integral aspect of his claim or defense.
Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem

G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014

DOCTRINE:

Foreign Law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the
citizens or residents of the forum.

FACTS:

Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland. They were blessed
with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a
divorce decree issued by a court of Holland. Thereafter, Norma, Ernst made promise to provide monthly
support to their son. However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave
support to Roderigo. Norma filed a complaint against Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s
unjust refusal to support his minor child with petitioner. The trial court dismissed the complaint since the
facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense with respect to the accused, he being an alien.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine
law?

RULING:

YES.

Since Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC that he is subject to
the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well
as the consequences of his failure to do so. This does not, however, mean that Ernst is not obliged to
support Norma’s son altogether. In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to
a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In the present case, Ernst hastily concludes
that being a national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and
capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is
not obliged to support his son, he never proved the same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove
that the national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to support their
child. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take
judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law should
not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.
To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously
unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of
the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the non-compliance
therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice
to the child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.
Fujiki vs. Marinay

G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013

DOCTRINE:

AM No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages does not apply to a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a
marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country for it only needs to prove the foreign
judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.

FACTS:

Marinay was first married to Minoru Fujiki in the Philippines, but they later lost contact with each
other because Fujiki could not bring her to Japan. After four years, Marinay met Maekara whom she married
without first dissolving her marriage to Fujiki. They went to Japan, but Maekara physically abused her so
she left Maekara and reestablished her relationship with Fujiki. Fujiki helped Marinay obtain judgment from
court of Japan which declared the marriage of Marinay and Maekara, void on the ground of bigamy. Fujiki
filed with the Philippine court for a judicial recognition of foreign judgment. However, the RTC denied it on
the ground that under AM No. 02-11-10-SC, only the husband or the wife who can file petition to declare
their marriage void.

ISSUE:

Whether or not AM No. 02-11-10 SC applicable in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating
to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country.

RULING:

NO.

AM No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages does not apply to a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a
marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country for it only needs to prove the foreign
judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.

There is no reason to allow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the Japanese court judgment nullifying
the said marriage on the ground of bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Court
is fully consistent with the Philippines public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the
beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove its existence of the said judgment in accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24
and 25, in relation to Rule 39 Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
Republic vs. Orbecido
GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

DOCTRINE:

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.

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.

RULING:

YES.

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 court’s 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.
Republic vs. Albios

G.R. No. 198780, October 16, 2013

FACTS:

Liberty Alvios and Daniel Lee Fringer, an America citizen, contracted a marriage for personal gain,
that is, for Albios to obtain American citizenship, and for Fringer, the consideration of $ 2,000.00. After
sometime, Albios filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer alleging that they
never had any intention of entering into a marriage to comply their essential marital obligations.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage be declared void for lack of consent if it is contracted for the sole
purpose of acquiring American citizenship.

RULING:

NO.

There is no law that declares a marriage void if it is entered into for the purposes other than what
the Constitution or law declares, such as the acquisition of foreign citizenship. So long as all the essential
and formal requisites prescribed by law are present, and it is not void or voidable under the grounds
provided by law, it shall be declared valid.
Republic vs. Dayot
GR No. 175581, March 28, 2008

DOCTRINE:

An action for nullity of marriage is imprescriptible. The right to impugn marriage does not prescribe
and may be raised any time.

FACTS:

Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City Hall on November 24, 1986. In lieu of a
marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit that they had lived together for at least 5years. On August
1990, Jose contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual. They were both employees of the National
Statistics and Coordinating Board. Felisa then filed on June 1993 an action for bigamy against Jose and
an administrative complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman. On the other hand, Jose filed a complaint
on July 1993 for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of marriage where he contended that his marriage
with Felisa was a sham and his consent was secured through fraud.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Jose’s marriage with Felisa is valid considering that they executed a sworn affidavit
in lieu of the marriage license requirement.

RULING:

NO.

CA indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together for five years at the time
they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. Jose and Felisa started living together only in
June 1986, or barely five months before the celebration of their marriage on November 1986. Findings of
facts of the Court of Appeals are binding in the Supreme Court.

The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law and invalidates
a marriage. Furthermore, “the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of Jose
and Felisa’s cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an exception to the requirement for
a marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely
required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath”. Hence, Jose and Felisa’s marriage is
void ab initio. The court also ruled that an action for nullity of marriage is imprescriptible. The right to
impugn marriage does not prescribe and may be raised any time.
Republic of the Philippines vs. Azucena Saavedra Batuigas

GR No. 183110, October 7, 2013

DOCTRINE:

“Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and
who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”

Under this provision, foreign women who are married to Philippine citizens may be deemed ipso
facto Philippine citizens and it is neither necessary for them to prove that they possess other
qualifications for naturalization at the time of their marriage nor do they have to submit themselves
to judicial naturalization.

FACTS:

On December 2, 2002, Azucena filed a Petition for Naturalization before the RTC of Zamboanga
del Sur. She stated that she intends in good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce
absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and
particularly to China; and that she will reside continuously in the Philippines from the time of the filing of her
Petition up to the time of her naturalization.

After all the jurisdictional requirements had been complied with, the Office of the Solicitor General
filed its Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Azucena failed to allege that she is engaged in a lawful
occupation or in some known lucrative trade. The OSG maintained that Azucena is not allowed under the
Retail Trade to engage directly or indirectly in the retail trade. The OSG likewise disputed Azucena’s claim
that she owns real property because aliens are precluded from owning lands in the country. Finding the
grounds relied upon by the OSG to be evidentiary in nature, the RTC denied said Motion.

Born in Malangas, Zamboanga del Sur on September 28, 1941 to Chinese parents, Azucena has
never departed the Philippines since birth. Azucena can speak English, Tagalog, Visayan, and Chavacano.
Her primary, secondary, and tertiary education were taken in Philippine schools. After earning a degree in
education, she then practiced her teaching profession in several different schools in Mindanao.

In 1968, at the age of 26, Azucena married Santiago Batuigas (Santiago), a natural-born Filipino
citizen. They have five children, all of whom studied in Philippine public and private schools and are all
professionals.

After her stint as a teacher, Azucena and her husband, as conjugal partners, engaged in the retail
business of and later on in milling/distributing rice, corn, and copra. As proof of their income, Azucena
submitted their joint annual tax returns and balance sheets from 2000- 2002 and from 2004-2005. During
their marital union, the Batuigas spouses bought parcels of land in Barrio Lombog, Margosatubig.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner has validly complied the citizenship requirement as required by law to
become a naturalized citizen of the Philippines.

RULING:

YES.

Under existing laws, an alien may acquire Philippine citizenship through either judicial naturalization
under CA 473 or administrative naturalization under Republic Act No. 9139 (the “Administrative
Naturalization Law of 2000”). A third option, called derivative naturalization, which is available to alien
women married to Filipino husbands is found under Section 15 of CA 473, which provides that:

“Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines and who might
herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”

Under this provision, foreign women who are married to Philippine citizens may be deemed ipso
facto Philippine citizens and it is neither necessary for them to prove that they possess other
qualifications for naturalization at the time of their marriage nor do they have to submit themselves
to judicial naturalization.

Records, however, show that in February 1980, Azucena applied before the then Commission on
Immigration and Deportation (CID) for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration by reason of
her marriage to a Filipino citizen. The CID granted her application. However, the Ministry of Justice set
aside the ruling of the CID as it found no sufficient evidence that Azucena’s husband is a Filipino citizen,
as only their marriage certificate was presented to establish his citizenship. As the records before this Court
show, Santiago’s Filipino citizenship has been adequately proven. Under judicial proceeding, Santiago
submitted his birth certificate indicating therein that he and his parents are Filipinos. He also submitted
voter’s registration, land titles, and business registrations/licenses, all of which are public records.

Moreover, the Court acknowledged that the main objective of extending the citizenship privilege to
an alien wife is to maintain a unity of allegiance among family members, thus:

It is, therefore, not congruent with our cherished traditions of family unity and identity that a husband
should be a citizen and the wife an alien, and that the national treatment of one should be different from
that of the other.

Azucena has clearly proven, under strict judicial scrutiny, that she is qualified for the grant of that
privilege, and this Court will not stand in the way of making her a part of a truly Filipino family.