GROUP 5

Amadeo, Beltran, Epe, Gador

GENERAL RULE:
Marriages celebrated outside the Philippines are valid
and binding
EXCEPTION:
When they violate public policy or contravene our
prohibitive laws
RATIONALE:
The Philippines gives full faith and credit to marriages
celebrated abroad as a matter of comity with other
nations
While some requirements of foreign laws may
be strange and not similar to ours, so long as
the marriage is valid by the law of the place
of execution, it is also valid in our country.
1. Incestuous Marriages
2. Void Marriages by reason of public policy
3. Polygamous or Bigamous Marriages
4. Same Sex Marriages
Note: If the foreign marriage fall under any of
the foregoing categories, the same is not
recognized within our jurisdiction.
- are the creation of statute where the rights
and obligations of the parties are governed
by the law creating the relationship
- no husband-wife relationship is created
- also called as “same sex unions” by other
jurisdictions
Langan v. St. Vincent Hospital of N.Y.
Facts:
Neil Conrad Spicehandler and John Langan were same-sex couples who
entered into a civil union. Conrad met an accident and was brought to St.
Vincent’s Hospital of New York where he died. John sued the hospital for
wrongful death.
Issue:
Whether or not plaintiff had standing as surviving spouse to sue the
defendant hospital for wrongful death.
Ruling:
No. What is involved in this case is same-sex union not same-sex marriage.
The relationship of the parties is still governed by the law creating their
union, which does not grant the parties therein the same relationship as
husband and wife.
 Divorce is not recognized in our country as it
weakens the foundation of the family as a
social institution.

 Divorces obtained abroad is also not

recognized in the Philippines because it
would violate our public policy.
Tenchavez v. Escano
Facts:
Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escano were married in
Cebu City. Their relationship subsequently became
strained. Vicenta then went to the United States and filled a
complaint for divorce which was granted and an absolute
divorce decree was issued. She then subsequently married
an American, Rusell Leo Moran.
Tenchavez filed a complaint for legal separation and
damages against Vicenta in whose defense presented the
decree of divorce issued by the Nevada Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the divorce issued by the
Nevada court can be recognized in our jurisdiction.

Ruling:
No. At the time the divorce decree was issued.
Vicenta Escano was still a Filipino citizen, who is
subject to Philippine Law. The Civil Code of the
Philippines does not admit absolute divorce.
If the divorce decree prejudices the rights of a
Philippine citizen, our courts are more than
willing to give effect thereto.
Van Dorn v. Romillo
Facts:
Petitioner Alice Van Dorn and private respondent Richard Upton were
married in Hong Kong in 1972 and were divorced in Nevada, U.S. in 1982.
Richard filed a suit against petitioner for accounting of petitioner’s business,
Galleon shop, alleging that the same to be conjugal property. Petitioner
moved to dismiss on the ground of bar by previous judgment in the said
divorce proceedings where respondent acknowledged that they had no
conjugal property. The RTC denied the motion on the ground that the divorce
proceedings had no effect on the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the divorce should be recognized in our jurisdiction.
Ruling:
The Nevada District Court obtained jurisdiction over petitioner and private
respondent and both of them agreed to the divorce on the ground of
incompatibility in the understanding that there were neither community nor
community obligations. The decree is binding upon private respondent as an
American citizen.
 Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law. Pursuant to his national law,
private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner.
He would have no standing in this case as the petitioner’s
husband to exercise control over conjugal assets. He is
estopped by his own representation before said Court from
asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.
IMPORTANT:
The divorce must be judicially recognized first by the
Philippine courts.
 Citizens of the Philippines whose foreign
spouses have obtained a divorce abroad are
capacitated to remarry under our laws.
 Art. 26, par. 2 of the Family Code provides:
“ xxx Where 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/her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry
under Philippine law.”
1. There has been a valid marriage celebrated
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner;
and

2. A valid divorce has been obtained abroad by

the alien capacitating him/her to remarry.
Republic v. Orbecido

Facts:
Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva in Ozamis City in 1981. In 1986,
she migrated to the U.S. and later naturalized as an American citizen. She also obtained a
divorce decree from a U.S. court. Respondent then filed a petition for authority to
remarry with the RTC of Zamboanga City. No opposition was filed and the petition was
allowed by the lower court. The OSG moved for reconsideration but was denied.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

Ruling:
Yes. Taking into account the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason,
Article.26 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 foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse then be
allowed to remarry as if the other party was a foreigner at the time of the solemnization
of the marriage. The reckoning pint Is their citizenship at the time valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse.
 Recognition of foreign divorce is a proceeding
to prove the validity of a foreign judgment.
 The party applying for recognition must present
proof of the appropriate foreign laws as well as
the authencity of the documents obtained
from foreign courts and offices.
 The sole objective is to give effect to a foreign
judgment.
Corpuz v. Sto Tomas
Facts:
Gerbert Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen and was naturalized as a Canadian
citizen. He married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Later on, he
obtained a divorce decree in Canada. He found another Filipina that he would like
to marry so he filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or
declaration of marriage as dissolved with the RTC. The RTC denied the petition.
Issue:
Whether or not a foreigner may invoke the benefit of paragraph 2 of Article 26 of
the Family Code.
Ruling:
No. According to the rationale and intent of the enactment of such law, only
the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code, an alien spouse can claim no right under this provision. However, it does
not strip petitioner’s legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his
foreign divorce decree. Petitioner failed to include a copy of Canadian law on
divorce. Hence, the proper remedy is to remand the case to the RTC to determine
whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law.
Section 2 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court:

Entries pertaining to marriage, judgments of

annulments of marriage, and judgments
declaring marriages void from the beginning
may be cancelled or corrected upon petition
of the party.
Fujiki v. Marinay
Facts:
Fujiki, a Japanese National, married Marinay, a Filipina on January 23, 2004. Due to
some disagreement, they became separated. Marinay then married Maekara, another
Japanese national on May 15, 2008. Marinay suffered physical abuse from Maekara so
she re-established her relationship with Fujiki. Marinay obtained a decree from
Japanese court declaring her marriage with Maekara void on the ground of bigamous
marriage. Fujiki then filed a petition with RTC fir recognition of a foreign judgment
the judgment annulling the marriage of Marinay and Maekara. The RTC dismissed the
petition on the ground that only husband or the wife can file the petition for
recognition.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages is applicable to a foreign judgment of nullity.
2.Whether or not a Fujiki can file a petition for recognition of foreign judgment
between Marinay and Maekara.
3. Whether or not the RTC can recognize a foreign judgment in a proceeding for
cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry.
Ruling:
1. No. It does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating
to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of foreign
country where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. Philippine
laws cannot presume to know the foreign laws under which the foreign
judgment was rendered. They cannot substitute their judgment on the status ,
condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is under the jurisdiction
of another state.
2. Fujiki has the personality because the judgment concerns his civil status as
married to Marinay. The prior spouse has a personal and material interest in
maintaining the integrity of the marriage he contracted and then the property
relations arising from it.
3. 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 8 of the Rules of Court.