7/17/2019 Applicability of Second Paragraph of Article 26 - Marriage to a Foreigner

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/applicability-of-second-paragraph-of-article-26-marriage-to-a-foreigner 1/2

Applicability of Second Paragraph of Article 26

Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a foreign

citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse

likewise remarry under Philippine law? In this situation, may the second

 paragraph of Article ! be applicable?

"his #uestion was answered in the affirmative by the $upreme %ourt in the recent case of Republic vs.Orbecido III& In this case, the $upreme %ourt held that taking into consideration the legislative intent and

applying the rule of reason, paragraph of Article ! 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& In such a case, 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, for to rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and in'ustice& "he

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&

Republic vs. Orbecido III

472 SRA !!4 "2##$%&A'S( In ()*(, %ipriano +rbecido III married ady -yros -& .illanueva in +zamiz %ity& In ()*!, ady -yros

left for the /nited $tates and a few years later, she had been naturalized as an American citizen& After she was

naturalized, she obtained a divorce decree in the /nited $tates and then married an American citizen& %ipriano thenfiled with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking paragraph of Article ! of the Family %ode&

Finding merit in the petition, the trial court granted the same& "he 0epublic, through the +ffice of the $olicitor 

General sought reconsideration but it was denied& 1ence, the +$G raised the case to the $upreme %ourt on a pure

#uestion of law&"he +$G contends that paragraph of Article ! of the Family %ode is not applicable in this case because it only

applies to a valid mi2ed marriage3 that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien& +n the

#uestion of whether or not paragraph of Article ! of the Family %ode applies to the given case, the $upreme

%ourt ruled 44 %oming now to the substantive issue, does Paragraph of Article ! of the Family %ode apply to thecase of respondent? 5ecessarily, we must dwell on how this provision had come about in the first place, and what

was the intent of the legislators in its enactment?

)rief *istorical )ac+ground

+n 6uly !, ()*7, then President %orazon A#uino signed into law 82ecutive +rder 5o& 9), otherwise known as the

:Family %ode,; which took effect on August <, ()**& Article ! thereof states=

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, e2cept those prohibited under Articles<>, <7, and <*& +n 6uly (7, ()*7, shortly after the signing of the original Family %ode, 82ecutive +rder 5o& 7

was likewise signed into law, amending Articles !, <!, and <) of the Family %ode& A second paragraph was added

to Article !& As so amended, it now provides=

A0"& !& 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, e2cept those prohibited under 

Articles <>(@, @, >@ and !@, <!, <7 and <*&

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validlyobtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to

remarry under Philippine law& 8mphasis supplied@

+n its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation presented by the case at hand& It seems toapply only to cases where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a

foreigner& "he 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 subse#uently obtained a divorce granting

7/17/2019 Applicability of Second Paragraph of Article 26 - Marriage to a Foreigner

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/applicability-of-second-paragraph-of-article-26-marriage-to-a-foreigner 2/2

her capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an American citizen while residing in the /&$&A& 5oteworthy, in

the 0eport of the Public 1earings on the Family %ode, the %atholic BishopsC %onference of the Philippines

%B%P@ registered the following ob'ections to Paragraph of Article !=

(& The rule is discriminatory. It discriminates against those whose spouses are Filipinos who divorce them abroad.These spouses who are divorced will not be able to re-marry, while the spouses of foreigners who validly divorce

them abroad can.

& "his is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce even for Filipino citizens& For those whose

foreign spouses validly divorce them abroad will also be considered to be validly divorced here and can reDmarry&Ee propose that this be deleted and made into law only after more widespread consultation&

8mphasis supplied&@

,egislative Intent

0ecords of the proceedings of the Family %ode deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph of Article !,

according to 6udge Alicia $empioDiy, a member of the %ivil %ode 0evision %ommittee, is 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&

Interestingly, Paragraph of Article ! traces its origin to the ()*> case of an !orn vs. "omillo, #r & "he an !orn

case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner& "he %ourt held therein that a divorce decree

validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and conse#uently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated

to remarry under Philippine law& oes the same principle apply to a case where at the time of the celebration of themarriage, the parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them obtains a foreign citizenship by naturalization?

"he 'urisprudential answer lies latent in the ())* case of $uita vs. %ourt of &ppeals. In $uita, the parties were, as inthis case,  Filipino citizens when they got married& "he wife became a naturalized   American citizen in ()> and

obtained a divorce in the same year& "he %ourt therein hinted, by way of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by

his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry&

"hus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that Paragraph of 

Article ! 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& "he Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the timeof the solemnization of the marriage& "o rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and in'ustice& Ehere the

interpretation of a statute according to its e2act and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravenethe 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 statute may therefore be e2tended to cases not within the literal meaning of itsterms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent&

If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent 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, then theinstant case must be deemed as coming within the contemplation of Paragraph of Article !&

In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph of Article ! as follows=

(& "here is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner3 and& A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry&

"he 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&In this case, when %iprianoCs wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and %ipriano& As fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subse#uently obtained a

valid divorce capacitating her to remarry& %learly, the twin re#uisites for the application of Paragraph of Article !

are both present in this case& "hus %ipriano, the :divorced; Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry&