Case Synthesis

CASE SYNTHESIS REYNALDO R. CALABUNG JR. In the case of Van Dorn vs. Romillo Jr., a marriage was validly celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an American citizen wherein the alien spouse obtained a valid divorce decree abroad; the Supreme Court said that only Filipino nationals are bound by the prohibition against absolute divorce, being contrary to public policy and morality. Aliens, however, may obtain the same and may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, a marriage between a Filipino and a German national was dissolved through divorce obtained by the alien spouse abroad after which the woman married another man. The respondent then filed a case for adultery against the petitioner but the Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree was valid and binding hence the respondent is no longer the spouse of the petitioner and the former had no legal standing to commence the case. In Quita vs. Court of Appeals, a valid marriage between Filipino citizens was celebrated and a divorce decree was obtained abroad by one of them. The Supreme Court ruled that the marriage is still valid and subsisting and the surviving spouse is still an heir of the deceased spouse. In the case of Garcia vs. Recio, a Filipino and an Australian national married and subsequently a divorce decree was obtained by the alien spouse. Thereafter, the Filipino became an Australian citizen and married a Filipino which later on sought to annul their marriage on the ground of bigamy. The court ruled that it cannot declare the Australian spouse as capacitated to remarry by virtue of the decree nor declare the marriage null and void. The Australian spouse failed to prove his legal capacity to remarry under the Australian law. In Roehr vs. Rodriguez, a valid marriage was celebrated between a German national and a Filipino citizen but the same was dissolved thereafter by a divorce obtained by the German spouse awarding to him the custody of their minor children. The court ruled that the divorce decree is valid and binding in the Philippines provided such decree is valid under the national law of the alien but its legal effects such as custody care and support of the children must still be determined by our courts. In Republic vs. Obrecido III, the Supreme Court ruled that where a valid marriage celebrated in the Philippines between Filipino citizens and one became a naturalized American citizen and such spouse obtained a divorce decree in US, the Filipino spouse becomes capacitated to remarry. For Article 26 paragraph 2 of the Family code to apply, two things must concur: 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino and an alien. 2. A valid

divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry. 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 was obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. In Corpuz vs. Sto. Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled that only Filipino spouses can invoke the second paragraph of article 26 of the family code and the alien spouse can claim no right under such provision. In the said case, a valid marriage was celebrated between a Canadian national and a Filipino but it was later on dissolved by a divorce decree obtained by the alien spouse in Canada. He filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of his marriage in RTC for purposes of remarriage. However, according to Supreme Court, such unavailability of the right to invoke the same does not necessarily strips the alien of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree.