1-5 - fghjg PDF

Preview

Summary

fghjg...

Description

Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera FACTS: Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal disharmony eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983. The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner. On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to Imelda, latter “had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”. ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued. RULING: No. The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else. While the State, as parens patriae, was added and vested by the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure with the power to initiate the criminal action for a deceased or incapacitated victim in the aforesaid offenses of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, in default of her parents, grandparents or guardian, such amendment did not include the crimes of adultery and concubinage. In other words, only the offended spouse, and no other, is authorized by law to initiate the action therefor. Pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code, 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. (As amended by Executive Order 227) Though in this case, it appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid divorce in his country and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned.

Republic v. Iyoy FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals. CrasusIyoy was married to FelyIyoy in 1961 and this marriage gave birth to five children. FelyIyoy eventually left for the States to provide for their family in 1984 and in lessthan a year sent Crasus documents to sign with regard to a divorce that she applied for. Crasus eventually found out that Fely married Stephen Micklus in 1985 and their relationship has conceived of a child. Crasus eventually questioned the validity of Fely’s subsequent marriage. The Court of Appeals in deciding this case sided with Fely. ISSUE: Whether or not a divorce decree acquired by a Filipino from the United States is valid and recognized in the Philippines. RULING: The court decided in the negative and reversed the Appellate Court’s decision. Basing from the facts, Fely only became a citizen in 1988 and acquired the divorce in 1984, marrying Micklus a year after. This means that paragraph two of Article 26 cannot be applied in such a way that, Fely is not yet considered an alien at the time the divorce was acquired and therefore she does not have the capacity to remarry and the marriage is still considered as subsisting. The Civil Code also provides that Filipino Citizen, with regard to family laws and status are governed by Philippine laws regardless of where they are. Fely, being a Filipino Citizen then, is not permitted by our laws to acquire a divorce decree since such is not recognized in the Philippines. “Art. 26. 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, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. “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 LIKEWISE HAVE CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW.” ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Article 15.Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (9a) ART. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III FACTS: Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City, on May 24, 1981. They were blessed with a with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido. Lady Myros left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer in 1986. After few years, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen.Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree sometime in 2000 and then married a certain Innocent Stanley and lived in California.He then filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied. Orbecido filed a petition for review of certiorari on the Decision of the RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. HELD: Yes. The Court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code 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. The 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 became naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtained a divorce decree. The instant case was 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 subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed, she remarried an American citizen while residing in the US. 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. However, since Orbecido was not able to prove as fact his wife’s naturalization, he was still barred from remarrying.

Bayot v. Court of Appeals FACTS: On April 20, 1979, Vicente, a Filipino, and Rebecca, an American, were married in Muntinlupa. They had a child name Alix, born in November 27, 1982 in California. In February 22, 1996, Rebecca initiated divorce proceedings in Dominican Republic, which resulted to judgment ordering the dissolution of the marriage and the distribution of conjugal properties After obtaining a Department of Justice affirmation of her Filipino citizenship, she then filed a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of Vicente’s alleged psychological incapacity, seeking for distribution of conjugal properties and support. On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of cause of action and that the petition is barred by the prior judgment of divorce. RTC denied Vicente’s motion to dismiss but CA reversed lower court’s decision. According to the CA, RTC ought to have granted Vicente’s motion to dismiss, since the marriage between the spouses is already dissolved when the divorce decree was granted since Rebecca was an American citizen when she applied for the decree. ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by Rebecca in Dominican Republic is valid. RULING: Yes, the divorce is valid. Article 26 (2) of the Civil Code states that: “Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.” Rebecca at that time she applied and obtained her divorce was an American citizen and remains to be one, being born to American parents in Guam, an American territory which follows the principle of jus soli granting American citizenship to those who are born there. She was, and still may be, a holder of American passport. She had consistently professed, asserted and represented herself as an American citizen, as shown in her marriage certificate, in Alix’s birth certificate, when she secured divorce in Dominican Republic. Being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce. The fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognized as a Filipino citizen by affirmation of the DOJ Secretary does not invalidate the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American citizen in 1996. In determining whether or not a divorce is secured abroad would come within the jurisdiction of the country’s policy against absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.

Herald Black Dacasin vs. Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin FACTS: On April 1994, petitioner and respondent got married here in the Philippines. The following year respondent got pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl whom they named Stephanie. In June of 1999 respondent sought and obtained from the Illinois Court a divorce decree against petitioner. In its ruling, the Illinois court dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent, awarded to respondent sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes. On 28th of January 2002, petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie. Two years after, petitioner sued respondent in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. 7. Petitioner claimed that respondent exercised sole custody over Stephanie. Respondent sought the dismissal of the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, since Illinois Court hold the jurisdiction in enforcing the divorce decree. ISSUE: Whether the agreement or contract is valid HELD: Case was dismissed dated March 1, 2005. It is precluded from taking cognizance over suit considering the Illinois Court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce its divorce decree, including its order awarding sole custody of Stephanie to respondent. The divorce decree is binding on petitioner following the “nationality rule” prevailing in this jurisdiction. Agreement is void The agreement is void for contravening Article 2035 paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction.

Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas FACTS: Gerbert Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen but now a naturalized Canadian, married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina. He soon left to Canada after their wedding due to work commitments. He returned to Philippines on April 2005 only to find out Daisylyn has an affair with another man. Gerbert returned to Canada to file a divorce that took effect on January 2006. Two years later, he found another Filipina and wanted to marry her in the Philippines. He went to Pasig City Registrar's Office to register his Canadian divorce decree but was denied considering that his marriage with Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law, that the foregin divorce must be recognized judicially by the Philippine court. Gerbert subsequently filed at the Regional Trial Court a judicial recognition of foreign divorce but was subsequently denied since he is not the proper party and according to Article 26 of the Civil Code, only a Filipino spouse can avail the remedy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Article 26 can also be applied to Corpuz' petition of recognition of the foreign divorce decree HELD: The Court held that alien spouses cannot claim the right as it is only in favor of Filipino spouses. The legislative intent of Article 26 is for the benefit of the clarification of the marital status of the Filipino spouse. However, aliens are not strip to petition to the RTC for his foreign divorce decree as it is a conclusive presumption of evidence of the authenticity of foreign divorce decree with confirmity to the alien's national law. The Pasig City Registrar's Office acted out of line when it registered the foreign divorce decree without judicial order recognition. Therefore, the registration is still deemed to be void.

Fujiki vs. Marinay FACTS: Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other. Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara got married in Quezon City. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki. Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to re-establish their relationship. Fujiki then helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan declaring her marriage in Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. Later, back in the Philippines, Fujiki filed a petition for a Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment before the RTC. However, the trial court dismissed the petition maintaining that Fujiki lacks personality file the petition. ISSUE: Whether or not a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy. RULING: Yes, a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen. 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 108 of the Rules of Court. Section 1 of the said rule provides for who may file such petition, to wit: Sec. 1: Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. In this case, there is no doubt that the prior spouse, Fujiki, has a personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it. Thus, he has the legal personality to file the petition. PETITION GRANTED.

MEDINA v KOIKE G.R. No. 215723 FACTS: Medina was married to Koike on on June 14, 2005 in Quezon City,Philippines. Theirunion bore two children. On June 14, 2012, Medina and Michiyuki,pursuant to the laws ofJapan, filed for divorce before the Mayor of IchinomiyaCity, Aichi Prefecture, Japan.They were divorced on even date as appearing in the Divorce Certificate and the samewas duly recorded in the Official Family Register of Michiyuki Koike.Seeking to have the saidDivorce Certificate annotated on her Certificate of Marriage on file with the LocalCivil Registrar of Quezon City, Doreen filed on February 7, 2013 a petition for judicialrecognition of foreign divorce and declaration of capacity to remarry. At the hearing,no one appeared to oppose the petition. Medina presented several foreign documents,namely,"Certificate of Receiving/Certificate of Acceptance of Divorce" And "FamilyRegister of Michiyuki Koike" etc.

The RTC denied Medina's petition, ruling that the foreign divorce decree and thenational law of the alien recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce must be provenin accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules onEvidence.The RTCruled that while the divorce documents presented were successfully proven to be public orofficial records of Japan, she nonetheless fell short of proving the national law of herhusband, particularly the existence of the law on divorce. Medina’s testimony wasinsufficient since she failed to present a qualified expert witness nor was shown to have one. ISSUE: WoN the documents presented by Medina would suffice to grant the petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce

Ruling: At the outset, it bears stressing that Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. However, Article 26 of the Family Code which addresses foreign marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner - allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The provision reads: the law confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.

This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.

Republic vs Manalo FACTS: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 - seeks to reverse and set aside CA’s Resolution – that the appeal is GRANTED. Dagupan’s RTC decision be REVERSED and SET ASIDE. On January 10, 2012 - respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese court. The Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance for petitioner Republic of the Philippines authorizing the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dagupan to appear on its behalf - based on the allegations therein, the proper action should be a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. As a result, Manalo moved to admit an Amended Petition, which the court granted. The Amended Petition, which captioned that it is also a petition for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment, alleged: That petitioner is previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese national named YOSHINO MINORO; a case for divorce was files herein by Manalo in Japan then a divorce decree was rendered by Japanese Court in 2011; Manalo and her divorced Japanese husband are no longer living together and in fact, petitioner and her daughter are living separately from said Japanese former husband; ISSUE: Whether, under the same provision, a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry. – YES. Specifically, Manalo pleads for the recognition and enforcement of the divorce decree rendered by the Japanese court and for the cance...