29. Republic vs. Orbecido

8/9/2019 29. Republic vs. Orbecido

1/12

FIRST DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

G.R. No. 154380

- versus -

Present:

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),

Quisumbing,

Ynares-Santiago,

Carpio, and

A!una,JJ.

CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III,

"espondent.

Promu#gated:

$!tober %, &''%

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

iven a va#id marriage beteen to *i#ipino !itiens, here one part+ is

#ater natura#ied as a oreign !itien and obtains a va#id divor!e de!ree !apa!itating

him or her to remarr+, !an the *i#ipino spouse #ieise remarr+ under Phi#ippine

#a


2/12

/eore us is a !ase o irst impression that behooves the Court to mae a

deinite ru#ing on this apparent#+ nove# 0uestion, presented as a pure 0uestion o

#a.

1n this petition or revie, the So#i!itor enera# assai#s the De!"!o#$1%dated

2a+ 3%, &''&, o the "egiona# 4ria# Court o 2o#ave, 5amboanga de# Sur, /ran!h

&6 and its Re"o&'(!o#$)%dated Ju#+ 7, &''& den+ing the motion or re!onsideration.

4he !ourta quohad de!#ared that herein respondent Cipriano $rbe!ido 111 is

!apa!itated to remarr+. 4hefalloo the impugned De!ision reads: 89"*$", b+ virtue o the provision o the se!ond paragraph o Art.

&; o the *ami#+ Code and b+ reason o the divor!e de!ree obtained against himb+ his Ameri!an ie, the petitioner is given the !apa!it+ to remarr+ under the

Phi#ippine 3, Cipriano $rbe!ido 111 married


3/12

Sometime in &''', Cipriano #earned rom his son that his ie had obtained

a divor!e de!ree and then married a !ertain 1nno!ent Stan#e+. She, Stan#e+ and her

!hi#d b+ him !urrent#+ #ive at %%;; A. 8a#nut rove Avenue, San abrie#,

Ca#iornia.

Cipriano thereater i#ed ith the tria# !ourt a petition or authorit+ to

remarr+ invoing Paragraph & o Arti!#e &; o the *ami#+ Code. o opposition

as i#ed. *inding merit in the petition, the !ourt granted the same. 4he "epub#i!,

herein petitioner, through the $i!e o the So#i!itor enera# ($S), sought

re!onsideration but it as denied.

1n this petition, the $S raises a pure 0uestion o #a:8949" $" $4 "SP$D4 CA "2A""Y @D" A"41C


4/12

hi!h !apa!itated her to remarr+, he is #ieise !apa!itated b+ operation o #a

pursuant to Se!tion 3&, Arti!#e 11 o the Constitution.$+%

At the outset, e note that the petition or authorit+ to remarr+ i#ed beore

the tria# !ourt a!tua##+ !onstituted a petition or de!#arator+ re#ie. 1n this

!onne!tion, Se!tion 3, "u#e ;6 o the "u#es o Court provides:"@


5/12

inasmu!h as hen respondent remarries, #itigation ensues and puts into 0uestion

the va#idit+ o his se!ond marriage.

Coming no to the substantive issue, does Paragraph & o Arti!#e &; o the

*ami#+ Code app#+ to the !ase o respondent e!essari#+, e must de## on ho

this provision had !ome about in the irst p#a!e, and hat as the intent o the

#egis#ators in its ena!tment

B!e H!"(o!& B/o'#

$n Ju#+ ;, 3=>G, then President Coraon A0uino signed into #a e!utive

$rder o. &'=, otherise non as the H*ami#+ Code,I hi!h too ee!t on

August 6, 3=>>. Arti!#e &; thereo states:A## marriages so#emnied outside the Phi#ippines in a!!ordan!e ith the

#as in or!e in the !ountr+ here the+ ere so#emnied, and va#id there as su!h,sha## a#so be va#id in this !ountr+, e!ept those prohibited under Arti!#es 6%, 6G,

and 6>.

$n Ju#+ 3G, 3=>G, short#+ ater the signing o the origina# *ami#+ Code,

e!utive $rder o. &&G as #ieise signed into #a, amending Arti!#es &;, 6;,

and 6= o the *ami#+ Code. A se!ond paragraph as added to Arti!#e &;. As so

amended, it no provides:A"4. &;. A## marriages so#emnied outside the Phi#ippines in a!!ordan!e

ith the #as in or!e in the !ountr+ here the+ ere so#emnied, and va#id thereas su!h, sha## a#so be va#id in this !ountr+, e!ept those prohibited under Arti!#es

6%(3), (7), (%) and (;), 6;, 6G and 6>.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly

celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spousecapacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to

remarry under hilippine law. (mphasis supp#ied)


6/12

$n its a!e, the oregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation

presented b+ the !ase at hand. 1t seems to app#+ on#+ to !ases here at the time o

the !e#ebration o the marriage, the parties are a *i#ipino !itien and a oreigner.

4he instant !ase is one here at the time the marriage as so#emnied, the parties

ere to *i#ipino !itiens, but #ater on, the ie as natura#ied as an Ameri!an

!itien and subse0uent#+ obtained a divor!e granting her !apa!it+ to remarr+, and

indeed she remarried an Ameri!an !itien hi#e residing in the @.S.A.

oteorth+, in the "eport o the Pub#i! 9earings$2%

on the *ami#+ Code, the

Catho#i! /ishopsB Coneren!e o the Phi#ippines (C/CP) registered the o##oing

obFe!tions to Paragraph & o Arti!#e &;:3. !he rule is discriminatory. "t discriminates against those whose spouses

are Filipinos who divorce them abroad. !hese spouses who are divorcedwill not be able to re#marry, while the spouses of foreigners who validly

divorce them abroad can.

&. 4his is the beginning o the re!ognition o the va#idit+ o divor!e even or

*i#ipino !itiens. *or those hose oreign spouses va#id#+ divor!e themabroad i## a#so be !onsidered to be va#id#+ divor!ed here and !an re-

marr+. 8e propose that this be de#eted and made into #a on#+ ater more

idespread !onsu#tation. (mphasis supp#ied.)

Le!"&(!e I#(e#(

"e!ords o the pro!eedings o the *ami#+ Code de#iberations shoed that

the intent o Paragraph & o Arti!#e &;, a!!ording to Judge A#i!ia Sempio-Di+, a

member o the Civi# Code "evision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation

here the *i#ipino spouse remains married to the a#ien spouse ho, ater obtaining

a divor!e, is no #onger married to the *i#ipino spouse.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn9


7/12

1nteresting#+, Paragraph & o Arti!#e &; tra!es its origin to the 3=>% !ase

o $an %orn v. &omillo,Jr.$10% 4he $an %orn !ase invo#ved a marriage beteen a

*i#ipino !itien and a oreigner. 4he Court he#d therein that a divor!e de!ree

va#id#+ obtained b+ the a#ien spouse is va#id in the Phi#ippines, and !onse0uent#+,

the *i#ipino spouse is !apa!itated to remarr+ under Phi#ippine #a.

Does the same prin!ip#e app#+ to a !ase here at the time o the !e#ebration

o the marriage, the parties ere *i#ipino !itiens, but #ater on, one o them obtains

a oreign !itienship b+ natura#iation

4he Furisprudentia# anser #ies #atent in the 3==> !ase o 'uita v. Court of

(ppeals.$11%1n 'uita, the parties ere, as in this !ase, *i#ipino !itiens hen the+

got married. 4he ie be!ame a natura#ied Ameri!an !itien in 3=%7 and obtained

a divor!e in the same +ear. 4he Court therein hinted, b+ a+ o obiter dictum, that

a *i#ipino divor!ed b+ his natura#ied oreign spouse is no #onger married under

Phi#ippine #a and !an thus remarr+.

4hus, taing into !onsideration the #egis#ative intent and app#+ing the ru#e o

reason, e ho#d that Paragraph & o Arti!#e &; shou#d be interpreted to in!#ude

!ases invo#ving parties ho, at the time o the !e#ebration o the marriage ere

*i#ipino !itiens, but #ater on, one o them be!omes natura#ied as a oreign !itien

and obtains a divor!e de!ree. 4he *i#ipino spouse shou#d #ieise be a##oed to

remarr+ as i the other part+ ere a oreigner at the time o the so#emniation o

the marriage. 4o ru#e otherise ou#d be to san!tion absurdit+ and inFusti!e.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn11


8/12

8here the interpretation o a statute a!!ording to its ea!t and #itera# import ou#d

#ead to mis!hievous resu#ts or !ontravene the !#ear purpose o the #egis#ature, it

shou#d be !onstrued a!!ording to its spirit and reason, disregarding as ar as

ne!essar+ the #etter o the #a. A statute ma+ thereore be etended to !ases not

ithin the #itera# meaning o its terms, so #ong as the+ !ome ithin its spirit or

intent.$1)%

1 e are to give meaning to the #egis#ative intent to avoid the absurd

situation here the *i#ipino spouse remains married to the a#ien spouse ho, ater

obtaining a divor!e is no #onger married to the *i#ipino spouse, then the instant

!ase must be deemed as !oming ithin the !ontemp#ation o Paragraph & o Arti!#e

&;.

1n vie o the oregoing, e state the tin e#ements or the app#i!ation o

Paragraph & o Arti!#e &; as o##os:

3. 4here is a va#id marriage that has been !e#ebrated beteen a *i#ipino!itien and a oreignerE and

&. A va#id divor!e is obtained abroad b+ the a#ien spouse !apa!itating him orher to remarr+.

4he re!oning point is not the !itienship o the parties at the time o the

!e#ebration o the marriage, but their !itienship at the time a valid divorce is

obtained abroadb+ the a#ien spouse !apa!itating the #atter to remarr+.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn12


9/12


10/12

must prove the divor!e as a a!t and demonstrate its !onormit+ to the oreign #a

a##oing it.$14% Su!h oreign #a must a#so be proved as our !ourts !annot tae

Fudi!ia# noti!e o oreign #as.


11/12

o pronoun!ement as to !osts.

SO ORDERED.

LEONARDO A. UISU6BING

Asso!iate Justi!e

8 C$C@":

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, 7R.Chie Justi!e

Chairman

CONSUELO NARES-SANTIAGO ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Asso!iate Justi!e Asso!iate Justi!e

ADOLFO S. ACUNA

Asso!iate Justi!e

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Se!tion 36, Arti!#e ?111 o the Constitution, it is hereb+ !ertiied

that the !on!#usions in the above De!ision ere rea!hed in !onsu#tation beore the

!ase as assigned to the riter o the opinion o the CourtBs Division.


12/12

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, 7R.

Chie Justi!e

3K "o##o, pp. &'-&&.&K "d. at &G-&=.6K "d. at &3-&&.7K "d. at 3'%.%K "d.at 3';-33'.;K "d.at 33'.GK Se!. 3&. 4he State re!ognies the san!tit+ o ami#+ #ie and sha## prote!t and strengthen the ami#+ as a basi!

autonomous so!ia# institution. 1t sha## e0ua##+ prote!t the #ie o the mother and the #ie o the unborn rom!on!eption. 4he natura# and primar+ right and dut+ o parents in the rearing o the +outh or !ivi! ei!ien!+

and the deve#opment o mora# !hara!ter sha## re!eive the support o the overnment.>K $i!e o the $mbudsman v. 1ba+, .". o. 36G%6>, 6 September &''3, 6;7 SC"A &>3, &>;, citing

a#arosa v. ?a#en!ia, .". o. 3'=7%%, 33 ovember 3==6, &&G SC"A G&=, G6G.=K 9e#d on Januar+ &G and &>, 3=>> and *ebruar+ 6, 3=>>.3'K

o. 7G', > $!tober 3=>%, 36= SC"A 36=.33K .". o. 3&7>;&, && De!ember 3==>, 6'' SC"A 7';.3&K

Documents

29. Republic vs. Orbecido