Republic vs.

Orbecido
GR NO. 154380
October 5, 2005
FACTS:
Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of
Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly,
respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Orbecido
discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his
wife sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed
with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family
Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.
HELD:
The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article
26 Par.2 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. 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.
Hence, the courts unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 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 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. Iyoy

GR No. 152177
Sept. 21, 2005
Facts: In this part case, Krasus and Fely were married to each other. They have 5 children. Later on, Fely
left Krasus and went to the USA. In the USA Fely acquired a divorce decree without having been
naturalized as an American Citizen. After acquiring the divorce decree, Fely married Stephen Miklus.
Several times Fely came back to the Philippines using the surname of the Stephen and Krasus was
disappointed so he filed a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage based on Art 36 of FC stating that Fely is
incapacitated that she can no longer comply her marital obligation by marrying another person. Court
denied petition. Later on, Krasus contented that Art. 26 par 2 of the FC is applicable to their case - if there
now a divorce decree obtained by a foreigner capacitating that foreigner again, the Filipino is also
allowed to marry again.
Issue: WON Art. 26 par 2 of FC is applicable.
Held: Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines is not applicable to the case at bar.
According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines
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.
As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the married couple is
a foreigner who divorces his or her Filipino spouse. By its plain and literal interpretation, the said
provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time
Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not established,
Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from respondent
Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in 1984, after which she married her American
husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that she had been an American citizen since 1988. At
the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine laws on
family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad.
Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses.
Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus.
While this Court commiserates with respondent Crasus for being continuously shackled to what is now a
hopeless and loveless marriage, this is one of those situations where neither law nor society can provide
the specific answer to every individual problem.