Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2 Art 124 FC 5Art 135(6): Any of the ff shall be considered sufficient cause for judicial
3 Art 125 FC separation of property:
4 (6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact
Article 178(3). The separation in fact between husband and wife without
judicial approval, shall not affect the conjugal partnership, except that: for at least (1) year and reconciliation is highly improbable.
(3) If the husband has abandoned the wife without just cause for at least
one year, she may petition the court for a receivership, or administration by
her of the conjugal partnership property, or separation of property. (n)
other spouse who has been judicially declared absentee (Art ii.
Transaction entered by a spouse during de
142(2). facto separation, if law requires consent,
2. Also allowed when one spouse becomes a fugitive from justice judicial authorization shall be obtained in a
or is in hiding as an accused in a criminal case. summary proceeding (Art 100 & 127 FC).
iii. In terms of support of fam, if community or
OTHER REMEDIES conjugal partnership is insufficient, spouse’s
separate property shall be solidarily liable,
1. RA 9262 Anti-VAWC Act: If husband abandoned wife, she may via judicial authority to administer/
resort to application of protection order. encumber any specific property to satisfy
a. Depriving/threatening to deprive woman or her latter’s share.
children of financial support legally due her or her 2. ANNULMENT AND NULLITY
fam. a. Divorce: Grounds emerge only during marriage.
b. Deliberately providing insufficient financial support b. Annulment: grounds already existent during
for woman’s children. With purpose of controlling or celebration; marriage is considered valid until
restricting woman or children’s movement/conduct. annulled; but there is prescription (typically 5 years)
c. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule that upon lapse, shall validate marriage forever via
or humiliation to woman or children. ratification.
d. Denying financial support/custody of minor children. c. Nullity: Grounds in Art 35-38 must have already
2. Protection order – purpose of “safeguarding victim from existed during celebration, EXCEPT for Art 36, which is
further harm, minimizing any disruption in victim’s daily life, dubbed as PH-style-divorce, because of
facilitating opportunity and ability of victim to independently misconception that it allows for grounds that emerge
regain control over her life” during marriage and after celeb.
a. May compel hubby to provide support for wife and i. Source of misconception: committee; when
children. it intended Judicial declaration of nullity to
b. By ordering appropriate % of income or salary of resolve the church’s opposition to divorce,
respondent to be withheld regularly by respondent’s deriving from Canon Law its grounds for
employer, and automatically remitted to woman. annulment.
c. Failure to remit/withhold or delay of such w/o ii. This misconception also tends to support
justification shall render respondent and employer those who argue that there is not need for
liable for indirect contempt. such since Art 36 already exists.
d. Types: iii. Marcos v Marcos: Article 36 FC is not to be
i. Barangay Protection Order (BPO) confused with divorce law that cuts the
ii. Temporary Protection Order (TPO) marital bond at the time the causes
iii. Permanent Protection Order (PPO) therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a
serious psychological illness afflicting a
DIVORCE party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It must be grave, incurable,
DIVORCE; BRIEF HISTORY antecedent, that prevents persons from
[JUST READ MA’AM BOOK, IT’S SO LONG] understanding/fulfilling duties and
responsibilities of matrimonial bond under
DIVORCE; ABSOLUTE DIVORCE V OTHER REMEDIES Art 68, 71, 220, 221, 225.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is DIVORCE; FOREIGN DIVORCES; BETWEEN TWO FILS
validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained
***Art 15 CC. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (9a)
1. Art 35(1): Those contracted by any party below eighteen years
SOME RULES ON FOREIGN DIVORCES (Tenchavez v Escano 1965):
of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
2. Art 35(4): Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing 1. That a foreign divorce between Fil citizens, sought and
under Article 41 decreed after the effectivity of present CC (RA 386) is not
a. Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither
subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced
void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce,
marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four entitled to validity in the country.
consecutive years and the spouse present has a well- 2. That the marriage of divorces wife and her cohabitation with a
founded belief that the absent spouse was already person other than the lawful husband entitle the latter to a
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger decree of LS conformably to PH law.
of death under the circumstances set forth in the 3. That the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree
provisions of Article 391 CC, an absence of only two by one consort entitles the other to recover damages.
years shall be sufficient. 4. That the action for alienation of affections against the parents
3. Art 35(5): Those contracted through mistake of one contracting of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of malice
party as to the identity of the other; and or unworthy motives on their part.
4. Art 35(6): Those subsequent marriages that are void under
Article 53. DIVORCE; FOREIGN DIVORCE; FIL AND ALIEN;
a. Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FIL AND ALIEN
after compliance with the requirements of the
After the case of Tenchacez and Escano, before amendment of Art longer married because of a divorce obtained abroad that is
26, SC decided the landmark case of Van Dorn Romillo, Jr. which recognized by his or her national law.
gave recognition to foreign divorce decree obtained by an alien a. The main opinion cites the following SC decisions
spouse married to a Filipino. Court ruled that dissolution of marriage where it recognized foreign divorce and extended its
brought bout by a foreign divorce decree should bind not only the legal effects:
alien, but also the Fil spouse. This was designed to put an end to the 12. Repulic v. Obercido III: Art 26(2), allowing former spouses of
bizzare situation of a Filipino still being married to a foreigner who, aliens, who obtained divorce abroad, to remarry under PH laws,
by the latter’s own law, is no longer married to the Fil. includes those whose spouse were naturalized at the time the
divorce was obtained. Citizenship at time of divorce decree was
JURISPRUDENCE obtained is considered, NOT at time of marriage.
De Facto Separation: 13. Van Dorn v. Romillo: Gave recognition to foreign divorce
decree obtained by an alien spouse married to a Filipino
1. Lacson v San Jose: The law allows the separation of property of 14. Fujiki v. Marinay: Prior foreign spouse can petition to nullify
the spouses and the dissolution of their conjugal partnership bigamous marriage in a foreign court.
provided judicial sanction is secured beforehand.
a. “In the absence of an express declaration in the A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects
the civil status, condition and legal capacity of its parties.
marriage settlements, the separation of property
However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To
between the spouses during the marriage shall not
extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines,
take place save in virtue of a judicial order” (Art 190, Philippine courts must... determine if the foreign judgment is
CC). consistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory
b. “The husband and the wife may agree upon the laws.[60] Art 15 CC provides that "[l]aws relating to family
dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity
marriage, subject to judicial approval…” (Art 191, CC) of persons are... binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
2. Estrada v Escritor: Entering into illicit relationships with a 3rd though living abroad." This is the rule of lex nationalii in private
persons constitute civil, criminal liability for adultery/ international law. Thus, the Philippine State may require, for
concubinage, or administrative liability for immoral conduct. effectivity in the Philippines, recognition by Philippine courts of
3. Banaag v Espeleta: Extra-marital cohabitation as a ground for a foreign judgment... affecting its citizen, over whom it
immoral conduct, civil and criminal liability. exercises personal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition
4. Santos Sr. v CA: Only when the parent present is shown to be and legal capacity of such citizen.
unfit or unsuitable may the grandparents exercise substitute A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage
parental authority. void does not require relitigation under a Philippine court of the
5. Perez v CA: The foremost consideration in determining which case as if it were a new petition for declaration of nullity of
parent will have custody of child is always welfare and best marriage. Philippine courts cannot presume to know the foreign
interest of the child. laws under which the... foreign judgment was rendered. They
6. Salientes v Abanilla: In absence of judicial grant of custody cannot substitute their judgment on the status, condition and
(because de facto separated only), both parents are still legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is under the jurisdiction
entitled to custody of the child. of another state. Thus, Philippine courts can only recognize the
7. Davidas v Villanueva: In order to entitle a wife to maintain a foreign judgment as a fact according to... the rules of evidence.
separate home and to require separate maintenance from her 15. Medina v. Koike: The Filipina and her foreign husband jointly
husband, it is not necessary that the husband should bring a files for a divorce. It must be proven as a fact according to the
concubine into the marital domicile. Repeated illicit relations Rules on Evidence.
with women outside of the marital establishment are enough. 16. Pilapil v Ibay-Somera: Where a foreign court has granted
The law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live in divorce between the alien spouse and Filipino, the divorce
marital relations with a husband whose propensity towards decree binds the Filipino spouse as well.
other women makes common habitation with him unbearable. 17. Llorente v CA: Aliens, (In this case, Lorenzo became an alien by
8. Chua Ching Beng compared with Del Rosario v Del Rosario: virtue of his naturalization in the US) meanwhile, may obtain
Relationship problems with in-laws MAY justify de facto absolute divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to
separation. law.
9. Partosa-Jo v CA: Abandonment – a departure by one spouse 18. Corpuz v Sto Tomas: 26(2) is meant to benefit the Filipino
with the avowed intent never to return Spouse, within (3) spouse ONLY. In this case though, foreign spouse was granted
mos) who has left conjugal dwelling, or failed to give info as to recognition of foreign judgment since it will also benefit his Fil
his/her whereabouts, shall prima facie be presumed to have no spouse.
intention of returning to conjugal dwelling; that spouse did not 19. Manalo: Ma’am says she did not like the ruling here, not
at least provide for one’s family although able to. because it was unpleasant, but because it was legally wrong. PH
may only recognize divorce decrees from abroad if it is
Divorce: OBTAINED (versus initiated) by the foreign spouse. Not the
10. Tenchavez v Escano: Divorce obtained abroad by Fil against Fil Filipino. (NOTE: Please correct me if I’m wrong)
spouse is unrecognized in PH. 20. Quita v CA: The Court therein hinted, by way of obiter dictum,
11. Judge Sempio-Diy: Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code was that a Filipino (Obrecido) divorced by his naturalized foreign
enacted to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino still being spouse (Villanueva) is no longer married under Phil law and can
married to his or her alien spouse, although the latter is no thus remarry.
EVIDENCE OF FOREIGN DIVORCES
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132
Garcia v Recio:
6
Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents
referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, 7Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation
the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the
that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)
or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office. (25a)