Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Tecla herself to substantiate her alleged prior existing and valid marriage with
G.R. No. 173540 January 22, 2014 (sic) Eustaquio;
PEREGRINA MACUA VDA. DE AVENIDO, Petitioner, 2) Documentary evidence such as the following:
vs.
TECLA HOYBIA AVENIDO, Respondent. a. Certification of Loss/Destruction of Record of Marriage from 1900 to 1944
issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar, Municipality of Talibon, Bohol;5
DECISION
b. Certification of Submission of a copy of Certificate of Marriage to the Office of
PEREZ, J.: the Civil Registrar General, National Statistics Office (NSO), R. Magsaysay Blvd.,
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.ofthe Rules of Court, Sta Mesa, Manila;6
assailing the 31 August 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. c. Certification that Civil Registry records of births, deaths and marriages that
CV No. 79444, which reversed the 25 March 2003 Decision2 of the Regional Trial were actually filed in the Office of the Civil Registrar General, NSO Manila,
Court (RTC), Branch 8 of Davao City, in a complaint for Declaration of Absolute started only in 1932;7
Nullity of Marriage· docketed as Civil Case No. 26, 908-98.
d. Certification that Civil Registry records submitted to the Office of the Civil
The Facts Registrar General, NSO, from 1932 to the early part of 1945, were totally
This case involves a contest between two women both claiming to have been destroyed during the liberation of Manila;8
validly married to the same man, now deceased. e. Certification of Birth of Apolinario Avenido;9
Respondent Tecla Hoybia Avenido (Tecla) instituted on 11 November 1998, a f. Certification of Birth of Eustaquio Avenido, Jr.;10
Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Peregrina Macua Vda. de
Avenido (Peregrina) on the ground that she (Tecla), is the lawful wife of the g. Certification of Birth of Editha Avenido;11
deceased Eustaquio Avenido (Eustaquio). In her complaint, Tecla alleged that her
marriage to Eustaquio was solemnized on 30 September 1942 in Talibon, Bohol h. Certification of Marriage between Eustaquio Sr., and Tecla issued by the Parish
in rites officiated by the Parish Priest of the said town. According to her, the fact Priest of Talibon, Bohol on 30 September 1942;12
of their marriage is evidenced by a Marriage Certificate recorded with the Office i. Certification that record of birth from 1900 to 1944 were destroyed by Second
of the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Talibon, Bohol. However, due to World War II, World War issued by the Office of the Municipal Registrar of Talibon, Bohol, that
records were destroyed. Thus, only a Certification3 was issued by the LCR. they cannot furnish as requested a true transcription from the Register of Birth of
During the existence of Tecla and Eustaquio’s union, they begot four (4) children, Climaco Avenido;13
namely: Climaco H. Avenido, born on 30 March 1943; Apolinario H. Avenido, born j. Certificate of Baptism of Climaco indicating that he was born on 30 March 1943
on 23 August 1948; Editha A. Ausa, born on 26 July 1950, and Eustaquio H. to spouses Eustaquio and Tecla;14
Avenido, Jr., born on 15 December 1952. Sometime in 1954, Eustaquio left his
family and his whereabouts was not known. In 1958, Tecla and her children were k. Electronic copy of the Marriage Contract between Eustaquio and Peregrina.15
informed that Eustaquio was in Davao City living with another woman by the
name of Buenaventura Sayson who later died in 1977 without any issue. On the other hand, Peregrina testified on, among others, her marriage to
Eustaquio that took place in Davao City on 3 March 1979; her life as a wife and
In 1979, Tecla learned that her husband Eustaquio got married to another how she took care of Eustaquio when he already had poor health, as well as her
woman by the name of Peregrina, which marriage she claims must be declared knowledge that Tecla is not the legal wife, but was once a common law wife of
null and void for being bigamous – an action she sought to protect the rights of Eustaquio.16 Peregrina likewise set forth documentary evidence to substantiate
her children over the properties acquired by Eustaquio. her allegations and to prove her claim for damages, to wit:
On 12 April 1999, Peregrina filed her answer to the complaint with 1) Marriage Contract17 between Pregrina and the late Eustaquio showing the
counterclaim,4 essentially averring that she is the legal surviving spouse of date of marriage on 3 March 1979;
Eustaquio who died on 22 September 1989 in Davao City, their marriage having
been celebrated on 30 March 1979 at St. Jude Parish in Davao City. She also 2) Affidavit of Eustaquio executed on 22 March 1985 declaring himself as single
contended that the case was instituted to deprive her of the properties she owns when he contracted marriage with the petitioner although he had a common law
in her own right and as an heir of Eustaquio. Trial ensued. relation with one Tecla Hoybia with whom he had four (4) children namely:
Climaco, Tiburcio, Editha and Eustaquio, Jr., all surnamed Avenido;18
Tecla presented testimonial and documentary evidence consisting of:
When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; He created them On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered a decision4 in favor of petitioner. Its
male and female. (Genesis 5:1-2) relevant portions read:
Amihan gazed upon the bamboo reed planted by Bathala and she heard voices Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any
coming from inside the bamboo. "Oh North Wind! North Wind! Please let us infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making
out!," the voices said. She pecked the reed once, then twice. All of a sudden, the his birth records compatible with his present sex.
bamboo cracked and slit open. Out came two human beings; one was a male The sole issue here is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for.
and the other was a female. Amihan named the man "Malakas" (Strong) and the
woman "Maganda" (Beautiful). (The Legend of Malakas and Maganda) The [c]ourt rules in the affirmative.
When is a man a man and when is a woman a woman? In particular, does the Firstly, the [c]ourt is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more in
law recognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel, drugs and consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual [re-
counseling with regard to a person’s sex? May a person successfully petition for assignment], petitioner, who has always felt, thought and acted like a woman,
a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result now possesses the physique of a female. Petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in
of a sex reassignment surgery? a man’s body is not his own doing and should not be in any way taken against
him.
On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition
for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Likewise, the [c]ourt believes that no harm, injury [or] prejudice will be caused to
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. The petition, docketed as SP Case No. 02-105207, anybody or the community in granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the
impleaded the civil registrar of Manila as respondent. petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner
and her [fiancé] and the realization of their dreams.
Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the
spouses Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His Finally, no evidence was presented to show any cause or ground to deny the
name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live present petition despite due notice and publication thereof. Even the State,
birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as "male." through the [OSG] has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition.
He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition and ordering
feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always identified himself with the Civil Registrar of Manila to change the entries appearing in the Certificate of
girls since childhood.1 Feeling trapped in a man’s body, he consulted several Birth of [p]etitioner, specifically for petitioner’s first name from "Rommel Jacinto"
doctors in the United States. He underwent psychological examination, hormone to MELY and petitioner’s gender from "Male" to FEMALE. 5
treatment and breast augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a
"woman" culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG,
surgery2 in Bangkok, Thailand. He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.6 It alleged that there is no
Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex
issued a medical certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact undergone alteration.
the procedure. On February 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals7 rendered a decision8 in favor of the
Republic. It ruled that the trial court’s decision lacked legal basis. There is no law
allowing the change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on the
The petition lacks merit. (2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used
by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname
A Person’s First Name Cannot Be Changed On the Ground of Sex in the community; or
Reassignment
(3) The change will avoid confusion.
Petitioner invoked his sex reassignment as the ground for his petition for change
of name and sex. As found by the trial court: Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex
reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he
Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any thought he transformed himself into through surgery. However, a change of
infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of name does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status.18 RA 9048 does not
making his birth records compatible with his present sex. (emphasis sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than
supplied) avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose
may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest.
Petitioner believes that after having acquired the physical features of a female,
he became entitled to the civil registry changes sought. We disagree. Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or
reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change.19 In addition,
The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official
purposes of identification.11 A change of name is a privilege, not a name.20 In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he
right.12 Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes.13 In this might suffer as a result of using his true and official name.
connection, Article 376 of the Civil Code provides:
In sum, the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of
ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority. petitioner’s first name was not within that court’s primary jurisdiction as the
This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). In petition should have been filed with the local civil registrar concerned, assuming
particular, Section 1 of RA 9048 provides: it could be legally done. It was an improper remedy because the proper remedy
was administrative, that is, that provided under RA 9048. It was also filed in the
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of wrong venue as the proper venue was in the Office of the Civil Registrar of
First Name or Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or Manila where his birth certificate is kept. More importantly, it had no merit since
corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and the use of his true and official name does not prejudice him at all. For all these
change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition in so far as
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the change of his first name was concerned.
the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.
No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On
RA 9048 now governs the change of first name.14 It vests the power and the Ground of Sex Reassignment
authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal
civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal
over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with the issue and the court must look to the statutes.21 In this connection, Article 412 of
aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the law is to the Civil Code provides:
exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of ART. 412. No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the judicial order.
Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is
first filed and subsequently denied.15 It likewise lays down the corresponding Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA
venue,16 form17 and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or
regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings
judicial. and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, RA 9048 removed from the
ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors.22 Rule 108
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 5 of 57
now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation and changes of
register.23 name). These acts, events and judicial decrees produce legal consequences that
touch upon the legal capacity, status and nationality of a person. Their effects
Section 2(c) of RA 9048 defines what a "clerical or typographical error" is: are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast, sex reassignment is not among
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms shall those acts or events mentioned in Article 407. Neither is it recognized nor even
mean: mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.
xxx xxx xxx "Status" refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is, the sum
total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age, nationality
(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the and his family membership.27
performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry
in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or The status of a person in law includes all his personal qualities and
misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at
understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other his own will, such as his being legitimate or illegitimate, or his being married or
existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve not. The comprehensive term status… include such matters as the beginning and
the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner. (emphasis end of legal personality, capacity to have rights in general, family relations, and
supplied) its various aspects, such as birth, legitimation, adoption, emancipation,
marriage, divorce, and sometimes even succession.28 (emphasis supplied)
Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is
not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part
applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. of a person’s legal capacity and civil status. In this connection, Article 413 of the
Civil Code provides:
The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be
Code:24 governed by special laws.
ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment
shall be recorded in the civil register. and its effects. This is fatal to petitioner’s cause.
ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register: Moreover, Section 5 of Act 3753 (the Civil Register Law) provides:
(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of SEC. 5. Registration and certification of births. – The declaration of the physician
marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of
legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) either parent of the newborn child, shall be sufficient for the registration of a
naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; birth in the civil register. Such declaration shall be exempt from documentary
(14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; stamp tax and shall be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days
and (16) changes of name. after the birth, by the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or by either
parent of the newborn child.
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil
Code include even those that occur after birth.25 However, no reasonable In such declaration, the person above mentioned shall certify to the following
interpretation of the provision can justify the conclusion that it covers the facts: (a) date and hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality of infant; (c) names,
correction on the ground of sex reassignment. citizenship and religion of parents or, in case the father is not known, of the
mother alone; (d) civil status of parents; (e) place where the infant was born; and
To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error (f) such other data as may be required in the regulations to be issued.
from" while to change means "to replace something with something else of the
same kind or with something that serves as a substitute."26 The birth certificate xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied)
of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts
to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary. as they existed at the time of birth.29Thus, the sex of a person is determined at
Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by
certain acts (such as legitimations, acknowledgments of illegitimate children and examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no law legally
naturalization), events (such as births, marriages, naturalization and deaths) recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex made at the
and judicial decrees (such as legal separations, annulments of marriage, time of his or her birth, if not attended by error,30 is immutable.31
declarations of nullity of marriages, adoptions, naturalization, loss or recovery of
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 6 of 57
When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common and In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to
ordinary meaning in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The words determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex
"sex," "male" and "female" as used in the Civil Register Law and laws concerning reassignment. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly important
the civil registry (and even all other laws) should therefore be understood in their in this case where the claims asserted are statute-based.
common and ordinary usage, there being no legislative intent to the contrary. In
this connection, sex is defined as "the sum of peculiarities of structure and To reiterate, the statutes define who may file petitions for change of first name
function that distinguish a male from a female"32 or "the distinction between and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry, where they may be
male and female."33Female is "the sex that produces ova or bears young"34 and filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented and what
male is "the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing procedures shall be observed. If the legislature intends to confer on a person
ova."35 Thus, the words "male" and "female" in everyday understanding do not who has undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his name and sex
include persons who have undergone sex reassignment. Furthermore, "words to conform with his reassigned sex, it has to enact legislation laying down the
that are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning are guidelines in turn governing the conferment of that privilege.
presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a
contrary."36 Since the statutory language of the Civil Register Law was enacted person may be recognized as having successfully changed his sex. However, this
in the early 1900s and remains unchanged, it cannot be argued that the term Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else. The
"sex" as used then is something alterable through surgery or something that Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the
allows a post-operative male-to-female transsexual to be included in the written word of its co-equal branch of government, Congress.
category "female."
Petitioner pleads that "[t]he unfortunates are also entitled to a life of happiness,
For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and contentment and [the] realization of their dreams." No argument about that. The
appearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the Court recognizes that there are people whose preferences and orientation do not
change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no fit neatly into the commonly recognized parameters of social convention and
legal basis for his petition for the correction or change of the entries in his birth that, at least for them, life is indeed an ordeal. However, the remedies petitioner
certificate. seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature,
Neither May Entries in the Birth Certificate As to First Name or Sex Be not by the courts.
Changed on the Ground of Equity WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
The trial court opined that its grant of the petition was in consonance with the Costs against petitioner.
principles of justice and equity. It believed that allowing the petition would cause
no harm, injury or prejudice to anyone. This is wrong. SO ORDERED.
The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and
public policy consequences. First, even the trial court itself found that the
petition was but petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his male
fiancé. However, marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special
contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.37 One of its
essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a
male and a female.38 To grant the changes sought by petitioner will
substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family
relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone
sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). Second, there
are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of the
Labor Code on employment of women,39 certain felonies under the Revised
Penal Code40 and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,41 among others. These laws underscore the
public policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if
petitioner’s petition were to be granted.
It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or court shall
decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of
the law." However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation.
The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it.
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 7 of 57
SECOND DIVISION court. The Solicitor General entered his appearance and authorized the Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor to appear in his behalf.
REPUBLIC OFG.R. No. 166676
THE PHILIPPINES, To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr.
Petitioner, Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-
Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that
- versus - September 12, 2008 respondents condition is known as CAH. He explained that genetically
respondent is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female
JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, organs did not develop normally and she has two sex organs female and
Respondent. male. He testified that this condition is very rare, that respondents uterus is not
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x fully developed because of lack of female hormones, and that she has no
monthly period. He further testified that respondents condition is permanent and
recommended the change of gender because respondent has made up her mind,
DECISION adjusted to her chosen role as male, and the gender change would be
QUISUMBING, J.: advantageous to her.
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising purely The RTC granted respondents petition in a Decision dated January 12,
questions of law and seeking a reversal of the Decision[1] dated January 12, 2005 2005 which reads:
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, which granted the
Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate filed by Jennifer B. Cagandahan The Court is convinced that petitioner has satisfactorily shown
and ordered the following changes of entries in Cagandahans birth certificate: (1) that he is entitled to the reliefs prayed [for]. Petitioner has
the name Jennifer Cagandahan changed to Jeff Cagandahan and (2) gender from adequately presented to the Court very clear and convincing
female to male. proofs for the granting of his petition. It was medically proven
that petitioners body produces male hormones, and first his body
as well as his action and feelings are that of a male. He has
The facts are as follows. chosen to be male. He is a normal person and wants to be
acknowledged and identified as a male.
On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for
Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate[2] before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Civil Register of Pakil,
Laguna. Laguna is hereby ordered to make the following corrections in
the birth [c]ertificate of Jennifer Cagandahan upon payment of
the prescribed fees:
In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was
registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up, she a) By changing the name from Jennifer
developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Cagandahan to JEFF CAGANDAHAN; and
Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted
possess both male and female characteristics. She further alleged that she was b) By changing the gender from female to
diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years and at age six, MALE.
underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At
age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has It is likewise ordered that petitioners school records, voters
stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then registry, baptismal certificate, and other pertinent records are
alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, hereby amended to conform with the foregoing corrected data.
she has become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be
corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first
SO ORDERED.[3]
name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3) Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal
consecutive weeks and was posted in conspicuous places by the sheriff of the of the abovementioned ruling.
Rule 108
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 9 of 57
IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY The OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance
with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because respondents petition did
SECTION 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested in any not implead the local civil registrar. Section 3, Rule 108 provides that the civil
act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected
which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified thereby shall be made parties to the proceedings. Likewise, the local civil
petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating registrar is required to be made a party in a proceeding for the correction of
thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the name in the civil registry. He is an indispensable party without whom no final
corresponding civil registry is located. determination of the case can be had.[12] Unless all possible indispensable
parties were duly notified of the proceedings, the same shall be considered as
SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good falling much too short of the requirements of the rules.[13] The corresponding
and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may petition should also implead as respondents the civil registrar and all other
be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; persons who may have or may claim to have any interest that would be affected
(d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; thereby.[14] Respondent, however, invokes Section 6,[15] Rule 1 of the Rules of
(f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) Court which states that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their
legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural objectives of securing to the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of the matters brought before it. We agree that there is substantial compliance with
citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of Rule 108 when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil
filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes registrar.
of name.
SEC. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the The determination of a persons sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal
civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who issue and the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of
have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall the Civil Code provides:
be made parties to the proceeding.
ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or
SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the corrected without a judicial order.
court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of
the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the
persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the Together with Article 376[16] of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by
order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive Republic Act No. 9048[17] in so far as clerical or typographical errors are
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made through
administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect,
SEC. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar and any person having or Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the
claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and
correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of corrections in entries in the civil register.[18]
the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice,
file his opposition thereto. Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of
sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for
SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. The court in which the which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.[19]
proceedings is brought may make orders expediting the
proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for the
preservation of the rights of the parties pending such The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule
proceedings. 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil
Code:
SEC. 7. Order. After hearing, the court may either dismiss the
petition or issue an order granting the cancellation or correction ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil
prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.
be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate
the same in his record. ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil subjects birth certificate entry is in order.
Code include even those that occur after birth.[20]
In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and
(2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we
respect respondents congenital condition and his mature decision to be a
male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how
respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus help make his life easier,
considering the unique circumstances in this case.
As for respondents change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a
change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised
in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow.
[28] The trial courts grant of respondents change of name from Jennifer to Jeff
implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the
consequence that respondents change of name merely recognizes his preferred
gender, we find merit in respondents change of name. Such a change will
conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male.
WHEREFORE, the Republics petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 12,
2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna,
is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
At the pre-trial, only Albios, her counsel and the prosecutor appeared. Fringer did THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAWWHEN IT HELD THAT A
not attend the hearing despite being duly notified of the schedule. After the pre- MARRIAGE CONTRACTED FOR THEPURPOSE OF OBTAINING FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP
trial, hearing on the merits ensued. WAS DONEIN JEST, HENCE, LACKING IN THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OFCONSENT.8
Ruling of the RTC The OSG argues that albeit the intention was for Albios to acquire American
In its April 25, 2008 Decision,5 the RTC declared the marriage void ab initio, the citizenship and for Fringer to be paid $2,000.00, both parties freely gave their
dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment consent to the marriage, as they knowingly and willingly entered into that
is hereby rendered declaring the marriage of Liberty Albios and Daniel Lee marriage and knew the benefits and consequences of being bound by it.
Fringer as void from the very beginning. As a necessary consequence of this According to the OSG, consent should be distinguished from motive, the latter
pronouncement, petitioner shall cease using the surname of respondent as she being inconsequential to the validity of marriage.
never acquired any right over it and so as to avoid a misimpression that she The OSG also argues that the present case does not fall within the concept of a
remains the wife of respondent. marriage in jest. The parties here intentionally consented to enter into a real and
xxxx valid marriage, for if it were otherwise, the purpose of Albios to acquire American
citizenship would be rendered futile.
SO ORDERED.6
On October 29, 2012, Albios filed her Comment9 to the petition, reiterating her
The RTC was of the view that the parties married each other for convenience stand that her marriage was similar to a marriage by way of jest and, therefore,
only. Giving credence to the testimony of Albios, it stated that she contracted void from the beginning. On March 22, 2013, the OSG filed its Reply10 reiterating
Fringer to enter into a marriage to enable her to acquire American citizenship; its arguments in its petition for review on certiorari.
that in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay him the sum of $2,000.00; that
after the ceremony, the parties went their separate ways; that Fringer returned Ruling of the Court
to the United States and never again communicated with her; and that, in turn, The resolution of this case hinges on this sole question of law: Is a marriage,
she did not pay him the $2,000.00 because he never processed her petition for contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in
citizenship. The RTC, thus, ruled that when marriage was entered into for a consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?
purpose other than the establishment of a conjugal and family life, such was a
farce and should not be recognized from its inception.
Fourth, the non-filing of a criminal case against the couple in violating Article 350 The petitioner’s allegation that the court asked insinuating and leading questions
of the RPC, as amended, should preclude the filing of the present case against to Florida fails to persuadeus. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness.
him.21 He may propound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and
to extract the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony
Finally, Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not provide for a penalty. The though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or
present case is not covered by Section 44 of the Marriage Law as the petitioner the other party. It cannot be taken against him if the clarificatory questions he
was not found violating its provisions nor a regulation promulgated thereafter.22 propounds happen to reveal certain truths that tend to destroy the theory of one
party.28
THE COURT’S RULING:
At any rate, if the defense found the line of questioning of the judge
We find the petition unmeritorious. objectionable, its failure to timely register this bars it from belatedly invoking any
The elements of the crime punishable under Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, irregularity.
were proven by the prosecution In addition, the testimonies of Joseph and Mary Anne, and even the petitioner’s
Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer admission regarding the circumstances of the ceremony, support Florida’s
who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of testimony that there had indeed been the declaration by the couple that they
this crime are as follows: (1) authority of the solemnizing officer; and (2) his take each other as husband and wife. The testimony of Joey disowning their
performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. In the present case, the petitioner declaration as husband and wife cannot overcome these clear and convincing
admitted that he has authority to solemnize a marriage. Hence, the only issue to pieces of evidence. Notably, the defense failed to show that the prosecution
be resolved is whether the alleged "blessing" by the petitioner is tantamount to witnesses, Joseph and Mary Anne, had any ill-motive to testify against the
the performance of an "illegal marriage ceremony" which is punishable under petitioner.
Article 352 of the RPC, as amended. We also do not agree with the petitioner that the principle of separation of
While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not specifically define a church and State precludes the State from qualifying the church "blessing" into a
"marriage ceremony" and what constitutes its "illegal" performance, Articles 3(3) marriage ceremony. Contrary to the petitioner’s allegation, this principle has
and 6 of the Family Code are clear on these matters. These provisions were been duly preserved by Article 6 of the Family Code when it provides that no
taken from Article 5523 of the New Civil Code which, in turn, was copied from prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of marriage is required.
Section 324 of the Marriage Law with no substantial amendments. Article 625 of This pronouncement gives any religion or sect the freedom or latitude in
the Family Code provides that "[n]o prescribed form or religious rite for the conducting its respective marital rites, subject only to the requirement that the
solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the core requirements of law be observed.
contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and We emphasize at this point that Article 1529 of the Constitution recognizes
declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take marriage as an inviolable social institution and that our family law is based on
each other as husband and wife."26 Pertinently, Article 3(3)27 mirrors Article 6 the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which
of the Family Code and particularly defines a marriage ceremony as that which the State is vitally interested. The State has paramount interest in the
takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the enforcement of its constitutional policies and the preservation of the sanctity of
This is to further certify that the said application and license do not exist in our COURT
Local Civil Registry Index and, therefore, appear to be fictitious. May I see that book and the portion marked by the witness.
This certification is being issued upon the request of the interested party for xxxx
whatever legal intent it may serve.
COURT
San Juan, Metro Manila
Why don't you ask her direct question whether marriage license 2880792 is the
July 25, 2000 number issued by their office while with respect to license no. 2770792 the office
of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan is very definite about it it was never
(SGD)RAFAEL D. ALISCAD, JR. issued. Then ask him how about no. 2880792 if the same was ever issued by
Local Civil Registrar their office. Did you ask this 2887092, but you could not find the record? But for
the moment you cannot locate the books? Which is which now, was this issued or
not?
Note that the first two certifications bear the statement that "hope and
understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force locating the above A The employee handling it is already retired, sir.19
problem." It could be easily implied from the said statement that the Office of
the Local Civil Registrar could not exert its best efforts to locate and determine Given the documentary and testimonial evidence to the effect that utmost
the existence of Marriage License No. 2770792 due to its "loaded work." efforts were not exerted to locate the logbook where Marriage License No.
Likewise, both certifications failed to state with absolute certainty whether or not 2770792 may have been entered, the presumption of regularity of performance
such license was issued. of official function by the Local Civil Registrar in issuing the certifications, is
effectively rebutted.
This implication is confirmed in the testimony of the representative from the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated According to Section 3(m),20 Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the presumption
that they cannot locate the logbook due to the fact that the person in charge of that official duty has been regularly performed is among the disputable
the said logbook had already retired. Further, the testimony of the said person presumptions.
was not presented in evidence. It does not appear on record that the former In one case, it was held:
custodian of the logbook was deceased or missing, or that his testimony could
not be secured. This belies the claim that all efforts to locate the logbook or A disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence that may be
prove the material contents therein, had been exerted. accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to uphold the
Gloria further testified that she has a daughter with Syed, born on June 15, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE
1993.29 PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT AS NULL AND VOID DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A
MARRIAGE LICENSE DESPITE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWING THAT THERE WAS
Gloria also testified that she filed a bigamy case against Syed, who had married ONE.
a certain Maria Corazon Buenaventura during the existence of the previous
marriage, and that the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 02A-03408, with II
the RTC of Manila.30 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING, AS A REQUISITE OF A VALID
Gloria stated that she and Syed had already been married on August 9, 1992 in MARRIAGE, THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT A MARRIAGE
Taiwan, but that she did not know if said marriage had been celebrated under CEREMONY TOOK PLACE WITH THE APPEARANCE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES
Muslim rites, because the one who celebrated their marriage was Chinese, and BEFORE THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER AND THEIR PERSONAL DECLARATION THAT
those around them at the time were Chinese.31 THEY TOOK EACH OTHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE IN THE PRESENCE OF NOT
LESS THAN TWO WITNESSES OF LEGAL AGE.
The Ruling of the RTC
III
In its October 5, 2005 Decision, the Pasay City RTC held that no valid marriage
license was issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite in favor of THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING ON THE ISSUE OF ESTOPPEL BY
Gloria and Syed, as Marriage License No. 9969967 had been issued to Arlindo LACHES ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER, AN ISSUE TIMELY RAISED IN THE
Getalado and Myra Mabilangan, and the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, COURT BELOW.35
Cavite had certified that no marriage license had been issued for Gloria and
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 25 of 57
The CA gave credence to Gloria’s arguments, and granted her appeal. It held (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
that the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar failed to categorically state
that a diligent search for the marriage license of Gloria and Syed was conducted, (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this
and thus held that said certification could not be accorded probative Title; and
value.36 The CA ruled that there was sufficient testimonial and documentary (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the
evidence that Gloria and Syed had been validly married and that there was contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration
compliance with all the requisites laid down by law.37 that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than
It gave weight to the fact that Syed had admitted to having signed the marriage two witnesses of legal age.
contract. The CA also considered that the parties had comported themselves as Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the
husband and wife, and that Syed only instituted his petition after Gloria had filed marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2).
a case against him for bigamy.38
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads as follows: provided in Article 45.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage
05 October 2005 and Order dated 27 January 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally
Pasay City, Branch 109, in Civil Case No. 03-0382-CFM are REVERSED and SET and administratively liable.
ASIDE and the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is DISMISSED. The
marriage between Shed [sic] Azhar Abbas and Gloria Goo Abbas contracted on Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
09 January 1993 remains valid and subsisting. No costs.
xxxx
SO ORDERED.39
(3) Those solemnized without a license, except those covered by the preceding
Syed then filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 1, 200840 but the same Chapter.
was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated July 24, 2008.41
There is no issue with the essential requisites under Art. 2 of the Family Code,
Hence, this petition. nor with the formal requisites of the authority of the solemnizing officer and the
conduct of the marriage ceremony. Nor is the marriage one that is exempt from
Grounds in Support of Petition the requirement of a valid marriage license under Chapter 2, Title I of the Family
I Code. The resolution of this case, thus, hinges on whether or not a valid marriage
license had been issued for the couple. The RTC held that no valid marriage
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN license had been issued. The CA held that there was a valid marriage license.
CITING REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS AS THE SAME IS DIAMETRICALLY
INCONSISTENT AND CONTRARY TO THE COURT’S OWN FINDINGS AND We find the RTC to be correct in this instance.
CONCLUSIONS IN THIS CASE. Respondent Gloria failed to present the actual marriage license, or a copy
II thereof, and relied on the marriage contract as well as the testimonies of her
witnesses to prove the existence of said license. To prove that no such license
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REVERSING AND was issued, Syed turned to the office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona,
SETTING ASIDE, WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS, THE DECISION OF Cavite which had allegedly issued said license. It was there that he requested
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRANTING THE PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF certification that no such license was issued. In the case of Republic v. Court of
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.42 Appeals43 such certification was allowed, as permitted by Sec. 29, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court, which reads:
The Ruling of this Court
SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record. – A written statement signed by an officer having
The petition is meritorious. the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search, no
As the marriage of Gloria and Syed was solemnized on January 9, 1993, record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office,
Executive Order No. 209, or the Family Code of the Philippines, is the applicable accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that
law. The pertinent provisions that would apply to this particular case are Articles the records of his office contain no such record or entry.
3, 4 and 35(3), which read as follows: In the case of Republic, in allowing the certification of the Civil Registrar of Pasig
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are: to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license, the Court held:
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 141528 October 31, 2006
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 33 of 57
OSCAR P. MALLION, petitioner, WIFE’S PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE,
vs. THE TRIAL COURT HAD DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE WHICH HAS
EDITHA ALCANTARA, respondent. PROBABLY NOT HERETOFORE BEEN DETERMINED SQUARELY AND DEFINITIVELY
BY THIS COURT, OR HAD DECIDED IT IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW.
B. IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF
DECISION HIS MARRIAGE FOR LACK OF THE REQUISITE MARRIAGE LICENSE, THE TRIAL
COURT HAD CONFUSED, DISTORTED AND MISAPPLIED THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES
AND CONCEPTS ON RES JUDICATA, SPLITTING OF A CAUSE OF ACTION AND
AZCUNA, J.: FORUM SHOPPING.10
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Petitioner argues that while the relief prayed for in the two cases was the same,
raising a question of law: Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for that is, the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent, the cause of
declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity bar a subsequent action in the earlier case was distinct and separate from the cause of action in
petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license? the present case because the operative facts upon which they were based as
well as the evidence required to sustain either were different. Because there is
The facts are not disputed: no identity as to the cause of action, petitioner claims that res judicata does not
On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar P. Mallion filed a petition1 with the lie to bar the second petition. In this connection, petitioner maintains that there
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, of San Pablo City seeking a declaration of was no violation of the rule on forum shopping or of the rule which proscribes the
nullity of his marriage to respondent Editha Alcantara under Article 36 of splitting of a cause of action.
Executive Order No. 209, as amended, otherwise known as the Family Code, On the other hand, respondent, in her comment dated May 26, 2000, counters
citing respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity. The case was docketed as that while the present suit is anchored on a different ground, it still involves the
Civil Case No. SP 4341-95. After trial on the merits, the RTC denied the petition in same issue raised in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95, that is, the validity of petitioner
a decision2 dated November 11, 1997 upon the finding that petitioner "failed to and respondent’s marriage, and prays for the same remedy, that is, the
adduce preponderant evidence to warrant the grant of the relief he is declaration of nullity of their marriage. Respondent thus contends that petitioner
seeking."3 The appeal filed with the Court of Appeals was likewise dismissed in a violated the rule on forum shopping. Moreover, respondent asserts that
resolution4 dated June 11, 1998 for failure of petitioner to pay the docket and petitioner violated the rule on multiplicity of suits as the ground he cites in this
other lawful fees within the reglementary period. petition could have been raised during the trial in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95.
After the decision in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95 attained finality, petitioner filed The petition lacks merit.
on July 12, 1999 another petition5 for declaration of nullity of marriage with the
RTC of San Pablo City, this time alleging that his marriage with respondent was The issue before this Court is one of first impression. Should the matter of the
null and void due to the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage invalidity of a marriage due to the absence of an essential requisite prescribed
license. For her part, respondent filed an answer with a motion to dismiss6 dated by Article 4 of the Family Code be raised in the same proceeding where the
August 13, 1999, praying for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of res marriage is being impugned on the ground of a party’s psychological incapacity
judicata and forum shopping. under Article 36 of the Family Code?
In an order7 dated October 8, 1999, the RTC granted respondent’s motion to Petitioner insists that because the action for declaration of nullity of marriage on
dismiss, the dispositive portion of which reads: the ground of psychological incapacity and the action for declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of absence of marriage license constitute separate
WHEREFORE, for Forum Shopping and Multiplicity of Suits, the Motion to Dismiss causes of action, the present case would not fall under the prohibition against
is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. splitting a single cause of action nor would it be barred by the principle of res
SO ORDERED.8 judicata.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied in an order9 dated The contention is untenable.
January 21, 2000. Res judicata is defined as "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or
Hence, this petition which alleges, as follows: decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. It also refers to the rule that a
final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
A. IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR THE DECLARATION OF HIS conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points
MARRIAGE AS NULL AND VOID AB INITIO FOR LACK OF THE REQUISITE MARRIAGE and matters determined in the former suit."11
LICENSE BECAUSE OF (THE) DISMISSAL OF AN EARLIER PETITION FOR
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE SAME MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF HIS
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 34 of 57
This doctrine is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of and (4) there is -- between the first and the second actions -- identity of parties,
jurisprudence and is founded upon the following precepts of common law, of subject matter, and of causes of action.15
namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the
State that there should be an end to litigation, and (2) the hardship on the Petitioner does not dispute the existence of the first three requisites. What is in
individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause. A contrary doctrine issue is the presence of the fourth requisite. In this regard, the test to determine
would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals whether the causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same
and prefer the gratification of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts
preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.12 essential to the maintenance of the two actions. If the same facts or evidence
would sustain both, the two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in
In this jurisdiction, the concept of res judicata is embodied in Section 47 (b) and the first case is a bar to the subsequent action.16
(c) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, thus:
Based on this test, petitioner would contend that the two petitions brought by
SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect of a judgment or final him seeking the declaration of nullity of his marriage are anchored on separate
order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the causes of action for the evidence necessary to sustain the first petition which
judgment or final order, may be as follows: was anchored on the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent is different
from the evidence necessary to sustain the present petition which is anchored on
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing or in respect to the purported absence of a marriage license.
the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or
in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular Petitioner, however, forgets that he is simply invoking different grounds for the
person or his relationship to another, the judgment or final order is conclusive same cause of action. By definition, a cause of action is the act or omission by
upon the title to the thing, the will or administration, or the condition, status or which a party violates the right of another.17 In both petitions, petitioner has the
relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of same cause - the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent. What
administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is predicated. These grounds
intestate; cited by petitioner essentially split the various aspects of the pivotal issue that
holds the key to the resolution of this controversy, that is, the actual status of
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the petitioner and respondent’s marriage.
matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have
been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and Furthermore, the instant case is premised on the claim that the marriage is null
their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement and void because no valid celebration of the same took place due to the alleged
of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing and lack of a marriage license. In Civil Case No. SP 4341-95, however, petitioner
under the same title and in the same capacity; and, impliedly conceded that the marriage had been solemnized and celebrated in
accordance with law. Petitioner is now bound by this admission. The alleged
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors absence of a marriage license which petitioner raises now could have been
in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former presented and heard in the earlier case. Suffice it to state that parties are bound
judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so not only as regards every matter offered and received to sustain or defeat their
adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or claims or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been
necessary thereto. offered for that purpose and of all other matters that could have been adjudged
The above provision outlines the dual aspect of res judicata.13 Section 47 (b) in that case.18
pertains to it in its concept as "bar by prior judgment" or "estoppel by verdict," It must be emphasized that a party cannot evade or avoid the application of res
which is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second judicata by simply varying the form of his action or adopting a different method
action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. On the other hand, of presenting his case. 19 As this Court stated in Perez v. Court of Appeals:20
Section 47 (c) pertains to res judicata in its concept as "conclusiveness of
judgment" or otherwise known as the rule of auter action pendant which ordains x x x the statement of a different form of liability is not a different cause of
that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised action, provided it grows out of the same transaction or act and seeks redress for
in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of the wrong. Two actions are not necessarily for different causes of action simply
action.14 Res judicata in its concept as a bar by prior judgment obtains in the because the theory of the second would not have been open under the pleadings
present case. in the first. A party cannot preserve the right to bring a second action after the
loss of the first merely by having circumscribed and limited theories of recovery
Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) opened by the pleadings in the first.
the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an order onthe merits; It bears stressing that a party cannot divide the grounds for recovery. A plaintiff
is mandated to place in issue in his pleading, all the issues existing
The complaint was not referred, as is usual, for investigation, since the
pleadings submitted were considered sufficient for a resolution of the case.[2]
RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant, vs. JUDGE HERNANDO C.
DOMAGTOY, respondent.
Since the countercharges of sinister motives and fraud on the part of
complainant have not been sufficiently proven, they will not be dwelt upon. The
acts complained of and respondent judge's answer thereto will suffice and can
DECISION
be objectively assessed by themselves to prove the latter's malfeasance.
ROMERO, J.:
The certified true copy of the marriage contract between Gaspar Tagadan
and Arlyn Borga states that Tagadan's civil status is "separated." Despite this
declaration, the wedding ceremony was solemnized by respondent judge. He
The complainant in this administrative case is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa,
presented in evidence a joint affidavit by Maurecio A. Labado, Sr. and Eugenio
Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro. He has submitted evidence in relation to
Bullecer, subscribed and sworn to before Judge Demosthenes C. Duquilla,
two specific acts committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge
Municipal Trial Judge of Basey, Samar.[3] The affidavit was not issued by the
Hernando Domagtoy, which, he contends, exhibits gross misconduct as well as
latter judge, as claimed by respondent judge, but merely acknowledged before
inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law.
him.In their affidavit, the affiants stated that they knew Gaspar Tagadan to have
been civilly married to Ida D. Pearanda in September 1983; that after thirteen
First, on September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the wedding years of cohabitation and having borne five children, Ida Pearanda left the
between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga, despite the knowledge that the conjugal dwelling in Valencia, Bukidnon and that she has not returned nor been
groom is merely separated from his first wife. heard of for almost seven years, thereby giving rise to the presumption that she
is already dead.
Second, it is alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between
Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court's In effect, Judge Domagtoy maintains that the aforementioned joint affidavit
jurisdiction on October 27, 1994.Respondent judge holds office and has is sufficient proof of Ida Pearanda's presumptive death, and ample reason for him
jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del to proceed with the marriage ceremony. We do not agree.
Norte. The wedding was solemnized at the respondent judge's residence in the
municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within his jurisdictional area of the
Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides:
municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, located some 40 to 45 kilometers away
from the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. "A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous
marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent
In his letter-comment to the Office of the Court Administrator, respondent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the
judge avers that the office and name of the Municipal Mayor of Dapa have been spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
used by someone else, who, as the mayor's "lackey," is overly concerned with dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the
his actuations both as judge and as a private person. The same person had circumstances set forth in the provisions of Articles 391 of the Civil Code, an
earlier filed Administrative Matter No. 94-980-MTC, which was dismissed for lack absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
of merit on September 15, 1994, and Administrative Matter No. OCA-IPI-95-16,
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding
"Antonio Adapon v. Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy," which is still pending.
paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as
provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the
In relation to the charges against him, respondent judge seeks exculpation absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent
from his act of having solemnized the marriage between Gaspar Tagadan, a spouse." (Emphasis added.)
married man separated from his wife, and Arlyn F. Borga by stating that he
merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of Basey,
There is nothing ambiguous or difficult to comprehend in this provision. In
Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each
fact, the law is clear and simple. Even if the spouse present has a well-founded
other for almost seven years.[1] With respect to the second charge, he maintains
belief that the absent spouse was already dead, a summary proceeding for the
that in solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo and del Rosario, he did not
declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a subsequent
violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family Code which states that: "Marriage
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 37 of 57
marriage, a mandatory requirement which has been precisely incorporated into the authority of the solemnizing officer as provided in the preceding
the Family Code to discourage subsequent marriages where it is not proven that provision. Non-compliance herewith will not invalidate the marriage.
the previous marriage has been dissolved or a missing spouse is factually or
presumptively dead, in accordance with pertinent provisions of law. A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinary to marry the
faithful, is authorized to do so only within the area of the diocese or place
In the case at bar, Gaspar Tagadan did not institute a summary proceeding allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has
for the declaration of his first wife's presumptive death. Absent this judicial jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the
declaration, he remains married to Ida Pearanda. Whether wittingly, or venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges
unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent judge to have who are appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within
accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom. Such neglect or ignorance said areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his
of the law has resulted in a bigamous, and therefore void, marriage. Under court's jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid
Article 35 of the Family Code, "The following marriage shall be void from the down in Article 3, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may
beginning: (4) Those bigamous x x x marriages not falling under Article 41." subject the officiating official to administrative liability.[5]
The second issue involves the solemnization of a marriage ceremony Inasmuch as respondent judge's jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta.
outside the court's jurisdiction, covered by Articles 7 and 8 of the Family Code, Monica and Burgos, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in
thus: the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. By citing Article 8 and the
exceptions therein as grounds for the exercise of his misplaced authority,
"Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by: respondent judge again demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic
(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction; principles of civil law.
x x x x x x xxx (Emphasis supplied.) Accordingly, the Court finds respondent to have acted in gross ignorance of
the law. The legal principles applicable in the cases brought to our attention are
Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or elementary and uncomplicated, prompting us to conclude that respondent's
in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul- failure to apply them is due to a lack of comprehension of the law.
general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except
in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote The judiciary should be composed of persons who, if not experts, are at
places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both parties least, proficient in the law they are sworn to apply, more than the ordinary
request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage laymen. They should be skilled and competent in understanding and applying
may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn the law. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles like
statement to that effect." the ones involved in instant case.[6] It is not too much to expect them to know
and apply the law intelligently.[7] Otherwise, the system of justice rests on a
Respondent judge points to Article 8 and its exceptions as the justifications shaky foundation indeed, compounded by the errors committed by those not
for his having solemnized the marriage between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma learned in the law.While magistrates may at times make mistakes in judgment,
del Rosario outside of his court's jurisdiction. As the aforequoted provision states, for which they are not penalized, the respondent judge exhibited ignorance of
a marriage can be held outside of the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the elementary provisions of law, in an area which has greatly prejudiced the status
following instances: (1) at the point of death, (2) in remote places in accordance of married persons.
with Article 29 or (3) upon request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement
to this effect. There is no pretense that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the The marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is considered
point of death or in a remote place. Moreover, the written request presented bigamous and void, there being a subsisting marriage between Gaspar Tagadan
addressed to the respondent judge was made by only one party, Gemma del and Ida Pearanda.
Rosario.[4]
3.1. After handing to the husband the first copy of the marriage certificate, The foregoing circumstances are unavailing in the instant case.
respondent left the three remaining copies on top of the desk in his private Moreover, as solemnizing officer, respondent Judge neglected his duty when
office where the marriage ceremonies were held, intending later to register he failed to register the marriage of complainant to Bernardito Yman.
the duplicate and triplicate copies and to keep the forth (sic) in his office.
Such duty is entrusted upon him pursuant to Article 23 of the Family Code
3.2. After a few days following the wedding, respondent gathered all the which provides: Ncm
papers relating to the said marriage but notwithstanding diligent search in
the premises and private files, all the three last copies of the certificate "It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish
were missing. Promptly, respondent invited by subpoena xxx Mr. Yman to either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage certificate
shed light on the missing documents and he said he saw complainant Beso referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of
put the copies of the marriage certificate in her bag during the wedding the certificates not later than fifteen days after the marriage, to the
party. Unfortunately, it was too late to contact complainant for a local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was
confirmation of Mr. Ymans claim. Mis sc solemnized. xxx" (underscoring ours)
3.3. Considering the futility of contracting complainant now that she is out It is clearly evident from the foregoing that not only has the respondent
of the country, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the Judge committed non-feasance in office, he also undermined the very
established facts so far in this dispute. If we believe the claim of foundation of marriage which is the basic social institution in our society
complainant that after August 28, 1997 marriage her husband, Mr. Yman, whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law. Granting
abandoned her without any reason xxx but that said husband admitted that respondent Judge indeed failed to locate the duplicate and triplicate
"he had another girl by the name of LITA DANGUYAN" xxx it seems copies of the marriage certificate, he should have exerted more effort to
reasonably clear who of the two marriage contracting parties probably locate or reconstitute the same. As a holder of such a sensitive position, he
absconded with the missing copies of the marriage certificate. Jo spped is expected to be conscientious in handling official documents. His
imputation that the missing copies of the marriage certificate were taken by
3.4. Under the facts above stated, respondent has no other recourse but to Bernardito Yman is based merely on conjectures and does not deserve
protect the public interest by trying all possible means to recover custody consideration for being devoid of proof."
of the missing documents in some amicable way during the expected
hearing of the above mentioned civil case in the City of Marikina, failing to After a careful and thorough examination of the evidence, the Court finds the
do which said respondent would confer with the Civil Registrar General for evaluation report of the OCA well-taken. Mani kx
possible registration of reconstituted copies of said documents.
Jimenez v. Republic[1] underscores the importance of marriage as a social
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation report dated August institution thus: "[M]arriage in this country is an institution in which the
11, 1998 found that respondent Judge " committed non-feasance in office" and community is deeply interested. The state has surrounded it with safeguards to
recommended that he be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a warning maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The security and stability of the
that the commission of the same or future acts will be dealt with more severely state are largely dependent upon it. It is the interest and duty of each and every
pointing out that: member of the community to prevent the bringing about of a condition that
would shake its foundation and ultimately lead to its destruction."
Not long after, on 30 October 1998, the RTC promulgated its Judgment declaring
the marriage of respondent Crasus and Fely null and void ab initio, on the basis
of the following findings Petitioner Republic, believing that the afore-quoted Judgment of the RTC was
contrary to law and evidence, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The
The ground bearing defendants psychological incapacity appellate court, though, in its Decision, dated 30 July 2001, affirmed the
deserves a reasonable consideration. As observed, plaintiffs appealed Judgment of the RTC, finding no reversible error therein. It even offered
testimony is decidedly credible. The Court finds that defendant additional ratiocination for declaring the marriage between respondent Crasus
had indeed exhibited unmistakable signs of psychological and Fely null and void, to wit
incapacity to comply with her marital duties such as striving for
family unity, observing fidelity, mutual love, respect, help and Defendant secured a divorce from plaintiff-appellee abroad, has
support. From the evidence presented, plaintiff adequately remarried, and is now permanently residing in the United States.
established that the defendant practically abandoned him. She Plaintiff-appellee categorically stated this as one of his reasons
obtained a divorce decree in the United States of America and for seeking the declaration of nullity of their marriage
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 43 of 57
II. The Court of Appeals has decided questions of
Article 26 of the Family Code provides: substance not in accord with law and jurisprudence considering
that the Court of Appeals committed serious errors of law in
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the ruling that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code is
Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in inapplicable to the case at bar.[18]
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. In his Comment[19] to the Petition, respondent Crasus maintained that Felys
psychological incapacity was clearly established after a full-blown trial, and that
WHERE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FILIPINO paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines was indeed
CITIZEN AND A FOREIGNER IS VALIDLY applicable to the marriage of respondent Crasus and Fely, because the latter had
CELEBRATED AND A DIVORCE IS THEREAFTER already become an American citizen. He further questioned the personality of
VALIDLY OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE ALIEN petitioner Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, to institute
SPOUSE CAPACITATING HIM OR HER TO the instant Petition, because Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines
REMARRY, THE FILIPINO SPOUSE SHALL LIKEWISE authorizes the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the trial court, not the
HAVE CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE Solicitor General, to intervene on behalf of the State, in proceedings for
LAW. annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages.
The rationale behind the second paragraph of the above-quoted After having reviewed the records of this case and the applicable laws and
provision is to avoid the absurd and unjust situation of a Filipino jurisprudence, this Court finds the instant Petition to be meritorious.
citizen still being married to his or her alien spouse, although the
latter is no longer married to the Filipino spouse because he or
she has obtained a divorce abroad. In the case at bench, the I
defendant has undoubtedly acquired her American husbands
citizenship and thus has become an alien as well. This Court The totality of evidence presented during trial is insufficient to
cannot see why the benefits of Art. 26 aforequoted can not be support the finding of psychological incapacity of Fely.
extended to a Filipino citizen whose spouse eventually embraces
another citizenship and thus becomes herself an alien.
It would be the height of unfairness if, under these Article 36, concededly one of the more controversial provisions of the
circumstances, plaintiff would still be considered as married to Family Code of the Philippines, reads
defendant, given her total incapacity to honor her marital
covenants to the former. To condemn plaintiff to remain shackled ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the
in a marriage that in truth and in fact does not exist and to time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
remain married to a spouse who is incapacitated to discharge comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
essential marital covenants, is verily to condemn him to a likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
perpetual disadvantage which this Court finds abhorrent and will after its solemnization.
not countenance. Justice dictates that plaintiff be given relief by
affirming the trial courts declaration of the nullity of the marriage
of the parties.[16]
Issues most commonly arise as to what constitutes psychological incapacity. In a
series of cases, this Court laid down guidelines for determining its existence.
After the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution, dated 08 March 2002, In Santos v. Court of Appeals,[20] the term psychological incapacity was defined,
[17] denied its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner Republic filed the instant thus
Petition before this Court, based on the following arguments/grounds
. . . [P]sychological incapacity should refer to no less than a
I. Abandonment by and sexual infidelity of respondents mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly
wife do not per se constitute psychological incapacity. cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must
be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 44 of 57
which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although
their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to
and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any limit the application of the provision under the principle
doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be
meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated[21] (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of
the celebration of the marriage. The evidence must show that
the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their I do's.
The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such
The psychological incapacity must be characterized by time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment,
or prior thereto.
(a) Gravity It must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
(b) Juridical Antecedence It must be rooted in the history of the party clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
after the marriage; and necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
(c) Incurability It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption
would be beyond the means of the party involved.[22] of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to
marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a
More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of job
the Family Code of the Philippines were handed down by this Court in Republic v.
Court of Appeals and Molina,[23] which, although quite lengthy, by its (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
significance, deserves to be reproduced below disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity
the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in
Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and the person, an adverse integral element in the personality
unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really
Article on the Family, recognizing it as the foundation of the accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential
nation. It decrees marriage as legally inviolable, thereby to marriage.
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the
family and marriage are to be protected by the state. (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by
Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code
the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied
solidarity. marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven
by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a)
medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our
incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its courts
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence
must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No
not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 45 of 57
a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly
stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as The evidence may have proven that Fely committed acts that hurt and
the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along embarrassed respondent Crasus and the rest of the family. Her hot-temper,
with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such nagging, and extravagance; her abandonment of respondent Crasus; her
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is marriage to an American; and even her flaunting of her American family and her
deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor American surname, may indeed be manifestations of her alleged incapacity to
General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor comply with her marital obligations; nonetheless, the root cause for such was not
vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.[24] identified. If the root cause of the incapacity was not identified, then it cannot be
satisfactorily established as a psychological or mental defect that is serious or
grave; neither could it be proven to be in existence at the time of celebration of
the marriage; nor that it is incurable. While the personal examination of Fely by a
A later case, Marcos v. Marcos,[25] further clarified that there is no requirement psychiatrist or psychologist is no longer mandatory for the declaration of nullity
that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, by virtue
physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of of this Courts ruling in Marcos v. Marcos,[29] respondent Crasus must still have
nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Such psychological complied with the requirement laid down in Republic v. Court of Appeals and
incapacity, however, must be established by the totality of the evidence Molina[30] that the root cause of the incapacity be identified as a psychological
presented during the trial. illness and that its incapacitating nature be fully explained.
Using the guidelines established by the afore-mentioned jurisprudence, In any case, any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.
this Court finds that the totality of evidence presented by respondent Crasus [31] No less than the Constitution of 1987 sets the policy to protect and
failed miserably to establish the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife Fely; strengthen the family as the basic social institution and marriage as the
therefore, there is no basis for declaring their marriage null and void under foundation of the family.[32]
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
II
The only substantial evidence presented by respondent Crasus before Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines is
the RTC was his testimony, which can be easily put into question for being self- not applicable to the case at bar.
serving, in the absence of any other corroborating evidence. He submitted only
two other pieces of evidence: (1) the Certification on the recording with the
Register of Deeds of the Marriage Contract between respondent Crasus and Fely,
such marriage being celebrated on 16 December 1961; and (2) the invitation to According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines
the wedding of Crasus, Jr., their eldest son, in which Fely used her American
husbands surname. Even considering the admissions made by Fely herself in her Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is
Answer to respondent Crasuss Complaint filed with the RTC, the evidence is not validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained
enough to convince this Court that Fely had such a grave mental illness that abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry,
prevented her from assuming the essential obligations of marriage. the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law.
It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation
contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to wherein one of the couple getting married is a Filipino citizen and the other a
assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, foreigner at the time the marriage was celebrated. By its plain and literal
much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.[26] Irreconcilable differences, interpretation, the said provision cannot be applied to the case of
conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time Fely obtained
abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not
themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the established, Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC that she
said Article.[27] 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.
As has already been stressed by this Court in previous cases, Article 36 is not to In the same Answer, she alleged that she had been an American citizen since
be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes 1988. At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and
therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of
afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage. It is a malady so grave the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties,
and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad.
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.[28] Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 46 of 57
between Filipino spouses. Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce to the Court of Appeals or this Court. Since it shall be eventually responsible for
from respondent Crasus. taking the case to the appellate courts when circumstances demand, then it is
only reasonable and practical that even while the proceeding is still being held
before the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General can already exercise
III supervision and control over the conduct of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
The Solicitor General is authorized to intervene, on behalf of the therein to better guarantee the protection of the interests of the State.
Republic, in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity
of marriages. In fact, this Court had already recognized and affirmed the role of the Solicitor
General in several cases for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages
that were appealed before it, summarized as follows in the case of Ancheta v.
Ancheta[36]
Invoking Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines, respondent
Crasus argued that only the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the RTC In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [268 SCRA 198
may intervene on behalf of the State in proceedings for annulment or declaration (1997)], this Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation
of nullity of marriages; hence, the Office of the Solicitor General had no and application of Art. 48 of the Family Code, one of which
personality to file the instant Petition on behalf of the State. Article 48 provides concerns the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State:
ART. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the (8) The trial court must order the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the General to appear as counsel for the state. No
parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or decision shall be handed down unless the
suppressed. Solicitor General issues a certification, which will
be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein
his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as
the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor
That Article 48 does not expressly mention the Solicitor General does not bar General, along with the prosecuting attorney,
him or his Office from intervening in proceedings for annulment or declaration of shall submit to the court such certification within
nullity of marriages. Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the fifteen (15) days from the date the case is
Administrative Code of 1987, appoints the Solicitor General as the principal law deemed submitted for resolution of the court.
officer and legal defender of the Government.[33] His Office is tasked to The Solicitor General shall discharge the
represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities equivalent function of the defensor
and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. [Id., at
requiring the services of lawyers. The Office of the Solicitor General shall 213]
constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties
requiring the services of lawyers.[34] This Court in the case of Malcampo-Sin v. Sin [355 SCRA
285 (2001)] reiterated its pronouncement in Republic v. Court of
The intent of Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines is to ensure that the Appeals [Supra.] regarding the role of the prosecuting attorney
interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the
and declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the State[37]
parties, or the fabrication or suppression of evidence; and, bearing in mind that
the Solicitor General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the land,
then his intervention in such proceedings could only serve and contribute to the
realization of such intent, rather than thwart it. Finally, the issuance of this Court of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,[38] which became
Furthermore, the general rule is that only the Solicitor General is authorized to effective on 15 March 2003, should dispel any other doubts of respondent Crasus
bring or defend actions on behalf of the People or the Republic of the Philippines as to the authority of the Solicitor General to file the instant Petition on behalf of
once the case is brought before this Court or the Court of Appeals.[35] While it is the State. The Rule recognizes the authority of the Solicitor General to intervene
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal who actively participates, on behalf of the and take part in the proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of
State, in a proceeding for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage before marriages before the RTC and on appeal to higher courts. The pertinent
the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General takes over when the case is elevated provisions of the said Rule are reproduced below
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 47 of 57
Given the foregoing, this Court arrives at a conclusion contrary to those of the
Sec. 5. Contents and form of petition. RTC and the Court of Appeals, and sustains the validity and existence of the
marriage between respondent Crasus and Fely. At most, Felys abandonment,
sexual infidelity, and bigamy, give respondent Crasus grounds to file for legal
(4) It shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall separation under Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, but not for
serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the same Code. While this
and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five Court commiserates with respondent Crasus for being continuously shackled to
days from the date of its filing and submit to the court proof of what is now a hopeless and loveless marriage, this is one of those situations
such service within the same period. where neither law nor society can provide the specific answer to every individual
problem.[39]
Sec. 18. Memoranda. The court may require the parties
and the public prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision of the Court of
Solicitor General, to file their respective memoranda in support Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62539, dated 30 July 2001, affirming the Judgment of
of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. CEB-20077, dated 30 October
terminated. It may require the Office of the Solicitor General to 1998, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
file its own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to The marriage of respondent Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy remains valid
the State. No other pleadings or papers may be submitted and subsisting.
without leave of court. After the lapse of the period herein
provided, the case will be considered submitted for decision, with SO ORDERED.
or without the memoranda.
IT IS SO ORDERED.[3]
Present: In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States bringing along their son
Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been
Davide, Jr., C.J., naturalized as an American citizen.
- versus - (Chairman),
Quisumbing,
Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a
Ynares-Santiago,
divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her
Carpio, and
child by him currently live at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel,
Azcuna, JJ.
California.
CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III,
Respondent. Promulgated:
Cipriano thereafter 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.
October 5, 2005
Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein
petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought
x--------------------------------------------------x
reconsideration but it was denied.
DECISION
In this petition, the OSG raises a pure question of law:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE
QUISUMBING, J.: 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE[4]
Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage;
him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien. The proper
law? remedy, according to the OSG, is to file a petition for annulment or for legal
separation.[5] Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs
Before us is a case of first impression that behooves the Court to make a definite respondents situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not
ruling on this apparently novel question, presented as a pure question of law. of judicial determination.[6]
In this petition for review, the Solicitor General assails the Decision[1] dated For his part, respondent admits that Article 26 is not directly applicable to his
May 15, 2002, of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch case but insists that when his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce decree
23 and its Resolution[2] dated July 4, 2002 denying the motion for which capacitated her to remarry, he is likewise capacitated by operation of law
reconsideration. The court a quo had declared that herein respondent Cipriano pursuant to Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.[7]
Orbecido III is capacitated to remarry. The fallo of the impugned Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, by virtue of the provision of the second paragraph At the outset, we note that the petition for authority to remarry filed before the
of Art. 26 of the Family Code and by reason of the divorce decree trial court actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. In this connection,
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides:
The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must be a On its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation
justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose presented by the case at hand. It seems to apply only to cases where at the time
interests are adverse; (3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a
the controversy; and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination.[8] foreigner. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was
solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was
This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a marriage naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting
between two Filipino citizens where one later acquired alien citizenship, obtained her capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an American citizen while
a divorce decree, and remarried while in the U.S.A. The interests of the parties residing in the U.S.A.
are also adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts its duty to protect
the institution of marriage while respondent, a private citizen, insists on a Noteworthy, in the Report of the Public Hearings[9] on the Family Code, the
declaration of his capacity to remarry. Respondent, praying for relief, has legal Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) registered the following
interest in the controversy. The issue raised is also ripe for judicial determination objections to Paragraph 2 of Article 26:
inasmuch as when respondent remarries, litigation ensues and puts into question 1. The rule is discriminatory. It discriminates
the validity of his second marriage. against those whose spouses are Filipinos who divorce
them abroad. These spouses who are divorced will not
Coming now to the substantive issue, does Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the be able to re-marry, while the spouses of foreigners who
Family Code apply to the case of respondent? Necessarily, we must dwell on how validly divorce them abroad can.
this provision had come about in the first place, and what was the intent of the
2. This is the beginning of the recognition of
legislators in its enactment?
the validity of divorce even for Filipino citizens. For those
whose foreign spouses validly divorce them abroad will
also be considered to be validly divorced here and can
Brief Historical Background re-marry. We propose that this be deleted and made into
On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon Aquino signed into law Executive Order law only after more widespread consultation. (Emphasis
No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, supplied.)
1988. Article 26 thereof states:
All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance
with the laws in force in the country where they were Legislative Intent
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the
country, except those prohibited under Articles 35, 37, and 38. intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a
member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation
where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after
On July 17, 1987, shortly after the signing of the original Family Code, Executive obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
Order No. 227 was likewise signed into law, amending Articles 26, 36, and 39 of
the Family Code. A second paragraph was added to Article 26. As so amended, it Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van
now provides: Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.[10] The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a
Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Court held therein that a divorce decree
The jurisprudential answer lies latent in the 1998 case of Quita v. Court of We are also unable to sustain the OSGs theory that the proper remedy of the
Appeals.[11] In Quita, the parties were, as in this case, Filipino citizens when Filipino spouse is to file either a petition for annulment or a petition for legal
they got married. The wife became a naturalized American citizen in 1954 and separation. Annulment would be a long and tedious process, and in this
obtained a divorce in the same year. The Court therein hinted, by way of obiter particular case, not even feasible, considering that the marriage of the parties
dictum, that a Filipino divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer appears to have all the badges of validity. On the other hand, legal separation
married under Philippine law and can thus remarry. would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tie; hence,
the legally separated Filipino spouse would still remain married to the naturalized
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of alien spouse.
reason, we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include
cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were However, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly
Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign submitted by respondent concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of
citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be respondents wife. It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of
allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.[13]
solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity
and injustice. Where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his allegation
literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Likewise, before a foreign
of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must
disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A statute may therefore be prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they allowing it.[14] Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot take
come within its spirit or intent.[12] judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged and
proved.[15] Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree
If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent to avoid the absurd situation allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise,
where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter
obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Filipino spouse, then the instant into another marriage.
case must be deemed as coming within the contemplation of Paragraph 2 of
Article 26. Nevertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of
the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be
In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry. However,
considering that in the present petition there is no sufficient evidence submitted
1. There is a valid marriage that has been and on record, we are unable to declare, based on respondents bare allegations
celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and that his wife, who was naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorce
decree and had remarried an American, that respondent is now capacitated to
remarry. Such declaration could only be made properly upon respondents
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the
submission of the aforecited evidence in his favor.
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
Two years after the divorce, Gerbert has moved on and has found another
Filipina to love. Desirous of marrying his new Filipina fiance in the Philippines,
Gerbert went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian
divorce decree on his and Daisylyns marriage certificate. Despite the registration
of the divorce decree, an official of the National Statistics Office (NSO) informed
Republic of the Philippines Gerbert that the marriage between him and Daisylyn still subsists under
Supreme Court Philippine law; to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be
Manila judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court, pursuant to NSO Circular
No. 4, series of 1982.[6]
THIRD DIVISION Accordingly, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign
divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved (petition) with the
RTC. Although summoned, Daisylyn did not file any responsive pleading but
GERBERT R. CORPUZ, G.R. No. 186571 submitted instead a notarized letter/manifestation to the trial court. She offered
Petitioner, no opposition to Gerberts petition and, in fact, alleged her desire to file a similar
Present: case herself but was prevented by financial and personal circumstances. She,
thus, requested that she be considered as a party-in-interest with a similar
CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, prayer to Gerberts.
BRION,
- versus - BERSAMIN, In its October 30, 2008 decision,[7] the RTC denied Gerberts petition. The
*ABAD, and RTC concluded that Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian
citizen. It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code,[8] in order for him or her to
Promulgated: be able to remarry under Philippine law.[9] Article 26 of the Family Code reads:
DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and The August 11, 2010
SOLICITOR GENERAL, Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in
Respondents. -- - accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this
country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6),
DECISION 36, 37 and 38.
BRION, J.: 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
Before the Court is a direct appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to
Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 11, elevated via a petition for review remarry under Philippine law.
on certiorari[2]under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (present petition).
This conclusion, the RTC stated, is consistent with the legislative intent behind
Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian the enactment of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, as
citizenship through naturalization on November 29, 2000.[3] On January 18, determined by the Court in Republic v. Orbecido III;[10] the provision was
2005, Gerbert married respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. enacted to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married
[4] Due to work and other professional commitments, Gerbert left to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the
for Canada soon after the wedding. He returned to the Philippines sometime in Filipino spouse.[11]
April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but was shocked to discover that his wife was
having an affair with another man. Hurt and disappointed, Gerbert returned THE PETITION
to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. The Superior Court of
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in Additionally, an action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were Code is not limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If the court
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can
country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and declare that the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another
(6), 36, 37 and 38. marriage. No court in this jurisdiction, however, can make a similar declaration
for the alien spouse (other than that already established by the decree), whose
status and legal capacity are generally governed by his national law.[26]
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 53 of 57
Given the rationale and intent behind the enactment, and the purpose of the The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the RTC was correct in acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments
limiting the applicability of the provision for the benefit of the Filipino spouse. In and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, no sovereign is bound to give
other words, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another
26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision. country.[28] This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be
proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the aliens applicable
national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.
The foreign divorce decree is [29] The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the
presumptive evidence of a purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an
right that clothes the party integral aspect of his claim or defense.
with legal interest to petition
for its recognition in this In Gerberts case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of
jurisdiction the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be
official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
We qualify our above conclusion i.e., that the second paragraph of Article 26 of comes into play. This Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or
the Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens with the complementary (2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the
statement that this conclusion is not sufficient basis to dismiss Gerberts petition copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these must be (a)
before the RTC. In other words, the unavailability of the second paragraph of accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer
Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the
interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the aliens
national law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the divorce
a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule decree, as well as the required certificates proving its authenticity,[30] but failed
39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments. This to include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce.[31] Under this situation, we
Section states: can, at this point, simply dismiss the petition for insufficiency of supporting
evidence, unless we deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the RTC to
SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.The effect of a determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, law.
having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as
follows: We deem it more appropriate to take this latter course of action, given the Article
26 interests that will be served and the Filipina wifes (Daisylyns) obvious
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific conformity with the petition. A remand, at the same time, will allow other
thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title of the interested parties to oppose the foreign judgment and overcome a petitioners
thing; and presumptive evidence of a right by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice to
a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws before a
person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence recognition is made, as the foreign judgment, once recognized, shall have the
of a right as between the parties and their successors in effect of res judicata[32] between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39
interest by a subsequent title. of the Rules of Court.[33]
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, reciprocal recognition of foreign judgments between nations, the res
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves as the deeper basis for
extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its
To our mind, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is terms. This same effect, as discussed above, will not obtain for the Filipino
sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before spouse were it not for the substantive rule that the second paragraph of Article
our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment. In a divorce situation, we 26 of the Family Code provides.
have declared, no less, that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his or her
national law.[27]
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 54 of 57
Considerations beyond the But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the
recognition of the foreign law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize
divorce decree the decrees registration. The law should be read in relation with the
As a matter of housekeeping concern, we note that the Pasig City Civil requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be
Registry Office has already recorded the divorce decree on Gerbert and given res judicata effect. In the context of the present case, no judicial order as
Daisylyns marriage certificate based on the mere presentation of the yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree. Thus, the Pasig City Civil
decree.[34] We consider the recording to be legally improper; hence, the need Registry Office acted totally out of turn and without authority of law when it
to draw attention of the bench and the bar to what had been done. annotated the Canadian divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyns marriage
certificate, on the strength alone of the foreign decree presented by Gerbert.
Article 407 of the Civil Code states that [a]cts, events and judicial decrees
concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. The Evidently, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office was aware of the requirement of a
law requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal court recognition, as it cited NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982,[36] and
consequences touching upon a persons legal capacity and status, i.e., those Department of Justice Opinion No. 181, series of 1982[37] both of which required
affecting all his personal qualities and relations, more or less permanent in a final order from a competent Philippine court before a foreign judgment,
nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or dissolving a marriage, can be registered in the civil registry, but it, nonetheless,
illegitimate, or his being married or not.[35] allowed the registration of the decree. For being contrary to law, the registration
of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite judicial recognition is patently
A judgment of divorce is a judicial decree, although a foreign one, affecting a void and cannot produce any legal effect.
persons legal capacity and status that must be recorded. In fact, Act No. 3753 or
the Law on Registry of Civil Status specifically requires the registration of divorce Another point we wish to draw attention to is that the recognition that the RTC
decrees in the civil registry: may extend to the Canadian divorce decree does not, by itself, authorize
the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. A petition for recognition of a
Sec. 1. Civil Register. A civil register is established for recording foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of
the civil status of persons, in which shall be entered: Court, for the cancellation of entries in the civil registry.
(a) births; Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that no entry in a civil register shall be
(b) deaths; changed or corrected, without judicial order. The Rules of Court supplements
(c) marriages; Article 412 of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial
(d) annulments of marriages; proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled or
(e) divorces; corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and
(f) legitimations; procedural requirements that must be complied with before a judgment,
(g) adoptions; authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil
(h) acknowledgment of natural children; registry. It also requires, among others, that the verified petition must be filed
(i) naturalization; and with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located;
(j) changes of name. [38] that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must
be made parties to the proceedings;[39] and that the time and place for hearing
Sec. 4. Civil Register Books. The local registrars shall keep and must be published in a newspaper of general circulation.[40] As these basic
preserve in their offices the following books, in which they shall, jurisdictional requirements have not been met in the present case, we cannot
respectively make the proper entries concerning the civil status of consider the petition Gerbert filed with the RTC as one filed under Rule 108 of the
persons: Rules of Court.
(1) Birth and death register; We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should not be construed as
requiring two separate proceedings for the registration of a foreign divorce
(2) Marriage register, in which shall be entered not only the decree in the civil registry one for recognition of the foreign decree and another
marriages solemnized but also divorces and dissolved specifically for cancellation of the entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The
marriages. recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding
itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules
(3) Legitimation, acknowledgment, adoption, change of name and of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a particular
naturalization register. fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate
adversarial proceeding[41] by which the applicability of the foreign judgment
[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329. March 8, 2001] For his part, respondent Judge filed a Manifestation reiterating his plea for
the dismissal of the complaint and setting aside his earlier Comment. He therein
invites the attention of the Court to two separate affidavits[5] of the late
Manzano and of Payao, which were allegedly unearthed by a member of his staff
upon his instruction. In those affidavits, both David Manzano and Luzviminda
HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO, petitioner, vs. JUDGE ROQUE R. SANCHEZ, Payao expressly stated that they were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo
MTC, Infanta, Pangasinan, respondent. Relos, respectively; and that since their respective marriages had been marked
by constant quarrels, they had both left their families and had never cohabited
or communicated with their spouses anymore. Respondent Judge alleges that on
RESOLUTION the basis of those affidavits, he agreed to solemnize the marriage in question in
accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
We find merit in the complaint.
Respondent Judge, on the other hand, claims in his Comment that when he
2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
officiated the marriage between Manzano and Payao he did not know that
Manzano was legally married. What he knew was that the two had been living
Marriage Preliminaries (Assignment Number 2) Page 56 of 57
3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must and basic legal principles.[9] And when the law transgressed is simple and
be present at the time of marriage; elementary, the failure to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[10]
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived ACCORDINGLY, the recommendation of the Court Administrator is hereby
together for at least five years [and are without legal impediment to ADOPTED, with the MODIFICATION that the amount of fine to be imposed upon
marry each other]; and respondent Judge Roque Sanchez is increased to P20,000.
5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had SO ORDERED.
ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found
no legal impediment to their marriage.[6]
Not all of these requirements are present in the case at bar. It is significant
to note that in their separate affidavits executed on 22 March 1993 and sworn to
before respondent Judge himself, David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao
expressly stated the fact of their prior existing marriage. Also, in their marriage
contract, it was indicated that both were separated.
The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart from their
respective spouses for a long time already is immaterial. Article 63(1) of the
Family Code allows spouses who have obtained a decree of legal separation to
live separately from each other, but in such a case the marriage bonds are
not severed. Elsewise stated, legal separation does not dissolve the marriage
tie, much less authorize the parties to remarry. This holds true all the more when
the separation is merely de facto, as in the case at bar.
Neither can respondent Judge take refuge on the Joint Affidavit of David
Manzano and Luzviminda Payao stating that they had been cohabiting as
husband and wife for seven years. Just like separation, free and voluntary
cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not severe the tie of
a subsisting previous marriage. Marital cohabitation for a long period of time
between two individuals who are legally capacitated to marry each other is
merely a ground for exemption from marriage license. It could not serve as a
justification for respondent Judge to solemnize a subsequent marriage vitiated by
the impediment of a prior existing marriage.