Case title: Pilapil vs Ibay – Somera, GR 80116

Facts:

 Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil (Filipino) and Erich Ekkehard Geiling (German) were married in
Germany in 1979. Their relationship became strained and Ekkehard was able to get a decree of
divorce in 1986 from a German Court. On June 27,1986, Ekkehard sured his wife for adultery
before City Fiscal in Manila. The Fiscal found probable cause and two complaints for adultery
was filed with RTC Manila. Pilapil filed a motion to quash the info but this was denied by the
RTC. She appealed before the SC.

Issues: Whether the divorced husband may file a case for adultery against his divorced wife?

Ruling: No (Ekkehard obtained a divorce prior to adultery case, no longer Pilapil’s husband). Under
Article 344 of RPC, the crime of adultery as well as other four crimes against chastity, cannot be
prosecuted except upon a sworn statement filed by the offended spouse. Unlike in seduction, rape and
acts of lasciviousness, no provision is made for the prosecution of the crimes of adultery and
concubinage by the parents,grandparents or guardian or the offended party. The initiator must have the
status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action. The fact
that he obtained a valid divorce in Germany is admitted. He, being no longer husband of Pilapil, had no
legal standing to commence the adultery case under the omposture that he was the offended spouse at
the time he filed suit.

Case title: Rp vs Orbecido, GR 154380

Facts: Cipriano Orbecido married Kady Myros Villanueva at UCCP in Lam-an Ozamis City in 1981. Five
years later, Villanueva migrated to US. In addition, she also obtained a divorce decree in the US Court.
Cipriano filed a a petition for authority to remarry based on Article 26(2) of Family Code. No opposition
was filed in the petition and was allowed by the lower court. OSG moved for reconsideration but was
denied.

Issues: Whether Orbecido can remarry under A 26 of the Family Code?

Ruling: Yes. A 26 (2) should include cases involving partied who at the time of marriage were Filipino
Citizens but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree.
The Filipino shall likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the
solemnization of marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.

2 elements:

1. A valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino and a foreigner.
2. A valid divorce decree was obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
The reckoning point in not at the time of the celebration, but that the time a valid divorce was obtained
by the alien spouse. Respondent must prove the divorce of alien spouse as a fact and demonstrate its
conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law must be proved as Phil courts cannot take
judicial notice of foreing laws.It must be alleged and proved.

Case title: Corpuz vs Sto Tomas GR 186571

Facts: Gerbert Corpus is a former Fiipino and now naturalized as Canadian, married Daisylyn Sto Tomas a
Filipina, in Pasig City. He came back to the Philippines but to his surprise and astonishment, he
discovered that his wife is having an affair with another man. He then returned to Canada and obtained
a divorce decree form the court there. Gerbert found another Filipina and wanted to remarry her. For
this purpose he filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreing divorce and/or declaration of marriage
as dissolved with the RTC.RTC denied the petition on the ground that only Filipino spouse can avail of
the remedy provided for A 26(2) of FC. He elevated the case to SC.

Issues: WON he may invoke A 26(2) of FC?

Ruling: No. A 26(2) bestows no right in favour of aliens with the complementary statement that this
conclusion is not sufficient basis to dismiss Gerbert’s petition before the RTC. The unavailability of the
second par of A 26 of FC to aliens does not necessarily stip Gerbert’s of legal interest to petition te RTC
for the recognition of the DD. The foreign divorce decree itself, after it s authenticity has been duly
proven according to the rules on evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favour of
Gerbert, pursuant to Rule 39 sec 48 ROC, which provides for the effect of foreign judgment. Gerbert
attached his DD and copy of Canadian law on divorce. Rule 108 of ROC can serve as the appropriate
adversarial proceeding by which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in
terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law or
fact.

Case title: Fujiki vs Marinay GR 196049

Facts: Fujiki (Japanese) married Marinay on January 23, 2004. Due tot some disagreements, they
became separated with each other. Marinay met another Japanese national, Maekara and they married
each other on May 15,2008. Marinay suffered physical abuse from Maerkara so she re-establlished her
relationship with Fujiki. Mariany later obtained a judgment from the Japanese court declaring her
marriage with Maekara void on the ground that it is bigamous. She filed a petition for recognition of
foreign judgment declaring her second marriage void. RTC dismissed the petition on the gorund hat
petition for recognition under AM 02-11-10-SC which is the rule on absolute nullity of void marriages
and annulment of voidable marriages. Fujiki moved for reconsideration then appealed to SC.

Issues: WON AM 02-11-10-SC is applicable to a foreign judgment of nullity?

Ruling: No. the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages
recognizes a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of
a foreign country. Moreover, in Juliano-Llave vs Rp, this court hold that the rule in AM that only the
husband or wife can file a declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage does not apply if the reason
behind the petition is bigamy.

For Philippine courts to recognize foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of a foreign country the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact
under the ROC.

To hold that AM applied to a petition for recognition of foreing judgment would mean that the trial
court and the parties should show its provisions, including the form and contents of the petition, svc of
summons, investigation of prosecutor etc. This is absurd as it will litigate the case anew. A petition to
recognize marriage void does not require relitigation. Sec 48(b) Rule 39 of ROC provides that final
judgment or final order against a person creates a presumptive evidence of a right as a subsequent title.
Sec 48 of the ROC states that the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Thus Phil courts
exercise limited review on foreign judgments. Courts are not allowed to delve into the merits of a
foreign judgment. Once it is admitted and proven in a Philippine court, it can only be repelled on the
grounds external to its merits.

There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the Japanese Family Court
judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the gorund of bigamy.

Issue: Is the husband and wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment
nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign judgment on the ground of
bigamy?

Held: Yes. Fujiki has a personality to file a petition to recognize the JFC judgment nullifying the marriage
between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil status
as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to
cancel the entry registry on the basis of the decree of the JFC.