REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CIPRIANO

ORBECIDO III, G. R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III,
G. R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Regional Trial Court of
Molave, Zamboaga del Sur, Branch 23, granting respondents petition for authority to remarry invoking
par. 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva were married in Lam-an, Ozamis City
and were blessed with a son and a daughter. In 1986, Lady Myros left for the U. S. bringing along their
son and after a few years she was naturalized as an American citizen.

Sometime in 2000, respondent Orbecido learned from his son who was living with his wife in the States
that his wife had remarried after obtaining her divorce decree. Thereafter, he filed a petition for authority
to remarry with the trial court invoking par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code.

Having no opposition, on May 15, 2002, the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur granted the
petition of the respondent and allowed him to remarry.

The Solicitor Generals motion for reconsideration was denied. In view of that, petitioner filed this petition
for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. Herein petitioner raised the issue of the
applicability of Art. 26 par. 2 to the instant case.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER THE ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Held:

Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof, failed to submit competent evidence showing his
allegations that his naturalized American wife had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried.
Therefore, the Petition of the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of
the RTC Br. 32 of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur is hereby SET ASIDE.

Art. 26 (2) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under the Philippine laws.

Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case where at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a 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 naturalized as
an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed
she remarried an American citizen while residing in the U. S. A. Therefore, the 2nd par. of Art. 26 does
not apply to the instant case.

However, the legislative intent must be taken into consideration and rule of reason must be applied. The
Supreme Court ruled that par. 2 of Art. 26 should be construed and interpreted to include cases involving
parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of then
becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should
likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the
marriage. To rule otherwise would be sanction absurdity and injustice. Were the interpretation of a statute
according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose
of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as
necessary the letter of the law. A stature may therefore be extended to case not within the literal meaning
of its terms, so long as they come within its spirits or intent.