You are on page 1of 6

Leticia.

With respect to their properties in the Philippines,


DAVID A. NOVERAS v. LETICIA T. NOVERAS, GR No. Leticia filed a petition for judicial separation of conjugal
188289, 2014-08-20 properties.

Facts: Leticia and David had indeed separated for more than a year
and that reconciliation is highly improbable. First, while actual
Upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair, Leticia abandonment had not been proven, it is undisputed that the
filed a petition for divorce with the Superior Court of California, spouses had been living separately... since 2003 when David
County of San Mateo, USA. The California court granted the decided to go back to the Philippines to set up his own
divorce on 24 June 2005 and judgment was duly entered on 29 business. Second, Leticia heard from her friends that David has
June 2005.[6] The California court granted to Leticia the been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who represented
custody of her two children, as well as all the couple's herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha Apolonio, who worked in
properties in the USA.[7] the hospital... where David was once confined, testified that she
saw the name of Estrellita listed as the wife of David in the
On 8 August 2005, Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Consent for Operation form.[20] Third and more significantly,
Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler,
they had filed for divorce and it was granted by the California
Aurora. She relied on the 3 December 2003 Joint Affidavit and court in June 2005.
David's failure to comply with his obligation under the same.
She prayed for: 1) the power to administer... all conjugal Having established that Leticia and David had actually
properties in the Philippines; 2) David and his partner to cease separated for at least one year, the petition for judicial
and desist from selling the subject conjugal properties; 3) the separation of absolute community of property should be
declaration that all conjugal properties be forfeited in favor of granted.
her children; 4) David to remit half of the purchase price as
share of Issues:

Leticia from the sale of the Sampaloc property; and 5) the Whether or not respondent Davi d A. Noveras committed acts of
payment of P50,000.00 and P100,000.00 litigation expenses.[8] abandonment and marital infidelity which can result into the
forfeiture of the parties' properties in favor of the petitioner and
In his Answer, David stated that a judgment for the dissolution their two (2) children.
of their marriage was entered on 29 June 2005 by the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo. He demanded that Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the properties
the conjugal partnership properties, which also include the in California, U.S.A. and the same can be included in the
USA properties, be liquidated and... that all expenses of judicial separation prayed for.
liquidation, including attorney's fees of both parties be charged Whether or not the "Joint Affidavit" x x x executed by petitioner
against the conjugal partnership. Leticia T. Noveras and respondent David A. Noveras will
David and Leticia are US citizens who own properties in the amount to a waiver or forfeiture of the latter's property rights
USA and in the Philippines. Leticia obtained a decree of divorce over their conjugal properties.
from the Superior Court of California in June 2005 wherein the
Whether or not Leticia T. Noveras is entitled to reimbursement
court awarded all the properties in the USA to of one-half of the P2.2 [M]illion sales proceeds of their property
in Sampaloc, Manila and one -half of the P1.5 [M]illion used to
redeem the property of Atty. Isaias Noveras, including interests Leticia and David shall likewise have an equal share in the
and... charges. proceeds of the Sampaloc property. While both claimed to have
contributed to the redemption of the Noveras property, absent
How the absolute community properties should be distributed. a clear showing where their contributions came from, the same
Whether or not the attorney's fees and litigation expenses of the is presumed to have... come from the community property.
parties were chargeable against their conjugal properties. Thus, Leticia is not entitled to reimbursement of half of the
redemption money.
Leticia and David had indeed separated for more than a year
and that reconciliation is highly improbable. First, while actual David's allegation that he used part of the proceeds from the
abandonment had not been proven, it is undisputed that the sale of the Sampaloc property for the benefit of the absolute
spouses had been living separately... since 2003 when David community cannot be given full credence. Only the amount of
decided to go back to the Philippines to set up his own P120,000.00 incurred in going to and from the U.S.A. may be
business. Second, Leticia heard from her friends that David has charged thereto. Election expenses... in the amount of
been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who represented P300,000.00 when he ran as municipal councilor cannot be
herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha Apolonio, who worked in allowed in the absence of receipts or at least the Statement of
the hospital... where David was once confined, testified that she Contributions and Expenditures required under Section 14 of
saw the name of Estrellita listed as the wife of David in the Republic Act No. 7166 duly received by the Commission on
Consent for Operation form.[20] Third and more significantly, Elections. Likewise,... expenses incurred to settle the criminal
they had filed for divorce and it was granted by the California case of his personal driver is not deductible as the same had
court in June 2005. not benefited the family. In sum, Leticia and David shall share
equally in the proceeds of the sale net of the amount of
Having established that Leticia and David had actually P120,000.00 or in the respective amounts of
separated for at least one year, the petition for judicial
separation of absolute community of property should be P1,040,000.00.
granted. xxxx
Ruling: Under the first paragraph of Article 888 of the Civil Code, "(t)he
We agree with the appellate court that the Philippine courts did legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one -
not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother."
and Leticia. Indeed, Article 16 of the Civil Code clearly states The children are therefore entitled to half of the share of each
that real property as well as personal property is subject to the spouse in the net... assets of the absolute community, which
law of the country... where it is situated. Thus, liquidation shall shall be annotated on the titles/documents covering the same,
only be limited to the Philippine properties. as well as to their respective shares in the net proceeds from
the sale of the Sampaloc property including the receivables
We affirm the modification made by the Court of Appeals with from Sps. Paringit in the amount of P410,000.00.
respect to the share of the spouses in the absolute community
properties in the Philippines, as well as the payment of their Consequently, David and Leticia should each pay them the
children's presumptive legitimes, which the appellate court amount of P520,000.00 as their presumptive legitimes
explained in this wise: therefrom.[21]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of equally in the proceeds of the sale net of the amount of
the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 88686 is AFFIRMED. P120,000.00 or in the re spective amounts of

At the risk of being repetitious, we will not remand the case to P1,040,000.00.
the trial court. Instead, we shall adopt the modifications made
by the Court of Appeals on the trial court's Decision with xxxx
respect to liquidation. Under the first paragraph of Article 888 of the Civil Code, "(t)he
We agree with the appellate court that the Philippine courts did legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one -
not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother."
and Leticia. Indeed, Article 16 of the Civil Code clearly states The children are therefore entitled to half of the share of each
that real property as well as personal property is subject to the spouse in the net... assets of the absolute community, which
law of the country... where it is situated. Thus, liquidation shall shall be annotated on the titles/documents covering the same,
only be limited to the Philippine properties. as well as to their respective shares in the net proceeds from
the sale of the Sampaloc property including the receivables
We affirm the modification made by the Court of Appeals with from Sps. Paringit in the amount of P410,000.00.
respect to the share of the spouses in the absolute community
properties in the Philippines, as well as the payment of their Consequently, David and Leticia should each pay them the
children's presumptive legitimes, which the appellate court amount of P520,000.00 as their presumptive legitimes
explained in this wise: therefrom.[21]

Leticia and David shall likewise have an equal share in the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of
proceeds of the Sampaloc property. While both claimed to have the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 88686 is AFFIRMED.
contributed to the redemption of the Noveras property, absent
a clear showing where their contributions came from, the same
is presumed to have... come from the community property. DEL SOCORRO VS. W ILSEM
Thus, Leticia is not entitled to reimbursement of half of the
redemption money. G.R. No. 193707 December 10, 2014
David's allegation that he used part of the proceeds from the
sale of the Sampaloc property for the benefit of the absolute
community cannot be given full credence. Only the amount of FACTS:
P120,000.00 incurred in going to and from the U.S.A. may be
charged thereto. Election expenses... in the amount of
P300,000.00 when he ran as municipal councilor cannot be
allowed in the absence of receipts or at least the Statement of Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted
Contributions and Expenditures required under Section 14 of marriage in Holland. They were blessed with a son named
Republic Act No. 7166 duly received by the Commission on Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond
Elections. Likewise,... expenses incurred to settle the criminal ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate
case of his personal driver is not deductible as the same had Court of Holland. Thereafter, Norma and her son came home to
not benefited the family. In sum, Leticia and David shall share the Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst made a promise to
provide monthly support to their son. However, since the arrival to support their child. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in
of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take
support to Roderigo. Responde nt remarried again a Filipina judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged
and resides again the Philippines particulary in Cebu where the and proved. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when
petitioner also resides. Norma filed a complaint against Ernst its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens
for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s unjust refusal to or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important
support his minor child with peti tioner. The trial court function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is
dismissed the complaint since the facts charged in the obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict
information do not constitute an offense with respect to the of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the
accused, he being an alie n Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his
child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith, such
ISSUES: obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it
1. Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of financial
minor child unde r the Philippine law? support when the latter is entitled thereto.

2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally


liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support
2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262)
his minor child.
because the foreigner is living here in the Philippines and
RULING: committed the offense here.

1. YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of


REPUBLIC v. M ARELYN TANEDO M ANALO, G.R. NO.
Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC that he is 221029
subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to 24 April 2018
whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the
consequences of his failure to do so. This does not, however, Facts:
mean that Ernst i s not obliged to support Norma’s son
altogether. In international law, the party who wants to have a On January 20, 2012, respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo
foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of (Manalo) filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in
proving the foreign law. In the present case, Ernst hastily the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a
concludes that being a national of the Netherlands, he is judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese court. The petition
was later amended and captioned as a petition for recognition
governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and
and enforcement of a foreign judgment.
capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the
Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged to
The petition alleged, among others, that:
support his son, he never proved the same. It is incumbent
upon Ernst to plead and prove that the national law of the
 Petitioner is previously married in the Philippines to a
Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation
Japanese national named YOSHIDO MINORO;
 Recently, a case for divorce was filed by petitioner in Ruling:
Japan and after due proceeding, a divorce decree was
rendered by the Japanese Court; Yes.

The trial court (RTC) denied the petition for lack of merit. In Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of “a divorce x x x validl y
ruling that the divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
be recognized, it opined that, based on Article 15 of the New remarry”. Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision,
Civil Code, the Philippine law “does not afford Filipinos the right it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad.
to file a divorce, whether they are in the country or living The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse
abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if should be the one who initi ated the proceeding wherein the
they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or in another divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the
country” and that unless Filipinos “are naturalized as citizens Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign
of another country, Philippine laws shall have control over divorce proceeding.
issues related to Filipino family rights and duties, together with
determination of their condition and legal capacity to enter into The purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd
contracts and civil relations, including marriages”. situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the
alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) overturned the RTC in the country where it is rendered, is no longer married to the
decision. It held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Filipino spouse...
Philippines (Family Code) is applicable even if it was Manalo The purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd
who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the
the decree they obtained makes the latter no longer married to alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective
the former, capacitating him to remarry. Conformably in the country where it is rendered, is no longer married to the
with Navarro, et al. v. Exec. Secretary, et al. [663 Phil. 546 Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective measure to
(2011)] ruling that the meaning of the law should be based on address the anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the
the intent of the lawmakers and in view of the legislative intent marriage while the foreign spouse is free to remarry under the
behind Article 26, it would be the height of injustice to consider laws of his or her country. Whether the Filipino spouse initiated
Manalo as still married to the Japanese national, who, in turn, the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree
is no longer married to her. For the appellate court, the fact dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien
that it was Manalo who filed the divorce case is spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse
inconsequential. will effectively be without a husband or a wife. A Filipino who
initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and
Issue: Whether a Filipino citizen, who initiated a divorce in like circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of
proceeding abroad and obtained a favorable judgment against an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the subject provision
his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry, has the should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is extended
capacity to remarry pursuant to Article 26 (2) of the Family as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce
Code. decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are
severed by operation of the latter’s national law.
There is no real and substantial difference between a Filipino
who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding and a Filipino who ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26
obtained a divorce decree upon the instance of his or her alien of the Family Code.
spouse. In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both are
considered Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations HELD:
in an alien land. The circumstances surrounding them are
alike. Were it not for Paragraph 2 of Article 26, both are still The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative
married to their foreigner spouses who are no longer their intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26 Par.2 should
wives/husbands. Hence, to make a distinction between them be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the
are based merely on superficial difference of whether they time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens,
initiated the divorce proceedings or not is utterly unfair. but later on, one of them becomes naturalize d as a foreign
Indeed, the treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse
discriminate against the other. should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were
a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.
Thus, a Filipino citizen, who initiated a divorce proceeding
abroad and obtained a favorable judgment against his or her Hence, the court’s unanimous decision in holding Arti cle 26 Par
alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry, has the 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who has been
capacity to remarry pursuant to Article 26 (2) of the Family divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and
Code. remarried, also to remarry under Philippine law.

Republic vs Orbecido
Republic vs. Orbecido
GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva


on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of Christ in the
Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter
named Kristoffer and Kimberly, respectively. In 1986, the wife
left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later,
Orbecido discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an
American citizen and learned from his son that his wife
sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a
certain Stanley. He thereafter filed with the trial court a
petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article
26 of the Family Code.