Case Digest: Roehr v.

Rodriguez
WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, vs. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, HON. JUDGE
JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge of Makati RTC, Branch 149, respondents.
G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003

QUISUMBING, J.:

Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, married private respondent Carmen

Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Germany. Their marriage was subsequently
ratified on February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union were born
Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine.

Carmen filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Makati Regional Trial
Court (RTC). Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss, but it was denied.

Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg-
Blankenese. Said decree also provides that the parental custody of the children should be
vested to Wolfgang.

Wolfgang filed another motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as a divorce decree had already
been promulgated, and said motion was granted by Public Respondent RTC Judge Salonga.

Carmen filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer that the case proceed for the
purpose of determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of the properties
between her and Wolfgang. Judge Salonga  partially set aside her previous order for the
purpose of tackling the issues of support and custody of their children.

1st Issue: W/N Judge Salonga was correct in granting a partial motion for reconsideration.

Ruling: Yes.

A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained finality, as in the
case at bar.

The Supreme Court goes further to say that the court can modify or alter a judgment even after
the same has become executory whenever circumstances transpire rendering its decision
unjust and inequitable, as where certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring such
modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final and executory and
when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or when supervening events warrant
it.

2nd issue: W/N Judge Salonga's act was valid when she assumed and retained jurisdiction as
regards child custody and support.

Ruling: Yes.
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognizable in
our jurisdiction. But the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children,
must still be determined by our courts.

Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of
custody to Wolfgang by the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the
judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39,
Section 50 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given the opportunity to
challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment as
res judicata with regard to the rights of Wolfgang to have parental custody of their two children.
The proceedings in the German court were summary. As to what was the extent of Carmen’s
participation in the proceedings in the German court, the records remain unclear.

Absent any finding that private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the children, the trial
court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine the issue of parental custody,
care, support and education mindful of the best interests of the children.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, Respondent.

G.R. No. 154380           October 5, 2005

QUISUMBING, J.:

Facts:
Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ
in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City, on May 24, 1981. They were blessed with a
with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V.
Orbecido.

Lady Myros left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer in 1986. After
few years, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American
citizen.

Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree sometime in
2000 and then married a certain Innocent Stanley and lived in California.

He then 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. Finding merit in the petition,
the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied. Orbecido filed a
petition for review of certiorari on the Decision of the RTC.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

Held:
Yes. The Court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family
Code be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse
who had acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to remarry under Philippine law.

The article should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of
the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on,one of them became
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtained a divorce decree.

The instant case was 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 US. 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.

However, since Orbecido was not able to prove as fact his wife’s naturalization, he was
still barred from remarrying.

 MINORU FUJIKI V. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY

CASE DIGEST - CIVIL LAW
MINORU FUJIKI VS. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY        G.R. No. 196049               June 26, 2013

FACTS:

Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela
Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s
parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact
with each other.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being
dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara
brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left
Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki
helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the marriage between
Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the
RTC entitled: “Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).”

RTC dismissed the petition for "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment ·(or Decree of Absolute Nullity
of Marriage)" based on improper venue and the lack of personality of petitioner, Minoru Fujiki, to file
the petition.

Fujiki filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied upon consideration that Fujiki as a "third
person” in the proceeding because he "is not the husband in the decree of divorce issued by the
Japanese Family Court, which he now seeks to be judicially recognized.

The OSG agreed with the petitioner that the RTC’s decision be set aside.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.

2. Whether a husband or 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 citizen on the ground of
bigamy.

3. Whether the RTC can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of
entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

RULING:

1. No. Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
(A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the
status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country.
2. YES. The prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage
he contracted and the property relations arising from it. Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to
recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara
on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay.

3. YES. The Philippine court can recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a
case which was already tried and decided under foreign law. Philippine courts already have jurisdiction
to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines to the extent that the foreign judgment
does not contravene domestic public policy. However, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction to
recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage, without prejudice to a criminal
prosecution for bigamy.

In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment
on how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family rights and duties, or on
the status, condition and legal capacity" of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment.
Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment
in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of a
foreign country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under
the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code

Validity of Divorce Obtained Abroad When Filipino Spouse

Initiated the Proceeding
 Cham

Although divorce is not allowed under Philippine laws, Article 26 of the Family Code recognizes
the validity of divorce obtained in a foreign country in certain cases. The pertinent portion of
Article 26 states:

“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 Philippine law.”

The Supreme Court used to maintain that the divorce proceeding should be initiated by the alien
spouse. If the divorce was initiated by the Filipino spouse, Article 26 would find no application.
That view, however, was abandoned by the Supreme Court in the case of Republic vs. Manalo.
Republic of the Philippines versus Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (G.R. NO. 221029)
Manalo filed a case for divorce in Japan against her husband, a Japanese national. After due
proceeding, a divorce decree was rendered by the Japanese court. Thereafter, Manalo filed a
petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by
virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese court. The petition was later amended
and captioned as a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.

Decision of the Trial Court

The trial court (RTC) denied the petition for lack of merit. In ruling that the divorce obtained by
Manalo in Japan should not be recognized, it opined that, based on Article 15 of the New Civil
Code, the Philippine law “does not afford Filipinos the right to file a divorce, whether they are in
the country or living abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they celebrated
their marriage in the Philippines or in another country” and that unless Filipinos “are naturalized
as citizens of another country, Philippine laws shall have control over issues related to Filipino
family rights and duties, together with determination of their condition and legal capacity to
enter into contracts and civil relations, including marriages”.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals (CA) overturned the RTC decision. It held that Article 26 of the Family
Code of the Philippines (Family Code) is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce
against her Japanese husband because the decree they obtained makes the latter no longer
married to the former, capacitating him to remarry. Conformably with Navarro, et al. v. Exec.
Secretary, et al. [663 Phil. 546 (2011)] ruling that the meaning of the law should be based on the
intent of the lawmakers and in view of the legislative intent behind Article 26, it would be the
height of injustice to consider Manalo as still married to the Japanese national, who, in turn, is no
longer married to her. For the appellate court, the fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce
case is inconsequential. 

Decision of the Supreme Court

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of “a divorce x x x validly obtained abroad by
the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry”. Based on a clear and
plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly
obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien
spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the
divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino
spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce
proceeding. The letter of the law does not demand that the
alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding
wherein the divorce decree was granted.
ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner,
vs.
HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX,
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region Pasay City and
RICHARD UPTON respondents.
 G.R. No. L-68470              October 8, 1985

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

Facts: 
Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private
respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States. They were married in
Hongkong in 1972 and established their residence in the Philippines. They begot two
children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975, respectively. But the parties were
divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982 and the petitioner had remarried also in
Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

On July 8, 1983, Richard Upton filed a suit against petitioner, asking that Alice Van
Dorn be ordered to render an accounting of her business in Ermita, Manila and be
declared with right to manage the conjugal property.

Issue:
Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in
Nevada is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

Held:
As to Richard Upton, the divorce is binding on him as an American Citizen. Owing to the
nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals
are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary
to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according
to their national law. The divorce is likewise valid as to the petitioner.

As such, pursuant to his national law, private respondent Richard Upton is no longer the
husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue Alice Van Dorn to exercise
control over conjugal assets. He was bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court,
which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he did not repudiate,
he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over
the alleged conjugal property.