Republic v.

Manalo

April 24, 2018

Japanese spouse

A FILIPINO CITIZEN HAS THE CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW AFTER INITIATING A
DIVORCE PROCEEDING ABROAD AND OBTAINING A FAVORABLE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIS OR HER ALIEN
SPOUSE WHO IS CAPACITATED TO REMARRY

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.

Garcia v. Recio

Grace J. Garcia and Rederick A. Recio

OUR COURTS DO NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS AND JUDGMENTS; HENCE, LIKE ANY
OTHER FACTS, BOTH THE DIVORCE DECREE AND THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE ALIEN MUST BE ALLEGED
AND PROVEN ACCORDING TO OUR LAW ON EVIDENCE.

Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation
solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.

Republic v. Orbecido

October 5, 2005

PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 26 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 BECOMES NATURALIZED AS A FOREIGN CITIZEN AND OBTAINS A DIVORCE DECREE

twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:

1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and

2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the
latter to remarry.

Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr

ALIENS MAY OBTAIN DIVORCES ABROAD, WHICH MAY BE RECOGNIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES, PROVIDED
THEY ARE VALID ACCORDING TO THEIR NATIONAL LAW
Republic v. Iyoy

September 21, 2005

ARTICLE 26(2) DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE NATURALIZED SPOUSE PROCURED THE DIVORCE PRIOR TO
NATURALIZATION

The said provision refers to a special situation wherein one of the married couples is a foreigner who
divorces his or her Filipino spouse. By its plain and literal interpretation, it cannot be applied to the
instant case because at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen.

Fujiki v. Marinay

A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC(Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN A PETITION TO RECOGNIZE FOREIGN JUDGMENT WHERE
ONE OF THE PARTIES IS A FOREIGNER

nly husband and 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 a foreign judgment relating to
the status of marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country, the petitioner only
needs to prove the foreign judgment as fact under the Rules of Court. The RTC is ordered to reinstate
the case for further proceedings.

Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas

ONLY THE FILIPINO SPOUSE CAN INVOKE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE

the alien spouse cannot claim a right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.

However, the unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not
necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce
decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the alien’s national
law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of
right in favor of Gerbert.

VOID MARRIAGES

Santiago v. People

TO BE CONVICTED OF BIGAMY, THE SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE MUST HAVE ALL THE
ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY

validity of the second marriage should first be proven.

If the accused wants to raise the nullity of the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense during
the presentation of evidence in the trial proper of the criminal case. In this case, petitioner has
consistently questioned below the validity of her marriage to Santos on the ground that marriages
celebrated without the essential requisite of a marriage license are void ab initio.

Capili v. People

SUBSEQUENT DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE SECOND MARRIAGE NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL
OF THE CRIMINAL CASE FOR BIGAMY

elements of the crime of bigamy are:

(1) the offender has been legally married;

(2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse
could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;

(3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and

(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to
the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated

all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time
the second marriage is contracted.

Tenebro v. Court of Appeals

SUBSEQUENT DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE SECOND MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY NOT A GROUND FOR ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL CASE
FOR BIGAMY

To hold otherwise would render the State’s penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and allow
individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus
escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of hapless women
with the promise of futurity and commitment

Montañez v. Cipriano

BIGAMY IS CONSUMNATED AT THE MOMENT OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE SECOND MARRIAGE

NOTWITHSTANDING THE NULLITY OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE

It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential
requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage.

What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage
during the subsistence of a valid marriage.

Republic v. Tampus
THE PRESENT SPOUSE MUST HAVE WELL-FOUNDED BELIEF THAT THE PRIOR SPOUSE WAS ALREADY
DEAD

Castillo v. De Leon-Castillo April 18, 2016

THE REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIAL DECREE FOR THE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE DOES NOT APPLY TO
MARRIAGES CELEBRATED UNDER THE CIVIL CODE

As this Court clarified in Apiag v. Cantero and Ty v. Court of Appeals, the requirement of a judicial decree
of nullity does not apply to marriages that were celebrated before the effectivity of the Family Code,
particularly if the children of the parties were born while the Civil Code was in force.

Here, the law in force at the time Lea contracted both marriages was the Civil Code.

Moreover, the provisions of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied to the present case, for to
do so would prejudice the vested rights of petitioner and of her children.

Montañez v. Cipriano

However in this case, respondent’s clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first
marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He
cannot have his cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is disregard
Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply
claiming that the first marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a
prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first.

Vitangcol v. People

A SECOND MARRIAGE WITHOUT JUDICIAL DECLARATION IS BIGAMOUS REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE

OF NULLITY OF FIRST MARRIAGE

To reiterate, under Article 40 of the Family Code, for purposes of remarriage, there must first be a prior
judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter into a
second marriage, otherwise, the second marriage would also be void.

Jarillo v. People

The Court pointed out the danger of not enforcing the provisions of Article 40 of the Family Code in
MarbellaBobis v. Bobis: “Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is disregard Article 40 of
the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that
the first marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial
declaration of nullity of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage aware of the absence of a
requisite – usually the marriage license – and thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without
obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void. Such
scenario would render nugatory the provision on bigamy”.