Morigo v.

People
G.R. No. 145226, 6 February 2004

FACTS:

Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol. They lost contacts for a while but after receiving a card from
Barrete and various exchanges of letters, they became sweethearts. They got married in 1990. Barrete went back to
Canada for work and in 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario Canada, which was granted. In 1992, Morigo married
Lumbago. He subsequently filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity on the ground that there was no marriage
ceremony. Morigo was then charged with bigamy and moved for a suspension of arraignment since the civil case pending
posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with Barrete was void
ab initio. Petitioner contented he contracted second marriage in good faith.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not Morigo must file first a declaration for the nullity of his marriage with Barrete before his second marriage in
order to be free from the bigamy case.

RULING:

No. considering that the first marriage was void ab initio makes Morigo acquitted in the Bigamy case.

As provided by Art. 3, part 3 of the Family Code “A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the
contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and
wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age”. “The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites
shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.” As provided by Art. 4.
Given these 2 articles, Morigo’s first marriage is considered void ab initio.

Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between
them by a solemnizing officer instead they just merely signed a marriage contract. The petitioner does not need to file
declaration of the nullity of his marriage when he contracted his second marriage with Lumbago. Hence, he did not commit
bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III

G.R. No.154881,         October 5, 2005

Facts:

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

In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United States bringing along their son, Kristoffer. A few years  later,
Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen.

Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married
a certain Innocent Stanley. The respondent thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to
remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

Ruling:
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 to sanction absurdity and injustice.

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.

The Court ruled that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code should be interpreted to allow a Filipino
citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.
However, considering that in the present petition there is no sufficient evidence submitted and on record, the
Court is unable to declare, based on respondent’s bare allegations that his wife, who was naturalized as
an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an American, that respondent is now
capacitated to remarry. Such declaration could only be made properly upon respondent’s submission of the
aforecited evidence in his favor.

Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas

G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010

FACTS:

Petitioner was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization and
was married to the respondent but was shocked of the infidelity on the part of his wife. He went back
to Canada and filed a petition for divorce and was granted.

Desirous to marry another woman he now loved, the petitioner went to the Pasig Civil Registry Office
and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and the respondent’s marriage certificate.
Despite the registration of the divorce decree, an official of the National Statistic’s Office informed
the petitioner that the marriage between him and the respondent still subsists under the Philippine
Law and to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a
competent Philippine court, pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4, Series of 1982.

Accordingly, the petitioner subsequently filed at the Regional Trial Court a judicial recognition of
foreign divorce but was subsequently denied since he is not the proper party and according to Article
26 of the Civil Code, only a Filipino spouse can avail the remedy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens the right to
petition for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree.

RULING:

No, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the
alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.

Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a
substantive right to have his or her marriage to the alien spouse considered as dissolved,
capacitating him or her to remarry. Without the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code,
the judicial recognition of the foreign decree of divorce, whether in a proceeding instituted precisely
for that purpose or as a related issue in another proceeding, would be of no significance to the
Filipino spouse since our laws do not recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond;
Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by
judgments promulgated in a foreign country. The inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of
the Family Code provides the direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the
dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.