Republic v. Orbecido (2005)

Republic v. Orbecido (2005)

G.R. NO. 154380

October 5, 2005

FACTS:

·       Petitioner: Republic of the PH (Solicitor General)

·       Respondent: Cipriano Orbecido III

o   Public Attorney's Office (counsel for respondent)

·       May 24, 1981: Orbecido married Lady Myros M. Villanueva in the United Church of Christ (Ozamiz City, PH)

o   Son and daughter

·       1986: Cipriano's wife left for the US bringing along son Kristoffer; naturalized a few years later

·       2000: Cipriano learned from his son that his wife obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley (San Gabriel, California)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

·       Cipriano filed with the RTC a petition for authority to remarry invoking Article 26(2) of Family Code

o   No opposition was filed; RTC capacitates Cipriano Orbecido III to remarry.

o   OSG sought reconsideration but was denied.

·       "Whether or not the respondent can remarry under Article 26"

·       OSG: assails May 15, 2002 decision of RTC (Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23) and resolution dated July 4, 2002 denying motion for reconsideration.

o   OSG asserts its duty to protect the institution of marriage

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

o   Article 26(2) is not applicable to the case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage (a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and alien).

·       Proper remedies are either legal separation or annulment; there are no laws governing respondents’ position - a matter of legislative not judicial determination

ISSUE/S:

·       Whether or not Orbecido is allowed to remarry in the Philippines following a divorce decree granted/obtained abroad by his spouse who became a naturalized American citizen.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

·       Held.

o   Must consider legislative intent behind Article 26(2): to avoid absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married t the alien spouse who is no longer married to the Filipino spouse after obtaining a divorce

o   Interpreting a statute should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law (verba legis).

o   A statute may therefore be extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent.

o   Reckoning point: not citizenship of parties during the time of the celebration of marriage BUT THEIR citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.

JUDGMENT:

·       Petition of the Republic is GRANTED

·       Assailed decision dated May 15, 2002 and resolution dated July 4, 2002 of the RTC are SET ASIDE

·       No pronouncement as to costs

RATIONALE:

·       Records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by the respondent (no sufficient evidence)

·       It is a settle rule that one who alleges fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence

·       Party must provide:

o   Proof of wife's naturalization as US citizen

o   Proof of divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it

o   Show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required by Article 26

DICTA:

·       Annulment would be a long and tedious process, and in this particular case, not even feasible

·       Legal separation would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tie;

o   Legally separated Filipino spouse would still remain married to the naturalized alien spouse