Assignment: Republic of the Philippines v. Cipriano Orbecido III G.R. NO. 154380, 05 October 2005
Facts:
On 24 May 1981,Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva 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 Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
Issue:
Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.
Held:
The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26(2) of the Family Code 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. 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.
Hence, the court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26(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.
On 24 May 1981,Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva 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 Article 26(2) of the Family Code.
Issue:
Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.
Held:
The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26(2) of the Family Code 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. 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.
Hence, the court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26(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.
Comments
Post a Comment