Corpus v. Sto. Tomas (G.R. No. 186571; August 11, 2010)
CASE DIGEST: GERBERT R. CORPUZ v. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and The SOLICITOR GENERAL. G.R. No. 186571; August 11, 2010).
FACTS: A former Filipino citizen got married to a Filipina. Due to work and other personal commitments, the man returned to Canada after the wedding. He returned to the Philippines to surprise his wife, but he was shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair with another man. He filed a petition for divorce in Canada which was granted. Wanting to marry his girlfriend, he registered the Canadian divorce with the Civil Registry of Pasig but despite the registration of the same, the Local Civil Registrar refused to issue a license for him to remarry. He filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign judgment which was denied by the RTC, holding that he was not the proper party to file the petition as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only Filipinos can avail of the remedy under the second paragraph of Article 26, Family Code and in accordance with the legislative intent as determined by the Court in Republic v. Orbecido III, 472 SCRA 114 (2005), to “avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.”
ISSUE: He contended that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree. Is the contention correct?
HELD: The answer is in the negative. The alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right established is in favor of the Filipino spouse. As held in Van Dorn v. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985, 139 SCRA 139 and Pilapil v. Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989, 74 SCRA 653:
“To maintain x x x that, under our laws, [the Filipino spouse] has to be considered still married to [the alien spouse] and still subject to a wife's obligations x x x cannot be just. [The Filipino spouse] should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to [the alien spouse]. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.”The provision was included in the law “to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.” The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree. 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. The capacity of the Filipino spouse to remarry, however, depends on whether the foreign divorce decree capacitated the alien spouse to do so. 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; (Art. 17, NCC) 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.
FACTS: A former Filipino citizen got married to a Filipina. Due to work and other personal commitments, the man returned to Canada after the wedding. He returned to the Philippines to surprise his wife, but he was shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair with another man. He filed a petition for divorce in Canada which was granted. Wanting to marry his girlfriend, he registered the Canadian divorce with the Civil Registry of Pasig but despite the registration of the same, the Local Civil Registrar refused to issue a license for him to remarry. He filed a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign judgment which was denied by the RTC, holding that he was not the proper party to file the petition as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only Filipinos can avail of the remedy under the second paragraph of Article 26, Family Code and in accordance with the legislative intent as determined by the Court in Republic v. Orbecido III, 472 SCRA 114 (2005), to “avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.”
ISSUE: He contended that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree. Is the contention correct?
HELD: The answer is in the negative. The alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right established is in favor of the Filipino spouse. As held in Van Dorn v. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985, 139 SCRA 139 and Pilapil v. Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989, 74 SCRA 653:
“To maintain x x x that, under our laws, [the Filipino spouse] has to be considered still married to [the alien spouse] and still subject to a wife's obligations x x x cannot be just. [The Filipino spouse] should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to [the alien spouse]. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.”The provision was included in the law “to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.” The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree. 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. The capacity of the Filipino spouse to remarry, however, depends on whether the foreign divorce decree capacitated the alien spouse to do so. 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; (Art. 17, NCC) 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.
