Art. 99. No person shall be entitled to a legal separation who has not resided in the Philippines for one year prior to the filing of the petition, unless the cause for the legal separation has taken place within the territory of this Republic. (Sec. 2a, Act No. 2710)
EXPLANATION:
On March 11, 1917, Act No. 2710 of the Philippine Legislature, relating to the subject of divorce, became effective in the Philippine Islands. This enactment introduced the radical innovation of causing the divorce to operate, after the expiration of one year from the date of the decree, as a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony. Another feature of the same Act pertinent to the present controversy is a provision to the effect that a petition for divorce can only be filed for adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband and cannot be granted except upon conviction of the guilty part in a criminal prosecution (secs. 1, 8).For instance, we have discussed (”Divorce and Annulment in the Philippines“) that a Filipino - wherever he/she may be located in the world - is governed by Philippine laws on marriage. This means that while he/she can secure a divorce outside the Philippines, such divorce is NOT recognized in the Philippines. The same article also contains a discussion on the effect of losing Filipino citizenship vis-a-vis divorce. If a Filipino is naturalized as a foreign citizen and, in the process, loses his/her Filipino citizenship, such former Filipino can validly seek a divorce abroad and the divorce is recognized in the Philippines. In other words, after complying with the procedure in having the foreign decree of divorce judicially recognized (through a court action) here in the Philippines, the Filipino spouse may validly remarry.
Then came the new law (Republic Act No. 9225) that allows former Filipinos to re-acquire or maintain their Filipino citizenship. Here are the issues:
If a Filipino secures a divorce BEFORE losing his/her Philippine citizenship by naturalization as a foreign citizen (the divorce is not valid under Philippine laws), will the subsequent loss of Philippine citizenship have any effect on the validity of the previous divorce? Will it make any difference if the foreign decree of divorce, validly secured by a former Filipino, is not judicially recognized here in the Phils. before that former Filipino re-acquires his/her Philippine citizenship?
Then came the new law (Republic Act No. 9225) that allows former Filipinos to re-acquire or maintain their Filipino citizenship. Here are the issues:
If a Filipino secures a divorce BEFORE losing his/her Philippine citizenship by naturalization as a foreign citizen (the divorce is not valid under Philippine laws), will the subsequent loss of Philippine citizenship have any effect on the validity of the previous divorce? Will it make any difference if the foreign decree of divorce, validly secured by a former Filipino, is not judicially recognized here in the Phils. before that former Filipino re-acquires his/her Philippine citizenship?
Effects of Foreign Divorce on Filipino Spouse
Published November 7th, 2006 in Annulment and Legal Separation.
On 17 July 1987, shortly after the signing of Executive Order No. 209 (Family Code), Executive Order No. 227 was also signed into law, amending, inter alia, Article 26 of the Family Code. As so amended, it now states:
ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Italics supplied)
Article 26, par. 2, is an important innovation belatedly introduced by the Aquino Government, which is intended to extricate the Filipino spouse from an absurd and unjust situation in which he or she is married to someone who is not married to him or her. This provision applies only to cases where at the time of celebration of marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. In effect, this provision introduces divorce in our country, much less extends some degree of recognition to foreign divorce, although in exceptional cases.
Significantly, Article 26, par.2 now includes 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 capacitating him or her to remarry. The Filipino spouse should likewise be permitted to remarry as if the other party were an alien at the time of solemnization of the marriage (Republic vs. Orbecido, GR 154380, 5 October 2005).
Article 26, par.2 may have raised some problems than it solves. A number of questions can be raised with respect to the operation of this provision, to wit:
1. Is there a need for a judicial decree in Philippine courts to declare the Filipino spouse qualified to remarry? The Family Code has no explicit provision to that effect, unlike in cases of void marriages and of a remarriage in case of absence of one of the spouses amounting to presumptive death (Art. 40 and 41, Family Code) where a court decree is required.
2. Is Art. 26, par. 2 applicable to foreign divorces obtained before the effectivity of the Family Code in view of Art. 256?
3. What if the Filipino spouse does not intend to remarry, what is the status of any children they may have after the divorce decree? Does the Filipino spouse have a right to demand support from his/her former alien spouse? What is his/her status with respect to his/her former foreign spouse? Can he/she claim share of property or income acquired by the former foreign spouse.
Moreover, I am of the moral view that the Orbecido doctrine is open to constitutional questions, viz:
1. Is the Orbecido ruling violative of the equal protection of the law clause of the Constitution as it favors only the rich, who may use or abuse the remedy of naturalization as foreign citizen and obtaining a valid foreign divorce and having it recognized in the Philippines in order to terminate his or her marriage with the Filipino spouse given the great difficulty in having a declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage granted at the appellate level of the court?
2. Is the Orbecido ruling tantamount to judicial legislation considering the fact that the Supreme Court has in effect amended Art 26, par. 2 of the Family Code, a substantive law? The OSG had posited that the issue was a matter of legislation and not of judicial legislation, a contention which was not addressed by the Supreme Court in its ruling. Would it not be much more orderly and customary if the Orbecido doctrine be cast in statutory form like the conflicting SC rulings namely People vs. Aragon, Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, and Yap vs. Paras, which were set in stone by Art. 40 of the Family Code?
On 17 July 1987, shortly after the signing of Executive Order No. 209 (Family Code), Executive Order No. 227 was also signed into law, amending, inter alia, Article 26 of the Family Code. As so amended, it now states:
ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Italics supplied)
Article 26, par. 2, is an important innovation belatedly introduced by the Aquino Government, which is intended to extricate the Filipino spouse from an absurd and unjust situation in which he or she is married to someone who is not married to him or her. This provision applies only to cases where at the time of celebration of marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. In effect, this provision introduces divorce in our country, much less extends some degree of recognition to foreign divorce, although in exceptional cases.
Significantly, Article 26, par.2 now includes 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 capacitating him or her to remarry. The Filipino spouse should likewise be permitted to remarry as if the other party were an alien at the time of solemnization of the marriage (Republic vs. Orbecido, GR 154380, 5 October 2005).
Article 26, par.2 may have raised some problems than it solves. A number of questions can be raised with respect to the operation of this provision, to wit:
1. Is there a need for a judicial decree in Philippine courts to declare the Filipino spouse qualified to remarry? The Family Code has no explicit provision to that effect, unlike in cases of void marriages and of a remarriage in case of absence of one of the spouses amounting to presumptive death (Art. 40 and 41, Family Code) where a court decree is required.
2. Is Art. 26, par. 2 applicable to foreign divorces obtained before the effectivity of the Family Code in view of Art. 256?
3. What if the Filipino spouse does not intend to remarry, what is the status of any children they may have after the divorce decree? Does the Filipino spouse have a right to demand support from his/her former alien spouse? What is his/her status with respect to his/her former foreign spouse? Can he/she claim share of property or income acquired by the former foreign spouse.
Moreover, I am of the moral view that the Orbecido doctrine is open to constitutional questions, viz:
1. Is the Orbecido ruling violative of the equal protection of the law clause of the Constitution as it favors only the rich, who may use or abuse the remedy of naturalization as foreign citizen and obtaining a valid foreign divorce and having it recognized in the Philippines in order to terminate his or her marriage with the Filipino spouse given the great difficulty in having a declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage granted at the appellate level of the court?
2. Is the Orbecido ruling tantamount to judicial legislation considering the fact that the Supreme Court has in effect amended Art 26, par. 2 of the Family Code, a substantive law? The OSG had posited that the issue was a matter of legislation and not of judicial legislation, a contention which was not addressed by the Supreme Court in its ruling. Would it not be much more orderly and customary if the Orbecido doctrine be cast in statutory form like the conflicting SC rulings namely People vs. Aragon, Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, and Yap vs. Paras, which were set in stone by Art. 40 of the Family Code?
Thank you so much for the post! Do you know where to hire the best lawyers in Manila?
ReplyDelete