ARTICLE 26

Principle of Lex Loci Celebrationis Marriages solemnized abroad, if valid in a country where it is celebrated are also valid in the Philippines only applicable to Foreigners Exceptions: lack of legal capacity immoral for being bigamous or polygamous lack of consent like in mistaken identity psychological incapacity incestuous void by reason of public policy

Barnuevo vs Fuster G.R. No. L-7487 December 29, 1913

CONSTANZA YAEZ DE BARNUEVO, plaintiff and appellant,vs.GABRIEL FUSTER, defendant and appellant.

SHORT SUMMARY: This case is about an APPEAL from two judgments (by the plaintiff and defendant) of the Courtof First Instance of Manila. Spanish subjects get married in Spain, but wanted to divorce in RP. Wife further claims the refund of the 30k Spanish dollars which is allegedly her paraphernal property. Court held that even if divorce is not allowed in RP, the court could still exercise jurisdiction over the parties who are domiciled in RP and it is not divested jurisdiction by the subject matter.

Facts: February 7, 1875: Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yanez were married (Catholic/canonical) in Malaga, Spain

On February 1892: Fuster went to the Philippines, settled, and acquired real and personal property. On 1896, Constanza came to Manila and lived with her husband in conjugal relations.

Until April 4, 1899, they made an agreement (public document) to separate and live apart, both consenting to such separation, and by virtue thereof the husband authorized the wife to move to Spain, there to reside in such place as the said lady pleases. (B. of E., P.13)

Fuster acknowledged that he would send the sum of 300 pesatas monthly, payable in Madrid, Spain to support his wife starting June 1899. However, on the month of August of the same year, he stopped to make further payments.

March 11, 1909 Constanza started filing divorce proceedings against Fuster, indicating adultery committed by her husband in or about the year 1899 with a certain woman that she named in the complaint and with whom he had lived and cohabited and by whom he had two children.

Constanza commenced DIVORCE proceedings vs. Gabriel for Adultery, praying for: Decree of divorce Conjugal society liquidated Share adjudicated to her Payment of support

ISSUE: WON RP courts are competent to decree the divorce?YES

RULING The partition of property decreed in the judgment appealed from of the 9th of September, 1911, should be and is hereby confirmed.

The two judgments appealed from are hereby affirmed, without special pronouncement of costs in this instance.

Authority of jurisdictional power of courts to decree a divorce is NOT COMPRISED within the personal status of the husband and wife

CFI had jurisdiction over the person of the litigants: residents of Manila, had domicile in Manila THEREFORE: CFI had power and jurisdiction to try actions for divorce. Not divested of jurisdiction by reason of the subject matter of the litigation

Republic vs OrbecidoGR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 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 Paragraph 2 of Article 26 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 Par.2 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 courts unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 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.