BARRETO GONZALES vs GONZALES

FACTS:

·          The plaintiff & defendant were both citizens of the Philippines, married & lived together from January 1919 until Spring of 1926. After which they voluntary separated & have not lived together as man & wife, they had 4 minor children together.

·          After negotiations, both parties mutually agreed to allow Manuela Barreto (plaintiff) for her & her children’s support of P500 (five hundred pesos) monthly which to be increased in cases of necessity & illness, and that the title of certain properties be put in her name.

·          Shortly after the agreement, Augusto Gonzales (defendant), when to Reno, Nevada & secured in that jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion dated November 28, 1927. On that same date he went through the forms of marriage with another Filipino citizen as well & had 3children with her.

·          When Gonzales left the Philippines, he reduced the amount he had agreed to pay monthly for the support of Manuela Barreto & her children & has not made the payments fixed in the Reno divorce as alimony.

·          Gonzales came back to the Philippines in August 1928 and shortly after, Barreto brought anaction at the CFI-Manila requesting to confirm & ratify the decree of divorce issued by the courts of Nevada & invoked sec 9 of Act 2710. Such is requested to be enforced, and deliver to theGuardian ad litem the equivalent of what would have been due to their children as their legalportion from respective estates had their parents died intestate on November 28, 1927, they also prayed that the marriage existing between Barreto & Gonzales be declared dissolved & Gonzalesbe ordered to pay Barreto P500 per month, counsel fees of P5000 & all the expenses incurred in educating the 3 minor sons. The guardians of the children also filed as intervenors in the case.

·          After the hearing, the CFI-Manila granted the judgement in favor of the plaintiff & intervenors, but reduced the attorney’s fees to P3000 instead & also granted the costs of the action against the defendant, Hence, this appeal by Gonzales saying that the lower court erred in their decision.

ISSUE:

WON any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and under conditions for which the courts of the Philippine Islands would grant a divorce.

NO.

·          The lower court erred in granting the relief as prayed for on granting the divorce, because:

·          The court said that securing the jurisdiction of the courts to recognize & approve the divorce done in Reno, Nevada cannot be done according to the public policy in this jurisdiction on the question of divorce.

·          It’s clear in Act No. 2710 & court decisions on cases such as Goitia VS. Campos Rueda that the entire conduct of the parties from the time of their separation until the case was submitted praying the ratification of the Reno Divorce was clearly a circumvention of the law regarding divorce & will be done under conditions not authorized by our laws.

·          The matrimonial domicile of the couple had always been the Philippines & the residence acquired by the husband in Reno, Nevada was a bona fide residence & did not confer jurisdiction upon the court of that state to dissolve the matrimonial bonds in which he had entered in 1919.

·          Art 9 & Art 11 of the Civil Code & The Divorce Law of the Philippines does not allow such to be done,

·          the effect of foreign divorce in the Philippines says that litigants cannot compel the courts to approve of their own actions or permit the personal relations of the Citizens of the Philippines to be affected by decrees of divorce of foreign courts in manner which out government believes is contrary to public order & good morals

Tenchavez vs. Escano (15 SCRA 355)

FACTS:

27 years old Vicenta Escano who belong to a prominent Filipino Family of Spanish ancestry got married on Feburary 24, 1948 with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years old engineer, and ex-army officer before Catholic chaplain Lt. Moises Lavares.  The marriage was a culmination of the love affair of the couple and was duly registered in the local civil registry.  A certain Pacita Noel came to be their match-maker and go-between who had an amorous relationship with Tenchavez as written by a San Carlos college student where she and Vicenta are studying.  Vicenta and Pastor are supposed to renew their vows/ marriage in a church as suggested by Vicenta’s parents.  However after translating the said letter to Vicenta’s dad , he disagreed for a new marriage.  Vicenta continued leaving with her parents in Cebu while Pastor went back to work in Manila.

Vicenta applied for a passport indicating that she was single and when it was approved she left for the United States and filed a complaint for divorce against Pastor which was later on approved and issued by the Second Judicial Court of the State of Nevada.  She then sought for the annulment of her marriage to the Archbishop of Cebu.  Vicenta married Russell Leo Moran, an American, in Nevada and has begotten children.  She acquired citizenship on August 8, 1958.  Petitioner filed a complaint against Vicenta and her parents whom he alleged to have dissuaded Vicenta from joining her husband.

ISSUE: Whether the divorce sought by Vicenta Escano is valid and binding upon courts of the Philippines.

HELD:

Civil Code of the Philippines does not admit divorce.  Philippine courts cannot give recognition on foreign decrees of absolute divorce between Filipino citizens because it would be a violation of the Civil Code.  Such grant would arise to discrimination in favor of rich citizens who can afford divorce in foreign countries.  The adulterous relationship of Escano with her American husband is enough grounds for the legal separation prayed by Tenchavez.  In the eyes of Philippine laws, Tenchavez and Escano are still married.  A foreign divorce between Filipinos sought and decreed is not entitled to recognition neither is the marriage of the divorcee entitled to validity in the Philippines.  Thus, the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one spouse entitled the other for damages. 

WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is hereby modified as follows;

(1) Adjudging plaintiff-appellant Pastor Tenchavez entitled to a decree of legal separation from defendant Vicenta F. Escaño;

(2) Sentencing defendant-appellee Vicenta Escaño to pay plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez the amount of P25,000 for damages and attorneys' fees;

(3) Sentencing appellant Pastor Tenchavez to pay the appellee, Mamerto Escaño and the estate of his wife, the deceased Mena Escaño, P5,000 by way of damages and attorneys' fees.

Van Dorn vs. Romillo 139 SCRA 139

FACTS:

Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private respondent, Richard Upton, a US citizen, was married in Hong Kong in 1979.  They established their residence in the Philippines and had 2 children.  They were divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982 and petitioner remarried, this time with Theodore Van Dorn.  A suit against petitioner was filed on June 8, 1983, stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a conjugal property with Upton and prayed therein that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of the business and he be declared as the administrator of the said property.

ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in Nevada is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

HELD:

Private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner.  He would have no standing to sue petitioner to exercise control over conjugal assets.  He is estopped by his own representation before the court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.  Furthermore, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.  Petitioner is not bound to her marital obligations to respondent by virtue of her nationality laws.  She should not be discriminated against her own country if the end of justice is to be served.

Garcia vs. Recio G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001

Facts:

Article 26; The respondent, Rederick Recio, a Filipino was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Rizal in 1987. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. In 1989, the Australian family court issued a decree of divorce supposedly dissolving the marriage. In 1992, respondent acquired Australian citizenship. In 1994, he married Grace Garcia, a Filipina, herein petitioner, inCabanatuan City. In their application for marriage license, respondent was declared as “single” and “Filipino.” Since October 1995, they lived separately, and in 1996 while in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided. In 1998, petitioner filed Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy, claiming that she learned of the respondent’s former marriage only in November. On the other hand, respondent claims that he told petitioner of his prior marriage in 1993, before they were married. Respondent also contended that his first marriage was dissolved by a divorce a decree obtained in Australia in 1989 and hence, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. The trial court declared that the first marriage was dissolved on the ground of the divorce issued in Australia as valid and recognized in the Philippines. Hence, this petition was forwarded before the Supreme Court.

 Issue:

Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to marry Grace Garcia.

Ruling:

In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is “validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.” A divorce obtained abroad by two aliens, may be recognized in thePhilippines, provided it is consistent with their respective laws. Therefore, before our courts can recognize a foreign divorce, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. In this case, the divorce decree between the respondent and

Samson appears to be authentic, issued by an Australian family court. Although, appearance is not sufficient, and compliance with the rules on evidence regarding alleged foreign laws must be demonstrated, the decree was admitted on account of petitioner’s failure to object properly because he objected to the fact that it was not registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City, not to its admissibility. Respondent claims that the Australian divorce decree, which was validly admitted as evidence, adequately established his legal capacity to marry under Australian law. Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes, still restrict remarriage. Respondent also failed to produce sufficient evidence showing the foreign law governing his status. Together with other evidences submitted, they don’t absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry.

NAVARRO VS. DOMAGTOY (259 SCRA 129, July 19, 1996)

FACTS:

                Complainant Mayor Rodolfo Navarro of Dapa, Surigao del Norte filed this case to the Supreme Court against respondent Judge Henando Domagtoy of MCTC of Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte, for gross misconduct as well as inefficiency and ignorance of the law. 

                First, on Sept. 24, 1994, Judge Domagtoy solemnized the marriage of Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borja despite his knowledge that Tagadan was merely separated from his wife.  Second, her performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario in October 1994 at respondent judge’s residence in Dapa, SDN.  As to the first, Domagtoy contended that he merely relied on the affidavit issued by the RTC Judge of Bassey, Samar, which stated that Tagadan and his wife have not seen each other for almost seven years.  However, the certified true copy of the marriage contract between Tagadan and Borja showed that his civil status was “separated”. 

ISSUE:

(1)     Whether or not a court may solemnize another marriage of a husband who was merely separated from his wife for almost seven years.

(2)     Whether or not a Judge may solemnize a marriage at his residence. 

HELD:

                (1) Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides that a marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.  In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. 

                For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Code for the declaration of presumptive death.  Absent this judicial declaration, he remains to be married to Peñaranda.  Wittingly or unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent judge to have accepted the joind affidavit submitted by Tagadan.  Such neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a bigamous and therefore void marriage. 

                (2) Art. 7. A marriage may be solemnized by (1) any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction xxx .  Article 8, however, states that marriages shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Art. 29 of the Family Code, or where both parties in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect. 

                There is no pretense that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the point of death or in a remote place.  Moreover, the written request presented addressed to the respondent judge is the “authority of the solemnizing officer”.  Under Art. 8, which is only a discretionary provision, refers only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the solemnizing officer as provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance herewith will not invalidate the marriage. 

                Judges who are appointed to specific jurisdiction may officiate in marriages only within said areas and not beyond.  Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court’s jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3 which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating official to administrative liability.               

                Judge Domagtoy was suspended for six months for demonstrating gross ignorance of the law.

copies of the certificates not later than fifteen (15) days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized.  Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate.  The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate. 

                There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events.  However, the records show that the loss was occasioned by carelessness on respondent Judge’s part. 

BESO vs. DAGUMAN (323 SCRA 566 , January 28, 2000 )

FACTS:

Respondent Juan Daguman, MCTC Judge of Sta. Margarita-Tarangan_Pagsanjan, Samar, solemnized the marriage of complainant Zenaida Beso to Bernardito Yman, on August 28, 1987, at the Judge’s residence in Calbayog City, Samar, or outside his jurisdiction, because complainant was to leave for abroad the same day as she was an OFW, among other reasons.  After the wedding, Yman abandoned Beso for no clear reason.  She then went to check the marriage contract with the Local Civil Registrar of Calbayog, from which she learned that said marriage was not registered.  Responding to Beso’s letter about the matter, Daguman told her that all copies of the marriage contract were taken by Yman, and none was retained by the judge. 

ISSUES: (1) Whether or not respondent Judge is liable for solemnizing the marriage outside of his court’s jurisdiction;

(2)     Whether or not respondent Judge is liable for negligently not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage before the office of the Local Civil Registry. 

HELD: 

                A marriage can be held outside the judge’s chambers or courtroom only (1) at the point of death; (2) in remote places in accordance with Article 29; or (3) upon the request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect.  None of these instances was present in this case. 

                Considering that Judge Daguman’s jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Margarita, Tarangan and Pagsanjan, Samar only, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize marriages in CAlbayog City.  Furthermore, from the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge should exert extra care in the exercise of his duties in its solemnization, he is likewise commanded to observe extra precautions to ensure that the event is properly documented in accordance with Article 23 of the Family Code which states in no uncertain terms that – It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties, the original of the marriage contract referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS JUST A PART OF THE COMPILATION OF CASE DIGESTS I HAVE SEEN IN THE WWW. CREDITS TO THE ONE WHO MADE THIS. :)