If two Filipino citizens validly marry here but one of them is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating her/him to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law? This is the question answered in this case of Perry.
On May 24, 1981, Perry married Myra at Ozamis City, Philippines. After five years, their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, Chris and Kim. But in 1986, Myra left for the United States bringing along their son Chris. A few years later, Perry discovered that Myra had already been naturalized as an American citizen.
Then, sometime in 2000, Perry learned from his son Chris that his wife Myra had obtained a divorce decree and then married Stan, an American with whom she begot a son and are presently living in California.
Also desiring to remarry here, Perry filed with the trial court a petition for declaratory relief praying for authority to remarry, invoking Paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code (FC) which provides as follows:
“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”.
Since there was no opposition to Perry’s petition, the trial court granted the same. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence the OSG filed a petition for review raising a pure question of law and contending that the above quoted Article of the FC applies only to a valid mixed marriage between a Filipino citizen and an alien, not between two Filipino citizens. The proper remedy according to the OSG is to file a petition for annulment or for legal separation. Was the OSG correct?
No. The legislative intent of the second paragraph of Article 26 (FC) is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to an alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. Taking into consideration this legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, said paragraph should include a case involving parties who, at the time of celebration of marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree capacitating him/her to remarry. The Filipino spouse should also be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of their marriage.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of their marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce decree is obtained by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. To rule otherwise would sanction absurdity and injustice. Where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the legislative intent, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason.
The petition for annulment suggested by the OSG is not feasible considering that the marriage of Perry and Myra appears to have all the badges of validity. Legal separation, on the other hand, would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tie; hence Perry, even if legally separated would still remain married to Myra and therefore cannot remarry.
But before Perry can remarry, he must prove by competent evidence duly submitted to the trial court his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American; that there is a foreign law allowing the divorce and capacitating the latter to remarry and that the divorce has really been obtained and granted in conformity with the foreign law allowing it (Republic vs. Orbecido III, G.R. 154380, October 5, 2005).
Books containing compilation of Articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law volumes I and II now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium 226 Ortigas Ave., Greenhills, San Juan, tel. 7249445. Our e-mail address: attyjosesison@gmail.com.