CONFLICTS – FINALS – CASE DIGESTS Moreover, in protecting and strengthening the Filipino family as a basic social institution, the

pino family as a basic social institution, the Court must

not lose sight of the constitutional mandate to value dignity of every human person, guarantee full respect
for human rights, and ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
1. REPUBLIC vs MANALO (April 24, 2018)
XXXXX
FACTS:
 Petitioner, Marelyn Manalo, previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese, Yoshino Minoro,  Divorce is the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage. Of 2 types: (1)
filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan City by virtue absolute divorce or vincula matrimonii, which terminates the marriage, and (2) limited divorce or
of divorce rendered by a Japanese court. a mensa et thoro, which suspends it and leaves the bond in full force.
 The case for divorce was filed by herein petitioner Manalo in Japan.  RULES ON DIVORCE in the PHILIPPINES:
 The trial court denied the petition, ruling that the divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not 1. We do not provide for absolute divorce.
be recognized for Art. 15 of the Civil Code “does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce 2. The marital bond between 2 Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce
(whether they are in the country or living abroad or if they are married to Filipinos or to foreigners obtained abroad.
or if they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or in another country)” and “that unless 3. Absolute divorce obtained abroad by a couple who are both aliens may be recognized in the
Filipinos are naturalized as citizens of another country, Philippine laws shall have control over Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.
issues related to Filipinos’ family rights and duties.” 4. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former is allowed to contract a
subsequent marriage provided that the absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the
 CA overturned RTC’s decision, that Art. 26 is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
divorce because the decree they obtained makes the Japanese husband no longer married to the
former, capacitating him to remarry.
Art. 26, par. 2 (“When marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse (NOW INCLUDED NATURALIZED
ISSUE: WON a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce
FOREIGN CITIZEN ~ former Filipino) capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall
proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his/her alien who is now capacitated to
likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law) confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to
remarry.
extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse but the legal effects thereof (custody,
care and support of the children or property relations of the spouses) must still be determined by our
HELD: YES. (Note: The decree of divorce rendered by the Japanese court and the Japanese law allowing
courts.
divorce must be proved under the doctrine of processual presumption. Petitioner, failed to present
In Republic vs Orbecido (2005), the Court ruled that Art. 26, par. 2 applies to a case where “at the time
Japanese law, hence remanded to lower court for the lack thereof)
of the celebration of marriage, the parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them acquired foreign
citizenship by naturalization, initiated a divorce proceeding, and obtained a favorable decree.” Thus, a
Par. 2 of Art. 26 speaks of “a divorce… validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
Filipino divorced by his naturalized (former Filipino) foreign spouse is no longer married under
her to remarry.” Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a
Philippine law and can thus remarry. (Quita vs CA, 1998)
divorce validly obtained abroad. The law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one
who initiated he proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted.
REASON: To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. To avoid the absurd situation
where Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse, who after obtaining a divorce is no longer
The purpose of the provision is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
married to the Filipino spouse.” THUS, THE RECKONING POINT is not the citizenship of the
married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it
parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce
was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage
In Van Dorn vs Judge Romillo, Jr. (1985), the court discussed the effect of the foreign divorce on the
bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to remarry will have the same result: The Filipino spouse
parties and their conjugal property in the Philippines. When the marriage tie is thus severed as to one
will effectively be without a husband or wife. It is extended “as a means to recognize the residual effect
party, ceases to bind either. Hence, the American husband asserting rights over their alleged conjugal
of the foreign divorce decree on Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by
property is estopped from asserting such right; that he should not continue to be one of her heirs with
operation of the latter’s national law.”
possible rights to conjugal property.
Invoking Art. 15 is erroneous. In fact, Art. 26, par. 2 is an exception thereto. Blind adherence to the
That a validly obtained foreign divorce initiated by Filipino spouse (or jointly with her husband) can be
nationality principle must be disallowed if it would cause unjust discrimination and oppression to certain
recognized and given legal effects in the Philippines is implied in Fujiki vs Marinay (2013), provided
classes of individuals whose rights are equally protected by law.
that the national law of the alien spouse and the divorce decree must be proven.

1
 2. NOVERAS vs NOVERAS (Aug. 20, 2014)
Facts:
 David and Leticia Noveras we married in Quezon City on 1998.
 Both lived in US and eventually acquired American citizenship.
 During their marriage, they acquired properties in the Philippines and in USA.
 Sometime in Sept, 2003, David abandoned his family and lived with another woman in Aurora
province.
 Upon learning of the extra-marital affair, Leticia obtained a decree of divorce from California Court
in 2005 wherein the court awarded all the properties in USA to Leticia.
 With respect to their properties in the Philippines Leticia filed a petition for Judicial Separation of
Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler.
 The RTC ruled that the absolute community of property of the parties in the Philippines are to be
awarded only to David, while the properties in the USA remain in the sole ownership of Leticia.
 CA modified RTC’s ruling by directing the equal division of the Philippine properties between the
spouses, to which David opposed asserting that such is tantamount to unjust enrichment in favor of
Leticia.
ISSUES:
1. WON the trial court erred in recognizing the divorce decree asserted by Leticia.  YES
2. WON the appellate court did not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David
and Leticia.  NO.
HELD:
1.YES. The trial court erred in recognizing the divorce decree in the absence of evidence of the foreign
judgment and its authenticity, together with the alien’s applicable national law under the doctrine of
processual presumption.
The records show that only the divorce decree was presented. The required certificates to prove its
authenticity and the pertinent California law on divorce were not presented. Absent a valid recognition
of the divorce decree, the parties are still legally married in the Philippines.
Leticia anchored the filing of the petition for judicial separation of property on pars. 4 and 6 of Art. 135:
(4) “that the spouse has abandoned the petitioner,” (6) “that at the time of the petition, the spouses have
been separated in fact for at least 1 year and reconciliation is highly improbable.”
The court ruled that par. 4 is not applicable as there was no abandonment in this case. However, the
records of the case are replete with evidence that Leticia and David had been separated for more than 1
year and that reconciliation is highly improbable. With that, the petition for judicial separation of absolute
community property should be granted, which automatically dissolves the absolute community regime.
2. NO. The Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the California properties of David and
Leticia. Art. 16 of the Civil Code clearly states that “real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is situated.” Thus, the liquidation shall only be limited to
the Philippine properties and the US properties shall remain with Leticia as declared by the court
therein.
As to their absolute community properties in the Philippines, parties shall have an equal share in the
proceeds of the property in Sampaloc, etc.
3. DEL SOCORRO vs VAN WILSEM (Dec. 10, 2014)
Facts:
 Del Socorro and Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland on 1990.
 Their marriage ended on 1995 by virtue of a divorce decree obtained from the Court of Holland.
 Thereafter, petitioner and her son came home to the Philippines. Despite the promise of support, her
husband never gave support to their son.
 Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in Cebu.
 Petitioner filed a complaint against Van Wilsem for violation of R.A. 9262 for the latter’s unjust
refusal to support his minor child.
 RTC of Cebu dismissed the petition, ruling that it did not constitute an offense with respect to the
accused, he being an alien.
 Petitioner filed a MR, asserting that R.A. No. 9262 equally applies to all persons in the Philippines
who are obliged to support their minor children regardless of nationality. And that notwithstanding
the existence of a divorce decree, respondent is not excused from complying his obligation to support
his minor child.
ISSUE:
1. WON a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law.
2. WON he can be held criminally liable under RA 9262 for his unjustified failure to do so.
HELD:
1. NO. Art. 15 stresses that the provisions of Family Code with respect to family rights and duties,
i.e. support, applies only to Filipino citizens. The obligation to give support to a child is a matter
that falls under family rights and duties. Being a citizen of Holland, respondent cannot be obliged
to give support to his child.
But since he was not able to prove that his country does not require to give support to a child
(doctrine of processual presumption), Philippine law governs and thus he is obligated to give
support under Philippine law.
2. YES. The deprivation of financial support to the child is considered an act of violence against
women and children. The “territoriality principle” in criminal law applies in this case. It is
undisputable that the alleged continuing acts (which do not prescribe) in refusing to support his
child is committed here in the Philippines. As such, our courts have territorial jurisdiction over the
offense charged against respondent.
4. REPUBLIC vs ORBECIDO (October 5, 2005)
Facts: Cipriano Orbecido was married to Lady Myros Villanueva in a church in Ozamis City in 1981.
 In 1986, Lady Myros left for US with their son. The wife was later naturalized as an American citizen.
Later on, the wife obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Innocent Stanley. Cipriano thereafter
filed with the trial court a ‘petition for authority to remarry,” invoking Par. 2 of Art. 26.
 OSG opposed the petition. It alleges that the proper remedy is to ‘file a petition for annulment or
legal separation’ and that Par. 2 of art. 26 is not applicable because it only applies to a valid mixed
marriage between a Filipino and an alien.
ISSUE: WON respondent can remarry under Art. 26 of the Civil Code.  YES
2
HELD: The legislative intent of the provision (according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Dy) is to avoid the
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce,
is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
Interestingly, Par. 2 of Art. 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn vs Romillio where the court
ruled that the divorce validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, consequently
allowing the Filipino spouse to remarry under the Philippine law.
And similar to the facts of this case, in Quita vs CA (1998), the court ruled that a Filipino divorced by
his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry.
To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.
Twin elements for the application of Par. 2 of Art. 26:
1. Valid marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner;
2. Valid divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of marriage
but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the
latter to remarry. When the wife was naturalized as American citizen, the two elements became present
in this case. Thus, Cipriano, the divorced Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.
Legal separation would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tie; hence the
legally separated Filipino spouse would still remain married to the naturalized alien spouse.
5. FUKIJI vs MARINAY (June 26, 2013; Carpio)
FACTS:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela
Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s
parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact
with each other.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being
dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara
brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left
Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki
helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the marriage between
Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the
RTC entitled: “Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).”
RTC DECISION: Dismissed the petition for "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment ·(or Decree
of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)" based on improper venue and the lack of personality of petitioner,
Minoru Fujiki, to file the petition.
ISSUES & RULING:
(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.
No. Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
(A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the
status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. Moreover, in Juliano-
Llave v. Republic, this Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 02- 11-10-SC that only the husband or wife
can file a declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage “does not apply if the reason behind the
petition is bigamy.” While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is
fully consistent with Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the
beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the Revised
Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance
with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign
judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on
the ground of bigamy.
Yes. “[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the
object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the
status or right of a party or a particular fact.”
 Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event, order or
decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may
file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the
Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity
of the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it.
(3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for
cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Yes. There is neither circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under
Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign
judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the
effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case which was already tried and decided
under foreign law.
In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment
on how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the “family rights and duties, or on
the status, condition and legal capacity” of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment.
Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment
in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of a
foreign country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the
rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code.
3
For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent Loan in a foreign bank secured by your property in the Philippines. Can the foreign
with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove bank foreclose the collateral and acquire the ownership of the land put up as
an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collateral of the loan?
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor - Contract of loan – principal contract
adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign - But to guaranty the loan – collateral contract
judgment as part of the comity of nations. - If the borrower fails, bank can foreclose the collateral
o Can a foreign bank do this?
R.A. 9262 - Under our civil law, accessory contract follows the principal
Effects of legal separation contract; bank can foreclose the collateral and acquires ownership of
Presumption of legitimacy the parcel of land
o Does that run counter to the public policy?
Chapter 18 - Yes. Because foreign company they cannot own or acquire land in
Status of the child. Legitimate or illegitimate (national law of the father) the Philippines. Hence, accessory contract is not valid being
Paternity affiliation contrary to public policy.
Presumption of legitimacy
Physical resemblance not a proof

No such thing as derivative citizenship in the matter of adoption

Foreign adopted child cannot ipso facto acquire Philippine citizenship

Former Filipino with adopted child; now married to American; can she adopt her child?
Adoption Act
Inter-Country Adoption Act

Art. 14 of Civil Code – penal laws apply to all those who live and sojourn in the Philippines

Chapter 19
Art. 16, par. 1

Transactions involving real property:

1. Extrinsic validity – forms and solemnities
2. Intrinsic – consideration, price

Allegation (?)

Matters related to usufruct

Lex situs
Lex rae sitae
Lex nationality (of the husband)
Property relations – national law of the husband

Exceptions to the rule (successional rights)  Art. 16, par. 2, capacity to succeed
Not lex rae sitae but nationality law of the deceased, regardless where the property
is situated