CONFLICT OF LAWS (Jurisprudence ) I. Recognition vs Enforcement Corpuz vs.

Santos Facts: Canadian naturalized citizen who married a Filipina in the Phil sought to have t he divorce obtained in Canada recognize and enforce before the Phil law thru a j udicial recourse for declaratory relief in contemplation of contracting a marria ge anew with another Filipina. The legal wife posed no opposition rather conformed thereto by stating her desir e to avail herself the said declaratory relief but financially constrained to do it. Issue: W/N the foreign divorce degree be admitted in court and commendatory of t he Relief sought? Rulings: As a rule, foreign decrees or judgment (res judicata in itself ) can't be enforc ed in our jurisdiction. However, if it's binding effect wished to be established under the Phil law, two separate action should be instituted in a proper court, to wit: petition for recognition of foreign judgment which should be supported with the required proof sanctioned by the Rules of Court in Evidence, and petitio n to have it specifically enforced thru allowance of having it properly recorded in the Civil Registry and change his personal status. Divorce once legally granted under the national law of the person involve has a binding effect internationally. Status of a person is determined only by his nat ional law which must be given due recognition by other countries. However, comit y should also be corroborated by conformity with the rules established by the fo rum in order to avail the privileges under the forum's law being incidental to p ossession of such specific status . II. Capacity to remarry ORBESIDO CASE Facts: A and B, both filipinos were married in the Phil before the former went to US to work. He ,however, failed to return home and subsequently acquired US citizensh ip. A asked from US tribunal for a divorce decree and when granted, married an A merican citizen respectively. B petition to regain her capacity to marry also in the Phil Issue : w/N B should be allowed to remarry in lieu of the divorce decree obtaine d by A in the US court. Rule : Divorce accordingly is not recognized under our law as a valid dissolution of ma rriage. Due to apparent injustice Filipinos have to bear in consequence of unsuc cessful marriage to a foreign nAtional, they will be hold forever tied up into it while their former spouses sought to discover a new relAtionship by entering to another marriage. During the revolutionary govt of pres Cory Aquino, the law capacitating Filipino s divorced by their spouses, to enter into marriage again was made into a law. W

hen the foreign spouse who obtained a divorce decree in his country became capac itated to enter to marriage again, Filipino spouse should also be benefited of s uch reinstatement of capacity to marry again under our law. In this case, The reckoning period is the day the divorce wAs filed by A. When h e filed the petition to abrogate their marital relation, A is already naturalize d US citizen. Status of a person is determined by his national law. When a forei gn spouse's status was restored by his national law, it is just fair that Filipi no spouse's status be restored also by our law. B may marry again. III . Effect of Marriage by a female foreign national to a Filipino MoY Ya Case Declaration of intention to acquire Phil citizenship is dispensed. The foreign w ife shall automatically carries her husband nationality provided she have all th e qualifications and non of the disqualifications. IV. Quantum of proof for naturalization proceeding So Case Naturalization proceeding is analogous to criminal proceedings in rel to proof t o be adduced before the court. Applicant has to established beyond reasonable do ubt that he has all the qualifications and non of the disqualifications. It is a lso necessary that the procedural rqt was mandatorily met. In establishing his qualifications, two credible Filipino witnesses is required by law to vouch for him. Credibility to be established is not merely concentrate d to the applicant's favor but the witnesses credibility must also be establishe d beyond refute.