REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III,

G. R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboaga del Sur, Branch 23, granting respondents
petition for authority to remarry invoking par. 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva were married in
Lam-an, Ozamis City and were blessed with a son and a daughter. In 1986, Lady
Myros left for the U. S. bringing along their son and after a few years she was
naturalized as an American citizen.
Sometime in 2000, respondent Orbecido learned from his son who was living with
his wife in the States that his wife had remarried after obtaining her divorce
decree. Thereafter, he filed a petition for authority to remarry with the trial court
invoking par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code.
Having no opposition, on May 15, 2002, the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del
Sur granted the petition of the respondent and allowed him to remarry.
The Solicitor Generals motion for reconsideration was denied. In view of that,
petitioner filed this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court. Herein petitioner raised the issue of the applicability of Art. 26 par. 2 to
the instant case.
Issue:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER THE ARTICLE 26 OF THE
FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Held:
Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof, failed to submit competent
evidence showing his allegations that his naturalized American wife had obtained a
divorce decree and had remarried. Therefore, the Petition of the Republic of the
Philippines is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the RTC Br. 32 of Molave,
Zamboanga del Sur is hereby SET ASIDE.
Art. 26 (2) 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 the Philippine laws.
Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case where at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The

instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were
two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as an American citizen
and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed
she remarried an American citizen while residing in the U. S. A. Therefore, the 2nd
par. of Art. 26 does not apply to the instant case.
However, the legislative intent must be taken into consideration and rule of reason
must be applied. The Supreme Court ruled that par. 2 of Art. 26 should be construed
and interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of then 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. To rule otherwise would be sanction
absurdity and injustice. Were the interpretation of a statute according to its exact
and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose
of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason,
disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A stature may therefore be
extended to case not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come
within its spirits or intent.