G.R. No. 154380 . October 5, 2005.
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Cipriano Orbecido III, Respondent.

FACTS

Cipriano Orbecido III, a Filipino citizen, married Lady Myros Villanueva, also a Filipino citizen, in 1981. In 1986, Villanueva left for the United States, where she was later naturalized as an American citizen. In 2000, Orbecido learned that his wife had obtained a divorce decree in the U.S. and had subsequently remarried there. Orbecido then filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking a declaration that he was capacitated to remarry under Philippine law, invoking the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.
The RTC granted Orbecido’s petition, ruling that by virtue of the divorce decree obtained by his naturalized American wife, he was capacitated to remarry. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review, arguing that Article 26, paragraph 2, applies only to mixed marriages celebrated between a Filipino and a foreigner from the outset, not to marriages where both parties were originally Filipinos and one later acquired foreign citizenship.

ISSUE

Whether a Filipino citizen, whose spouse was naturalized as a foreign citizen and subsequently obtained a valid divorce decree abroad capacitating the foreign spouse to remarry, is likewise capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the RTC’s decision, but established the applicable legal principle. The Court ruled that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code must be interpreted to include the case of Orbecido. While the provision textually refers to a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, the legislative intent was to avoid the absurd situation where a Filipino remains married to a foreign spouse who is already divorced and remarried under foreign law. This intent applies with equal force to a marriage that was originally between two Filipinos, where one later becomes a foreign citizen, obtains a divorce, and remarries.
The Court applied the principle of statutory construction that the spirit of the law prevails over its letter. To restrict Article 26 only to mixed marriages celebrated from the beginning would be to sanction an inequitable situation not contemplated by the law’s framers. However, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings because Orbecido failed to present competent evidence, such as the foreign divorce decree and proof of his wife’s naturalization and remarriage, which are essential facts that must be alleged and proved before a declaration of capacity to remarry can be validly made.