GR 155635; (November, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 155635 and G.R. No. 163979, November 7, 2008
MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT, respondents. (G.R. No. 155635)
MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT, petitioner, vs. VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT, respondent. (G.R. No. 163979)
FACTS
Petitioner Maria Rebecca Makapugay Bayot and private respondent Vicente Madrigal Bayot were married on April 20, 1979. The Marriage Certificate identified Rebecca as an American citizen. On February 22, 1996, a Dominican Republic court issued a divorce decree (Civil Decree No. 362/96) dissolving their marriage, following proceedings where Rebecca personally appeared and Vicente was represented by counsel. On March 14, 1996, Rebecca filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in Makati RTC, which she later withdrew. On May 29, 1996, Rebecca executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment stating she was an American citizen. On March 21, 2001, Rebecca filed a new petition before the Muntinlupa RTC (Civil Case No. 01-094) for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of Vicente’s psychological incapacity, with an application for support pendente lite. Vicente moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of cause of action and that the petition was barred by the prior divorce judgment. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and granted Rebecca’s application for support pendente lite. Vicente filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA issued a Resolution granting a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the RTC from implementing its orders for support pendente lite and from conducting further proceedings. Rebecca assailed this CA Resolution in G.R. No. 155635. Subsequently, the CA rendered a Decision dismissing Civil Case No. 01-094 for failure to state a cause of action, which Rebecca assailed in G.R. No. 163979. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases.
ISSUE
The primary issue, determinative of both petitions, is whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Civil Case No. 01-094 (the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage) on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, in light of the prior foreign divorce decree.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA Decision.
The Court held that under the hypothetical admission rule, the allegations in the petition, together with the annexes which form part of the pleading, must be considered. The annexes, particularly the foreign divorce decree, conclusively established that Rebecca, representing herself as an American citizen, validly obtained a divorce from Vicente in the Dominican Republic on February 22, 1996. This divorce decree dissolved their marital bond. Consequently, Rebecca no longer had a legal right to seek a declaration of nullity of that same marriage in the Philippines, as there was no more marriage to nullify. The cause of action for declaration of nullity presupposes the existence of a marriage. The divorce decree extinguished that existence.
The Court rejected Rebecca’s claim of Filipino citizenship to invalidate the divorce. She was estopped from denying her American citizenship, having consistently professed it in her Marriage Certificate, in her application for and procurement of an American passport, and in her sworn Affidavit of Acknowledgment. Her acts of initiating and securing the foreign divorce as an American citizen precluded her from later impugning its validity on grounds of citizenship. Furthermore, the divorce decree was valid and effective in the Philippines as it was obtained by Rebecca, the alien spouse. Under Article 26 of the Family Code, such a divorce capacitates the Filipino spouse (Vicente) to remarry. By legal implication, it also dissolves the marriage for both parties. Thus, the RTC should have granted Vicente’s motion to dismiss. The CA correctly reversed the RTC’s orders and dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity for failure to state a cause of action.
As a result, the ancillary issue in G.R. No. 155635 regarding the grant of support pendente lite was rendered moot and academic. Since the main action for nullity was correctly dismissed, there was no basis to award support pendente lite.