G.R. No. 249011 , March 15, 2021
CRISTITA ANABAN, CRISPINA ANABAN, PUREZA ANABAN, CRESENCIA ANABAN-WALANG, AND ROSITA ANABAN-BARISTO, PETITIONERS, VS. BETTY ANABAN-ALFILER, MERCEDES ANABAN, AND MARCELO ANABAN, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Pedrito Anaban and Virginia Erasmo, both members of the Ibaloi Tribe, were married in 1942 in accordance with Ibaloi customs. They had three children: respondents Betty Anaban-Alfiler, Mercedes Anaban, and Marcelo Anaban. In 1947, the council of tribe elders, noting Virginia’s insanity, approved the couple’s divorce under Ibaloi customs and allowed Pedrito to remarry. In 1952, Pedrito married Pepang Guilabo, also according to Ibaloi customs, and they had eight children, including petitioners Cristita Anaban, Crispina Anaban, Pureza Anaban, Cresencia Anaban-Walang, and Rosita Anaban-Baristo. Upon Pedrito’s death in 2004, respondents filed for summary settlement of his intestate estate, claiming petitioners were illegitimate children because Pedrito’s marriage to Virginia was not legally dissolved, making his subsequent marriage to Pepang bigamous. Petitioners argued they were legitimate, as both the marriage and divorce of Pedrito and Virginia were valid under Ibaloi customs, which were recognized under the Old Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether the divorce between Pedrito Anaban and Virginia Erasmo, decreed by the Ibaloi council of elders in accordance with tribal customs, is legally valid, thereby rendering Pedrito’s subsequent marriage to Pepang Guilabo valid and the petitioners legitimate children.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The divorce granted by the Ibaloi council of elders in 1947 is not legally recognized. Article 78 of the Old Civil Code only recognized the validity of marriages solemnized in accordance with non-Christian customs, rites, or practices; it did not extend this recognition to the dissolution of such marriages. The law is clear and requires no further interpretation. While the State recognizes the cultural integrity of indigenous peoples under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), its implementing rules limit state recognition to marriages solemnized under customary laws, not their dissolution. Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004, of the Philippine Statistics Authority, which provides for the registration of dissolutions under customary laws, is merely procedural and cannot create substantive rights; moreover, it cannot be applied retroactively to a 1947 divorce. Consequently, Pedrito’s marriage to Virginia subsisted under the law, making his 1952 marriage to Pepang bigamous and void. Petitioners are therefore the illegitimate children of Pedrito and shall inherit as such. The petition was denied.