Laperal vs.

Republic
GR No. 18008, October 30, 1962

FACTS:

The petitioner, a bona fide resident of Baguio City, was married with Mr. Enrique R. Santamaria on
March 1939. However, a decree of legal separation was later on issued to the spouses. Aside from that,
she ceased to live with Enrique. During their marriage, she naturally uses Elisea L. Santamaria. She filed
this petition to be permitted to resume in using her maiden name Elisea Laperal. This was opposed by
the City Attorney of Baguio on the ground that it violates Art. 372 of the Civil Code. She was claiming
that continuing to use her married name would give rise to confusion in her finances and the eventual
liquidation of the conjugal assets.

ISSUE: Whether Rule 103 which refers to change of name in general will prevail over the specific
provision of Art. 372 of the Civil Code with regard to married woman legally separated from his
husband.

HELD:

In legal separation, the married status is unaffected by the separation, there being no severance of the
vinculum. The finding that petitioner’s continued use of her husband surname may cause undue
confusion in her finances was without basis. It must be considered that the issuance of the decree of
legal separation in 1958, necessitate that the conjugal partnership between her and Enrique had
automatically been dissolved and liquidated. Hence, there could be no more occasion for an eventual
liquidation of the conjugal assets.

Furthermore, applying Rule 103 is not a sufficient ground to justify a change of the name of Elisea for to
hold otherwise would be to provide for an easy circumvention of the mandatory provision of Art. 372.

Petition was dismissed.

TANADA VS TUVERA
Facts:

Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tanada, et. al. invoked due process in demanding the disclosure of a
number of Presidential Decrees which they claimed had not been published as required by Law. The
government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was otherwise
provided, as when the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately
upon approval. The court decided on April 24, 1985 in affirming the necessity for publication of some of
the decrees. The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official gazette all unpublished
Presidential Issuances which are of general force and effect. The petitioners suggest that there should
be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not. The publication means
complete publication, and that publication must be made in the official gazette. In a comment required
by the solicitor general, he claimed first that the motion was a request for an advisory opinion and
therefore be dismissed. And on the clause “unless otherwise provided” in Article 2 of the new civil code
meant that the publication required therein was not always imperative, that the publication when
necessary, did not have to be made in the official gazette.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not all laws shall be published in the official gazette.

(2) Whether or not publication in the official gazette must be in full.

Held:

(1) The court held that all statute including those of local application shall be published as condition for
their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by
the legislature.

(2) The publication must be full or no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the
content of the laws.

Republic vs. Orbecido

GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of
Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly,
respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Orbecido
discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his
wife sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed
with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family
Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

HELD:

The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason,
Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them 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
Hence, the court’s unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino
citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to
remarry under Philippine law.

Republic v. Iyoy
This is a petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals. CrasusIyoy was married to
FelyIyoy in 1961 and this marriage gave birth to five children. FelyIyoy eventually left for the States to
provide for their family in 1984 and in lessthan a year sent Crasus documents to sign with regard to a
divorce that she applied for. Crasus eventually found out that Fely married Stephen Micklus in 1985 and
their relationship has conceived of a child. Crasus eventually questioned the validity of Fely’s
subsequent marriage. The Court of Appeals in deciding this case sided with Fely.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a divorce decree acquired by a Filipino from the United States is valid and recognized in
the Philippines.

RULING:

The court decided in the negative and reversed the Appellate Court’s decision. Basing from the facts,
Fely only became a citizen in 1988 and acquired the divorce in 1984, marrying Micklus a year after. This
means that paragraph two of Article 26 cannot be applied in such a way that, Fely is not yet considered
an alien at the time the divorce was acquired and therefore she does not have the capacity to remarry
and the marriage is still considered as subsisting. The Civil Code also provides that Filipino Citizen, with
regard to family laws and status are governed by Philippine laws regardless of where they are. Fely,
being a Filipino Citizen then, is not permitted by our laws to acquire a divorce decree since such is not
recognized in the Philippines.

“Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except
those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.

“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 LIKEWISE HAVE CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE
LAW.”

ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

Article 15.Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (9a)
ART. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent
collusion between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.