f

o
y
e
v
r
u
s
f
e
W
i
r
A
B
L
F
O
Y
L
E
I
C
M
I
A
O
F
n
CH
i
S
M
E
L
te
e
B
r
e
.P
L
PRO
.
M
y
t
S
i
s
r
N
O
ive
I
n
T
U
A
on
L
s
E
m
R
da
A

Fam
il

y Re
l a t io
ns:
M AR
RIAG
E

La w s

and Relating
d
cond uties, o to famil
r
y
i
pers tion and to statu rights
on s
s,
l
e
g
a
a
citiz
ens re bindi l capac
i ty o
of th
ng u
even
f
e
p
o
t
P
h
n
h
o
i
ugh
lippi
Ar t .
n es ,
15,
l
i
v
i
n
C
g
i
vi l C
abro
All m
od e
ad .arria
o u ts
i de o ge s s o l e
acco
m
f
rdan the Phi nized
l i p pi
force
ce w
n
i
they in the c th the la es in
o
w
a
ther re sole untry w s in
e as
mn i z
here
s
e
the
c o u n u c h , s h d, a n d
all b
valid
try
Co d
e
e
- Ar t
v
. 26, alid in
Fam
ily

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

The f

o
requ rmal
irem
mar
e
riag nts for
e ar
by t
e go
h e la
vern
w of
of ce
ed
the
lebr
s
a
Hag
ue C tion A tate
onve
rt. 2
the
,
Cele
ntion
brat
Reco
o
n
i
o
gnit
n
ion o and
of M
arria
f Val
ge
idity

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

In Ad

Seng ong v. C
heon
G
e
e (1
SC h
g
9
eld t
22),
Phili
h at
t
whil he
ppin
e th
es a
the
e
dher
lex l
oci
es to
cele
brat
ione
dete
s in
rmin
extr
i
insic ng the
mar
riag validity
e, pr
of
form
oof o
al re
f the
such
quis
ites
m
a
rriag
for
com
e an
plian
d
is st
c
e
t
here
i ll n e
with
cess
ar y

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

In Pe

o
(193 ple v. M
5
o
biga ), Dump ra Dum
m
po
o wa
Zam y by th
s
conv
e CF
boan
icted
I of
seco
ga fo
of
nd m
r
c
o
Moh
amm arriage ntractin
ga
unde
with
edan
out
r
(Isla
diss
mar
olvin mic) la
riag
e to
g he
w
appe
r frs
a
noth
al, s
t
seco
he c
er M
la
n
o
void d marri imed th slem. O
a
n
at h
f
er
fath or lack ge was
of co
er, o
null
and
r
n
tribe
t
s
h
e
e
n
t
,
l
The as requ eader o from he
f
Cou
r
rt, ta ired by t their
the
he
te
k
reve stimony ing cogn ir faith.
rsed
iz
the of the Im ance of
fndi
ng o am,
f gu
ilt.

 In Wo

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

WW ng Wo
Y
o
imm was adm Yu v. V
ig
i
that rant up itted as vo (196
o
s
5
a
in Ch he was n her re non-qu ),
m
pres
o
enta ta
afte ingkang arried
r,
a
,
t
reve the Boa China in Filipino ions
r
w
r
the sed. On d of Com 1929. A hile
B
the oC on th Appeal, mission year
co
e
t
e
cele untry a ground he SC u rs
p
b
d
addu rationes heres to that eve held
, WW
n if
ce p
lex l
the
r
o
Y
o
ci
of of
was
form
u
t
h
n
a
Us i n
e Ch
able
g pr l requisi
i
n
oces
tes o ese la to
Cou
w
rt
su
f
that applied al pres marriag on
u
t
e
mar here is n Philippin mption, .
ri
t
e
the age to a o showin law an he
fo
d
g
dom rmal re Filipino c that W held
qu
estic
W
o
laws irement mplied w Ys
.
s un
der ith
our

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

In Ya

o Ke
Gon
zale e, et al
mar
s (1
v. A
riag
9
ida88),
e ce
Sy
acco
an a
lebr
rdan
cust
ce w ated in lleged
o
i
was ms in a th the lo
P
r
c
Cou efused r rovince al
rt
e
in
uphe . On ap cognitio China
p
n
l
cust d, statin eal, the by the
o
g
S
reco m (or un that w C
h
g
w
unde nized as ritten l ile
a
r
rule, the lex a rule o w) is
f law
loci
h
o
w
prov
c
e
ed li ver, it n elebrati
k
o
(civi
e
l) law e a fore eds to nes
b
ig
witn
esse by oral n writte e
s
t
deci
n
sion and/or estimon
s of
p
cour ublishe y of
ts.
d

 In Bo

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

Villa ard of C
r
and osa, et ommiss
a
i
year rrest of al., (19 oners,
9
s
W
e
was after th illiam G 1), the t al. v.
d
q
e
a
was uestion ir entry tchalia eportati
n
e
o
n
i
gran ot Filipi d. The nto the some 2 n
n
B
P
8
d
Chin father a o becau OC claim hilippine
s
a
n
s
asid were n d fathe e the m ed that
e
a
o
r
G
(1) t the arg t proved to chine rriage o
f
u
h
.
s
mar e non-p ment up The Co e wome his
ri
u
re
n
o
ente age cou sentati n the re rt brush in
on o
ld no
ed
r
ason
f
testi ed RP a
t
i
c
n
b
h
g
eb
ines
t
m
e law that
mar ony of 12 year lamed
ri
s
o
G
o
not ages be s fathe of age; n G who n
se
fo
a
r an
d un nd (2)
as s lf-servi re the
th e
Phili
cle r
tate
ng a
m
p
e
n
fam
ily s ents or d admis pine con : said
tat
de
si
su
held
that us or pe claratio ble in ev late is
v a lid
f
ns re
d
i de n
ity o ollowing igree.
ce
g
a
r
d
Civil
T
f ma
i
t
h
n
h
eC
g
e
r
C
mar ode, on riage un presum ourt fur
p
ri
ther
e
d
com age has who as er Art. tion of
2
p
s
t
law. liance w he burd erts the 20 of th
e
e
it h t
he r n of pro invalidit
e qu i
rem ving non y of
ents
of fo reign

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

Exce
p
Rule tions to
(Art.
the
2
1.Eith
6, FC Lex Ce
lebra
):
er o
tione
r
18 y
both
s
2.Biga ears of ag parties a
re b
e;
m
elo w
mar ous/po
3.Sub riages; lygamous
se
with quent m
o
Regi ut recor arriage
p
s
d
Prop try and ing in th erforme
R
e
d
e C iv
annu rties the egistry
il
o
lmen
f
j
u
dg
nulli
ty of t or dec ment o
f
l
part
ition former m aration
of
prop
and
a
r
r
i
age,
ertie
distr
the
i
s
b
ution the
child of the
of
sp o u
ren
legit
s
se
imes
pres
ump s, and
tive

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

Exce
p
Cele tions to
b
FC) rationes the Lex
co
Rule
n
t
.
(Art.
4. M
:
istak
26,
e as
cont
ract
to id
i
ng p
entit
5. O
a
y of
rt y ;
ne o
f the
psyc
holo
p
gica arties i
inca
s
lly
pac i
t
esse
a
ntial ted to c
omp
ma r
6. In
ly w
i
tal o
cest
ith
bliga
uous
7. Vo
tions
mar
id m
;
ri a g
of pu
arria
e
s; an
ges
blic
d
polic
by r
easo
y.
n

Fam
ily R
M AR
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ee
xtrin
sic
valid
i ty

Exce
p
26, F tions to
C)
t
cont he Lex C
Void
.:
eleb
M
ratio
38, F arriage
nes
s on
C)
Rule
g
1.Bet
roun
(Art.
ds o
wee
f
nc
publ
legit
ic po
imat ollatera
licy
e or
civil
l blo
(Art
o
i
d
l
l
d
e
2.Bet gree; egitimat relativ
es
e up
3.Bet ween stepto th , wheth
er
e f ou
4.Bet ween pare parents an
rth
n t s- i
we
n-law d step-c
adop en the
5.Bet ted child adopting and child hildren;
pare
renwe
in-la
nt a
adop en the
w;
n
d
s
t
u
i
t
he
6.Bet ng pare rviving
we
nt a
n d t s p ou s e
adop en the
7.Bet ted child surviving he adopteodf the
we
s
and
child
the pouse o
;
legit en the
a
f
a
d
i
t
m
d
o
h
e
8.Bet ate chil opted c pter;
wee
d
h
ild a
of t h
n ad
adop
n
e
o
a
pted
dopt d the
9.Bet ter;
er;
child
wee
ren
of t h
inten n part
e sa
i
t
e
me
othe ion to m s wher
e
r pe
a
o
rry
ne
rson
s p ou
s sp the oth , with th
se
er
ou s e
e
of hi , killed t
h
s or
her e
own

Fam
ily R
MA R
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ei
n tr i n
si c
valid
i ty

Intrin

mar sic valid

riag
ity o
e
f
lega
r
e
f
e
l cap
rs to
into
acity
mar
riag to ente
cons
e, an
r
ent.
d fre
mar
I
n
m
riag
e
i
x
e
es, t
d
that
h
e law
gove
subs
rns t
tant
h
e
i
mar
v
e va
riag
lidity
e is
natio
of
nal o the
la w
(lex r domic
iliary
natio
nalii
the
/
part domicil
ies.
ii ) o f

Fam
ily R
MA R
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ei
n tr i n
si c
valid
i ty

Sott
o
Eng mayor
la n d
v. D
Port
)
ugue The pa e Barro
s
rt
co u s
s
ins b e subjec ies were (1877,
in En
u
t
glan t domic s who w
18, t
i
d
e
hey . Befor led and re frst
w
e
W hi l
r
e En ere ma they re esiding
rr
g
a
betw
e e n l i s h l a w i e d i n E n ch e d
l aw ,
a
f
deem rst cous llows m gland.
ther
a
efor s them ins, Port rriage
e vo
disp
id un incestu uguese
e ns a
ou s
less
tion
obta
a nd
a
is p r
i ne d
P
a
p
e
.
nu l l i
fcat The wo viously al
i
App
m an
lying on of th
la t er
e
prin
m
t
soug
arria
ciple he lex
ht
g
n at i
, t he
e
mar
.
on
ri
C
reco age void ourt de alii
g
c
wou nized th even as lared th
ld be
e
a
it
valid t such m
arria
in En
ge
g la n
d.

Fam
ily R
MA R
el a ti
RIAG
o ns :
Ei
n tr i n
si c
valid
i ty

In R
e Da
Esta
li
te ( p Singh
C al i
Sing
forn BIRs
h, a n
i a, 1
intes
I
n
d
ia
9
t
wom ate in C n, died 48).
a
e
lega n allege lifornia.
ll
d
over y wedde to hav Two
e
d
5
with 0 years to him been
t
f
the he law in accor or
a nd
Ja t c
danc
o
c
Cou
e
u
m
stom
mu n
rt re
ity.
of
c o gn
poly
T
he
ized
g am
o
t
reco
gniz us marr he
ed t
of t h
he t iage and
e de
wo a
cede
s he
nt .
ir s

y Re
l ati o
DIVO ns:
RCE

Fam
il

Di v o
rce p
c o nf
rese
icts
nts a
the
o
part f law p
roble
i es n
dom
ation
m if
icile
ality
a no t
is co
h er
n n ec
or
s
insta
tate
t ed
to
.
nce,
I
n
of a
s u ch
t
h
e
divo
reco
rce d
divis
gnit an
io n
ion o
ecre
prop
e
f
erty marita , the
l
, cu s
child
tody
ren,
be a
a
o
s cer n d s u p f
port
ta ine
C OL
will
d fo
prin
llow
ciple
ing
s.

y Re
la t i o
n
DIVO s:
RCE

Fam
il

Juris
d i ct i
o n, f
th e
mo s
ollow
t sig
relat
ing
n
io ns
ifca
hip r
nt
base
ule,
d on
i
on e
s
d
o
m
o f th
i
m at
e pa cile of
r i mo
rties
nial
o
The
r
d
omic
gr o u
ile.
di vo
n
d
s fo r
rce a
by t
he le re dicta
ted
x f or
i.

y Re
latio
n
s:
D
IVOR
B et w
CE
e en
Filip
inos

Fam
il

T he
Phili
p
reco
g n iz pi n e s do
e d iv
ob t a
es n
o
in
o
Filip ed abro rce, and t
i no s
one
are ad by
in th
not
e Ph
reco
ilipp
C C) .
gni z
i ne s
H
o
ed
we v
(
mar
A
r
t. 1 7
er, i
riag
n
,
es w
fore
m
i
xed
here
ign e
r spo
th e
div o
rce w
u se
o bta
here
i
l
l
b
i ns
e re
. Th
c
is, to
un e v
o gni
ze d
en s
r
e
m
spou
ta tu
e dy
s
s
t
m a r e s i n a b e t w e e he
riag
mixe
n th
e.
e
d

y Re
latio
n
s:
D
IVOR
B et w
CE
e en
Filip
inos

Adverting to Art. 17 of the Civil

Code, the Court held that
divorce is antithetical to public
policy, and would only favor the
wealthy who can afford to travel
and obtain divorce abroad.

Fam
il

In Tenchavez v. Escano
(1965), the parties were both
Filipinos who, after marriage,
did not live together as husband
and wife. Thereafter, the wife
left for the United States and
while still a Filipino -successfully procured a divorce
decree in Nevada. She later remarried. The husband sued for
legal separation and damages
which the Court granted.

y Re
latio
n
s:
D
IVOR
B et w
CE
e en
Filip
inos

Upon Atty. Lunas death, Lavadia sued

his heirs who have excluded her from
partition of his estate. The Court, in
denying her petition: (a) refused to
recognize the divorce in DR; (b)
declared Lunas marriage to his frst
wife subsisting until his death and his
marriage to Lavadia bigamous; and
(3) concluded Lavadia was unable to
prove her co-ownership rights over

Fam
il

In Lavadia v. Heirs of Luna (2014),

Lavadia married Atty. Luna in the
Dominican Republic after he obtained
a divorce in that jurisdiction from his
frst wife. Atty. Luna likewise obtained
an approval of an agreement for the
dissolution of his property with his
frst wife in DR. Thereafter, he and
Lavadia lived together as husband
and wife.

y Re
latio
ns :
DIVO
In M
ixed
RCE

Marr
iage
s

The Court held that Upton is

estopped from asserting their
marriage which was already
dissolved by the divorce. It added
that while Filipinos under Art. 15, CC
are covered by the policy of absolute
divorce, foreigners are not. This will
result in an inequituous situation,
hence the need to release the Fil.
spouse from marriage bonds where

Fam
il

In Van Dorn v. Romillo (1985), Van

Dorn, then Filipino, and Upton, an
American, were married in Hong
Kong and later obtained a divorce in
the US. Van Dorn later remarried. In
a petition, Upton moved for
accounting and management of their
conjugal assets.

y Re
latio
ns :
DIVO
In M
ixed
RCE

Marr
iage
s

The Court held that petitioner may

have a personality to fle the petition
after she proves authenticated copies
of the decree. In any case, she has
personality to fle the petition as she
may have an interest as a limited co-

Fam
il

In San Luis v. San Luis (2007), the

third wife of the former governor of
Laguna petitioned for letters
administration of his estate. His
children by the frst marriage opposed
contending that petitioner married
their father during the subsistence of
his second marriage to a foreigner.
Petitioner however submitted a foreign
divorce decree obtained by the
foreigner against the decedent. The
lower court denied the letters
administration.

y Re
latio
ns :
DIVO
In M
ixed
RCE

Marr
iage
s

At the SC, the Court held that the

divorce she obtained abroad could be
given effect here, adverting to 3 legal
premises, which are:

Fam
il

In Bayot v. CA (2008), Bayot, an

American citizen, married a Filipino
national and thereafter obtained a
divorce in Dominican Republic and
court approval of the dissolution of
their common properties.
Subsequently, she fled a petition for
nullity of marriage here in the
Philippines with application for support
pendente lite. The lower court granted
her support pendente lite which the
appellate court reversed and declared
her without personality to sue.

Fam
il

First, a divorce obtained abroad by

an alien married to a Philippine
national may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided the decree of
divorce is valid according to the
national law of the foreigner.
Second, the reckoning point is not
the citizenship of the divorcing
parties at birth or at the time of
marriage, but their citizenship at
the time a valid divorce is obtained
abroad.
And third, an absolute divorce
secured by a Filipino married to
another Filipino is contrary to our
concept of public policy and
morality and shall not be

y Re
latio
ns :
DIVO
In M
ixed
RCE

Marr
iage
s

Bayot v. CA (2008), cont.

y Re
latio
ns :
DIVO
In M
ixed
RCE

Marr
iage
s

In Dacasin v. Dacasin (2010), the

American husband and the Filipino wife
obtained a divorce in an Illinois court
which granted the mother sole custody
over the child. Subsequently, they entered
into an agreement for joint custody of the
child who was then below 7 years of age.

Fam
il

Later, the mother refused custody to the

father who sued in the Philippines for
enforcement of their post-divorce
agreement. The lower court refused
jurisdiction on the ground that the Illinois
court retained jurisdiction. The SC
modifed, pointing out that the subject of
the petition was the post divorce
agreement. Nevertheless, the SC held the
agreement enforceable being contrary to
the FC proviso which grants the mother
sole custody of a child but remanded the

Fam
ily R
elati
DIVO ons:
Dec Annulm RCE
larat
ent
and
ion o
f Nu
llity

In Fujiki v. Marinay (2013), Fujiki

married a Filipino but was compelled
to leave her in the Philippines after
her parents refused to recognize their
marriage. Thereafter, the Filipina
married a Japanese and lived in Japan.
When F learned of the abusive
relationship, he helped her obtain a
divorce decree in Japan. Thereafter,
he fled in RP a petition for recognition
of divorce and annotation of the
decree in the certifcate of 2nd
marriage of his wife. The lower court
dismissed outright for non-compliance
with the Rules on Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage, and of his lack of
personality to sue, not being a party
to the marriage under question.

On direct appeal to the SC, the SC

held that:
(a) the Rules on Declaration of Void
and Voidable Marriages do not
apply to a petition for recognition
of divorce;
(b) the spouse in a frst subsisting
marriage has capacity to sue
either for nullity or recognition of
foreign divorce; and
(c) While a marriage cannot be
collaterally attacked through
cancellation of entries in a civil
registry, this rule does not apply
for correction of civil entries
arising from a divorce obtained
by a foreigner abroad, especially
where the basis is bigamy.

Fam
ily R
elati
DIVO ons:
Dec Annulm RCE
larat
ent
and
ion o
f Nu
llity

Fujiki (cont)

1. Those commenced before March 15,

2003, the effectivity date of A.M. No. 0211-10-SC; and
2. Those fled vis--vis marriages
celebrated during the effectivity of the
Civil Code and, those celebrated under

Fam
ily R
elati
DIVO ons:
Dec Annulm RCE
larat
ent
and
ion o
f Nu
llity

In Ablaza v. Republic (2010), the

brother of the decedent husband
brought an action to nullify his
brothers marriage celebrated in 1949
on the ground of absence of a
marriage license. The lower court
held him without personality to sue,
not being a party to the marriage, as
required under the Rule on the
Declaration of Nullity of Void
Marriages. On appeal, the SC
reversed holding that the Rule only
applies to proceedings commenced
after 15 March 2003, and excludes