G.R. No. 155635 & G.R. No. 163979, November 7, 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20, 1979 in Sanctuario de San Jose, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. On its face, the Marriage Certificate identified Rebecca to be an American citizen born in Agaña, Guam. Sometime in 1996, Rebecca initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. The Dominican court issued Civil Decree No. 362/96, ordering the dissolution of the couple’s marriage and “leaving them to remarry after completing the legal requirements”, but giving them joint custody and guardianship over Alix. Over a year later, the same court would issue Civil Decree No. 406/97, settling the couple’s property relations pursuant to an Agreement they executed on December 14, 1996. Rebecca filed another petition before the Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of Vicente’s alleged psychological incapacity. In it, Rebecca also sought the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains with application for support. Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging the grounds of lack of cause of action and that the petition is barred by the prior judgment of divorce. The RTC denied Vicente’s motion to dismiss and granted Rebecca’s application for support pendente lite. The Supreme Court ruled that Rebecca, at the time she applied for and obtained her divorce from Vicente, was an American citizen and remains to be one, absent proof of an effective repudiation of such citizenship. Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by Rebecca, the same shall be given a res judicata effect in this jurisdiction and consequent to the dissolution of the marriage, Vicente could no longer be subject to a husband’s obligation under the Civil Code. Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it is abundantly clear to the Court that Rebecca lacks, under the premises, cause of action. However with regard to the issue of back support for their daughter, which allegedly had been partly shouldered by Rebecca, the Court deemed it proper to remand the case for it to be best litigated in a separate civil action for reimbursement.
FACTS:
Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20, 1979 in Sanctuario de San Jose, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. On its face, the Marriage Certificate identified Rebecca, then 26 years old, to be an American citizen born in Agaña, Guam, USA to Cesar Tanchiong Makapugay, American, and Helen Corn Makapugay, American. On November 27, 1982 in San Francisco, California, Rebecca gave birth to Marie Josephine Alexandra or Alix. From then on, Vicente and Rebecca’s marital relationship seemed to have soured as the latter, sometime in 1996, initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. On February 22, 1996, the Dominican court issued Civil Decree No. 362/96, ordering the dissolution of the couple’s marriage and “leaving them to remarry after completing the legal requirements”, but giving them joint custody and guardianship over Alix. Over a year later, the same court would issue Civil Decree No. 406/97, settling the couple’s property relations pursuant to an Agreement they executed on December 14, 1996.
Less than a month from the issuance of Civil Decree No. 362/96, Rebecca filed with the Makati City RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage but she later moved and secured approval of the motion to withdraw the petition. On May 29, 1996, Rebecca executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment stating under oath that she is an American citizen; that, since 1993, she and Vicente have been living separately; and that she is carrying a child not of Vicente. On March 21, 2001, Rebecca filed another petition, this time before the Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of Vicente’s alleged psychological incapacity. In it, Rebecca also sought the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains with application for support pendente lite for her and Alix. Rebecca also prayed that Vicente be ordered to pay a permanent monthly support for their daughter Alix in the amount of PhP220,000. On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging the grounds of lack of cause of action and that the petition is barred by the prior judgment of divorce. To the motion to dismiss, Rebecca interposed an opposition, insisting on her Filipino citizenship, as affirmed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and that, therefore, there is no valid divorce to speak of.
Meanwhile, Vicente, who had in the interim contracted another marriage, and Rebecca commenced several criminal complaints against each other. Specifically, Vicente filed adultery and perjury complaints against Rebecca. Rebecca, on the other hand, charged Vicente with bigamy and concubinage.
The RTC denied Vicente’s motion to dismiss and granted Rebecca’s application for support pendente lite. Vicente went to the CA on a petition for certiorari. The CA issued the desired TRO and by a Decision dated March 25, 2004, effectively dismissed Civil Case No. 01-094, and set aside incidental orders the RTC issued in relation to the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained in the Dominican Republic can be validly recognized in the Philippines – YES
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
(1) Whether petitioner Rebecca was a Filipino citizen at the time the divorce judgment was rendered in the Dominican Republic on February 22, 1996
There can be no serious dispute that Rebecca, at the time she applied for and obtained her divorce from Vicente, was an American citizen and remains to be one, absent proof of an effective repudiation of such citizenship. The following are compelling circumstances indicative of her American citizenship: (1) she was born in Agaña, Guam, USA; (2) the principle of jus soli is followed in this American territory granting American citizenship to those who are born there; and (3) she was, and may still be, a holder of an American passport. And as aptly found by the CA, Rebecca had consistently professed, asserted, and represented herself as an American citizen, particularly: (1) during her marriage as shown in the marriage certificate; (2) in the birth certificate of Alix; and (3) when she secured the divorce from the Dominican Republic. Mention may be made of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment in which she stated being an American citizen.
(2) Whether the judgment of divorce is valid and, if so, what are its consequent legal effects
First, at the time of the divorce, as above elucidated, Rebecca was still to be recognized, assuming for argument that she was in fact later recognized, as a Filipino citizen, but represented herself in public documents as an American citizen. At the very least, she chose, before, during, and shortly after her divorce, her American citizenship to govern her marital relationship. Second, she secured personally said divorce as an American citizen, as is evident in the text of the Civil Decrees. Third, being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce. Fourth, the property relations of Vicente and Rebecca were properly adjudicated through their Agreement and duly affirmed by Civil Decree No. 406/97.
To be sure, the Court has taken stock of the holding in Garcia v. Recio that a foreign divorce can be recognized here, provided the divorce decree is proven as a fact and as valid under the national law of the alien spouse. Be this as it may, the fact that Rebecca was clearly an American citizen when she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized and allowed in any of the States of the Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing said decree is, as here, sufficient.
It bears to stress that the existence of the divorce decree has not been denied, but in fact admitted by both parties. And neither did they impeach the jurisdiction of the divorce court nor challenge the validity of its proceedings on the ground of collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of fact or law, albeit both appeared to have the opportunity to do so. The same holds true with respect to the decree of partition of their conjugal property. As the records show, Rebecca, assisted by counsel, personally secured the foreign divorce while Vicente was duly represented by his counsel, a certain Dr. Alejandro Torrens, in said proceedings. As things stand, the foreign divorce decrees rendered and issued by the Dominican Republic court are valid and, consequently, bind both Rebecca and Vicente.
Finally, the fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognized as a Filipino citizen by force of the June 8, 2000 affirmation by Secretary of Justice Tuquero of the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition will not, standing alone, work to nullify or invalidate the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American citizen on February 22, 1996. For as we stressed at the outset, in determining whether or not a divorce secured abroad would come within the pale of the country’s policy against absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.
Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by Rebecca, the same shall be given a res judicata effect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the divorce decree obtained, the marital vinculum between Rebecca and Vicente is considered severed; they are both freed from the bond of matrimony. Consequent to the dissolution of the marriage, Vicente could no longer be subject to a husband’s obligation under the Civil Code. Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it is abundantly clear to the Court that Rebecca lacks, under the premises, cause of action. The Court to be sure does not lose sight of the legal obligation of Vicente and Rebecca to support the needs of their daughter, Alix. At any rate, we do note that Alix, having been born on November 27, 1982, reached the majority age on November 27, 2000, or four months before her mother initiated her petition for declaration of nullity. Hence, the issue of back support, which allegedly had been partly shouldered by Rebecca, is best litigated in a separate civil action for reimbursement.