100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 21 - 23 out of 51 pages.
Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by Rebecca, the sameshall be given a res judicataeffect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of thedivorce decree obtained, the marital vinculum between Rebecca and Vicente isconsidered severed; they are both freed from the bond of matrimony. In plainlanguage, Vicente and Rebecca are no longer husband and wife to each other.Consequent to the dissolution of the marriage, Vicente could no longer besubject to a husband's obligation under the Civil Code. He cannot, for instance, beobliged to live with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to Rebecca.In Republic v. Orbecido III, we spelled out the twin elements for theapplicability of the second paragraph of Art. 26, thus:x x x [W]e state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 ofArticle 26 as follows:1.There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizenand a foreigner; and2.A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him orher to remarry.The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of thecelebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce isobtained abroadby the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.The petitioner lacks a cause of action for declaration of nullity of marriage, asuit which presupposes the existence of a marriage. With the valid foreign divorcesecured by Rebecca, there is no more marital tie binding her to Vicente. There is infine no more marriage to be dissolved or nullified.Remo v. Secretary of Foreign AffairsFacts: Maria Virginia V. Remo is a married Filipino citizen whose Philippine passportwas expiring. Her passport stated her name as “Maria Virginia Remo Rallonza” (hergiven name, middle name, and husband’s last name). Remo, whose marriage stillsubsists, applied for the renewal of her passport with the Department of ForeignAffairs (DFA) with a request to revert to her maiden name and surname in thereplacement passport.Page 21of51
CIVREV DIGESTS – MIDTERMS (DEAN DEL CASTILLO)This was denied by the DFA on the ground that the use of one’s maidenname is allowed in passport applications only if the married name has not been usedin previous application. The Implementing Rules and Regulations for PhilippinePassport Act of 1996 (RA 8239) clearly define the conditions when a woman applicantmay revert to her maiden name, that is, only in cases of annulment of marriage,divorce and death of the husband.Remo contends that Art. 370 of the Civil Code states that the use of ahusband’s surname is permissive and thus she should be able to use her maidenname in her passport. The Office of the President, then the CA, however did notagree with her.