FACTS

Manalo filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese court.

The trial court denied the petition for lack of merit. It opined that under the nationality principle, Manalo’s cannot file a petition for divorce in court because they have no right to divorce. Hence, the divorce decree which she obtained under Japanese law cannot be given effect.

FACTS:

Gerbert R. Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen,  who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas. When he found that his wife was having an affair, Gerbert filed a petition for divorce in Canada; and was granted. 

After 2 years, Gerbert found a new love and decided to marry. He then filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved. RTC denied the petition and concluded that Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen.  It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, in order for him or her to be able to remarry under Philippine law.

Gerbert considers himself as a proper party, vested with sufficient legal interest, to institute the case, as there is a possibility that he might be prosecuted for bigamy if he marries his Filipina fiancée in the Philippines since two marriage certificates, involving him, would be on file with the Civil Registry Office.

FACTS:

Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter.

Myros left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. She had been naturalized as an American citizen, obtained divorce decree and married a certain Innocent Stanley.

Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied.

FACTS:

Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and Geiling, a German national, were married in Germany. The couple lived together for some time in Malate, Manila where their only child, Isabella Pilapil Geiling, was born on April 20, 1980.

On the grounds of alleged failure of their marriage, Geiling filed a divorce against Pilapil in Germany. The divorce of decree was granted. On the other hand, the petitioner filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geilingt filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that, while still married, Pilapil had an affair with 2 men.

Petitioner filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because Geiling does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint.