Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations
Topic: Binding Effect
Relevant Article/s: Art 15 of the Civil Code
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.
Art 26(2) of the Family Code, as amended by E.O.
227
Where the 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/her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall likewise have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law.
Imelda Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera and Erich
Geiling
174 SCRA 653, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989
Ponente: Justice Regalado
Facts:
 Petitioner Imelda Pilapil married private
respondent Erich Geiling in Germany in
1979.
 The couple resided in the Philippines and
had one child.
 Due to marital discord with mutual
recriminations between spouses, separation
de facto followed
 After 3.5 years of marriage, respondent
Geiling initiated divorce proceedings against
his wife before a German court citing the
failure of their marriage and they were living
separately since April 1982.
 In 1983, petitioner also filed an action for
legal separation, support, and separation
property which was still pending before the
RTC Manila.
 In 1986, divorce decree was promulgated by
the German court and the custody of their
only child was given to the petitioner.
 Records show that the German court was
locally and internationally competent for the
divorce proceeding and that the dissolution
of said marriage was legally founded on and
authorized by the applicable law of that
foreign jurisdiction.
 More than 5 months after the promulgation
of the divorce decree, respondent then filed
2 complaints of adultery against the
petitioner. He alleged that while still married,
the petitioner had an affair with two different
men.
 A Motion to Quash was filed by the petitioner
but denied by the respondent judge.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondent Erich
Geiling has legal standing in the case
Ruling/s:
 NO, private respondent has no legal
standing in this case
 Art 15 of the Civil Code states that 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.
 Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal
Code, 17 the crime of adultery, as well as
four other crimes against chastity, cannot be
prosecuted except upon a sworn written
complaint filed by the offended spouse.
 The law specifically provides that in
prosecutions for adultery and concubinage
the person who can legally file the complaint
should be the offended spouse, and nobody
else.
 Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code thus
presupposes that the marital relationship is
still subsisting at the time of the institution of
the criminal action for, adultery.
 It is indispensable that the status and
capacity of the complainant to commence
the action be definitely established and as
already demonstrated, such status or
capacity must indubitably exist as of the
time he initiates the action.
 In Van Dorn v Romillo, Jr., pursuant to the
respondent’s national law, he is no longer
the husband of petitioner. He would have no
standing to sue in the case below as
petitioner's husband.
Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice
Regalado, ruled that private respondent, being
no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal
standing to commence the adultery case under
the imposture that he was the offended spouse
at the time he filed suit.
DOCTRINE: