1. How is nationality determined or acquired?

Answer: States determine the law which applies in the acquisition of one’s
nationality. In the Philippines, the constitution follows the doctrine of Jus Sanguinis
in the manner of acquiring citizenship, thus:

The following are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

2. A and B, Filipinos, married sometime in 1995. when B went abroad, he

acquired US citizenship. Years later, B secured a divorce decree and
subsequently remarried. Can A file for the recognition of the decree where
there is no divorce in the Philippines?

Answer: Yes. Art. 26 (2) of the Family Code provides that “Where a 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 or her to
remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”

This provision applies despite the fact that the marriage was celebrated at the time
that the spouses were both Filipinos. The case of Obrecido answers this legal
question, thus: the Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the
other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of marriage. The
purpose of par. 2 of Art. 26 is to avoid situation where the Filipino spouse remains
married to alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the
country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.

3. A and B, Filipinos, married in Japan. After a decade of marriage, the spouses

secured a divorce decree. What is now their status in the eyes of the Philippine
Law? Are they considered married or not?

Answer: The spouses are still married under the Philippine Laws.

When the Filipino spouses celebrated the marriage abroad, the marriage is
recognized as valid here in the Philippines. Art. 26 of the Family Code provides that
“All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in
force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also
be valid in this country.”

Thus, their status as married to each other shall bind them under the Philippine law
(Art 15, NCC) despite the divorce decree (which is against public policy.) Thus,
Article 17 provides that “[…] Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by
determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.”

4. Helen left the Philippines to work in Saudi Arabia. At work she met Pedro a
fellow Filipino who had become naturalize Saudi Citizen. They fell in love, got
married, and had one daughter. A few years later, Helen, who is now a
naturalized Saudi Citizen, divorced Pedro and got married to another Saudi
national, named Carlo. After marriage, Helen and her daughter with Carlo
came back to the Philippines. When Carlo refused to give support to Helen,
the latter filed a nullity case under Art. 36 of the Family Code against Carlo.
Will her case prosper?

Answer: No. Notice that Helen is a Saudi National and so is his spouse, Carlo. Under
the Nationality Principle provided by Article 15 of the Family Code, Helen is
governed by her national law. Thus, the petitioner cannot invoke Article 36 of the
Family Code unless there is a Saudi law that allows Helen to do so.

5. Is the divorce between Helen and her first husband, Pedro, recognized in
the Philippines?

Answer: Yes. Yes. Under Art. 26 (2) of the Family Code, “Where a 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 or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”

6. James and peter, both Americans, came to the Philippines to retire. They are
married for 15 years. After a decade of living in Baguio, they got themselves
naturalized. Is their marriage valid in the Philippines?

Answer. No. As they are both Filipinos now, their national law which is the
Philippine law now applies. Art. 17 (3) of the Family Code provides that “Prohibitive
laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their
object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.”

7. Maria, a Filipino, married Lukas, a Mexican. Later, Lucas secured a divorce

decree in Mexico. Years later, after learning that Maria is now living under on
roof with a certain Pablo, Lukas filed in the RTC of Pasig a suit for adultery. Will
the case prosper?

Answer: No. Only the offended spouse and no other, is authorized by law to initiate
the action for adultery. The status of the complainant in relation to the accused must
be determined as of the time of the complaint was filed. And by virtue of the divorce
decree, Lukas cannot properly institute an adultery case for lack of capacity to sue.
(Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera GR NO. 80116, June 30, 1989)

8. Lisa, the Filipino wife and her Malaysian husband jointly filed for divorce
which was subsequently granted. She later on filed for the recognition of the
divorce decree and declaration of her capacity to remarry. The OSG opposed
it on the ground that being a Filipino, she is prohibited secure a divorce even
if living abroad. Is the contention proper?

Answer: No. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 speaks of “a divorce […] validly obtained

abroad by the alien spiuse capacitating him or her to remarry.” Based on a clear and
plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly
obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse
should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce was
granted. Hence, to make a distinction between them based on the superficial
difference of whether they initiated the divorce proceedings or not is utterly unfair.
Indeed, the treatment gives undue favor to one and unjustly discriminates against
the other. (Medina v. Koike)

9. Mario, a Mexican, executed his last will and testament in the Philippines. He
excluded from the will his son who is a Filipino because he believed that under
the Mexican Law, he can choose who to exclude even his legitimate child. Will
the court admit the will to probate?

Answer: Yes, provided that the will conforms with the formalities of the Philippine
Law on Wills as Art. 17 of the NCC provides that “the forms and solemnities of
contracts, wills and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the
country in which they are executed.”

Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Mario are issues best
proved by the law of Mexico, which must be pleaded and proved. In Pilapil v. Ibay-
Somera, the court enunciated that “the trial court should note that whatever public
policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitime, Congress did
not intend to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress
specifically left the amount of successional rights to the decedent’s national law.”

10. A Filipina married a Chinese national. When the Chinese man went back to
China, the Filipina wife stopped receiving support. She filed a case compelling
the Chinese Man to give support. It is the contention of the defendant that
under the Chinese law, a man who goes abroad cannot be compelled to render
support. Will the case prosper?

Answer: No. Even assuming that the law was proved as fact, it cannot be applied
for being contrary to Philippine Law. While indeed the Chinese man is subject to
the laws of his country with respect to his obligation to give support to his child, this
does not preclude the Filipina wife from claiming support.

As laid down in the cases of Yao Kee, et al v. Sy-Gonzales, said foreign law would
not find applicability. “Thus, when the foreign law, judgment, or contract is contrary
to sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment
or order shall not be applied.” To do otherwise would result to great injustice to the
child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.