It held that Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree they obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former capacitating him to remarry. WN a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and.
Kzslprx1srgpwm
The CA ruled that Manalo should have the right to remarry.
Manalo case article 26. Manalo went to court in Dagupan in the Philippines to have her divorce recognized here. In the recent case of Republic v. She then went to the Court of Appeals CA where she scored a victory in 2014.
In view of the legislative intent behind Article 26 it would be the height of injustice to consider Manalo as still married to the Japanese national who is no longer married to her. Manalo1 Manalo that Article 26 2 of the Family Code had been crafted to serve as an exception to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code. The fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce case is inconsequential.
It applied the amended Article 262 of the Family Code. It was held that Article 26 of the Family Code should apply even if it was Manalo a Filipino who filed for divorce. The CA ruled that Manalo should have the right to remarry.
Manalo the Court extended the application of Article 26 2 of the Family Code to further cover mixed marriages where it was the Filipino citizen who divorced hisher foreign spouse. Because the Japanese husband is now no longer married to the respondent it would be unjust to still consider the respondent to be married to him. However like other provisions in an entire code this article does not operate in a vacuum.
And ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING respondents. Former president Corazon Aquino issued an executive order that amended the. It applied the amended Article 26 2 of the Family Code.
IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL petitioner vs. In the case of Marelyn Tanedo Manalo the court noted Article 26 2 of the Family Code which 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 likewise have the capacity to remarry under. The issue resolved by the Court is whether under Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry.
It held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines Family Code is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree they obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former capacitating him to remarry. In the Family Code of the Philippines Family Code the sole provision that talks about divorce and of Filipino citizens possibly benefitting from this manner of severing marriage is Article 26. He then had the capacity to remarry.
Pertinent portions of the ruling read. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 clearly confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage. WN a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and.
Manalo Manalo20 the Court En Banc extended the application of Article 26 2 of the Family Code to further cover mixed marriages where it was the Filipino citizen who divorced hisher foreign spouse. According to Article 26 paragraph 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 incapacitating him or her to remarry the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law Issues. It would be unjust to still deem Manalo married to the Japanese who in turn was no longer married to her.
In view of the legislative intent behind Article 26 it would be the height of injustice to consider Manalo as still married to the Japanese national who is no longer married to her. The trial court in Dagupan denied her petition. On appeal the Court of Appeals CA overturned the RTC decision.
It held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines Family Code is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree they obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former capacitating him to remarry. The Court of Appeals overturned the Regional Trial Court decision holding that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines is applicable even if it was the respondent who filed for divorce. The issue resolved by the Court is whether under Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines a Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry.
The Courts unanimous decision in holding Article 26 paragraph 2 of the Family Code be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and remarried also to remarry under Philippine law. 80116 June 30 1989. However in the recent case of Republic v.
The fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce case is inconsequential. By needlessly limiting the application of the nationality rule and by resorting to judicial legislation. The decree made the Japanese spouse no longer married to Manalo.
It held that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines Family Code is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree may obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former capacitating him to remarry. VICTOR in his capacity as the City Fiscal of Manila. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch XXVI.
CASE DIGEST Article 26. As Article 15 preceded Article 26 the case which is widely believed to have triggered the amendment of.
60th Birthday Balloons 60th Birthday Decorations Birthday Balloons 60th Birthday Balloons
Tidak ada komentar