CostsagainstappellantDanteNueva.SOORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio­Morales, Tinga andVelasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Note.—Proof of previous engagement among themalefactors to commit the crimewould be unnecessary toestablish conspiracywhen by their overt acts it would bededucedthattheyconductedthemselvesinconcertwithoneanother.(People vs. Cariño,432SCRA57[2004])

——o0o——

G.R.No.155635. November7,2008.*

MARIAREBECCAMAKAPUGAYBAYOT,petitioner,vs.

THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSandVICENTEMADRIGALBAYOT,respondents.

G.R.No.163979. November7,2008.*

MARIAREBECCAMAKAPUGAYBAYOT,petitioner,vs.

VICENTEMADRIGALBAYOT,respondent.

Family Code; Marriages; Divorce; A foreign divorce can be

recognized here, provided the divorce decree is proven as a fact and

as valid under the national law of the alien spouse.—TheCourthastakenstockoftheholdinginGarcia v. Recio thataforeigndivorcecanberecognizedhere,providedthedivorcedecree isprovenasafactandasvalidunderthenationallawofthealienspouse.Bethisasitmay,thefactthatRebeccawasclearlyanAmericancitizen

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

473

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 473

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

when she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized andallowedinanyoftheStatesoftheUnion,thepresentationofacopyofforeigndivorcedecreeduly authenticatedbytheforeigncourtissuingsaiddecreeis,ashere,sufficient.

Remedial Law; Actions; Causes of Action; Concept and elements

of a cause of action.—Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it isabundantly clear to the Court that Rebecca lacks, under thepremises, cause of action. Philippine Bank of Communications v.

Trazo,500SCRA242(2006),explainstheconceptandelementsofacauseofaction,thus:Acauseofactionisanactoromissionofonepartyinviolationofthelegalrightoftheother.Amotiontodismissbasedon lackof causeofactionhypotheticallyadmits the truthoftheallegationsinthecomplaint.Theallegationsinacomplaintaresufficient to constitutea cause of actionagainst thedefendants if,hypothetically admitting the facts alleged, the court can render avalid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayertherein. A cause of action exists if the following elements arepresent, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatevermeans and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) anobligationon thepartof thenameddefendant to respectornot toviolate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of suchdefendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting abreachof theobligationof thedefendanttotheplaintiff forwhichthelattermaymaintainanactionforrecoveryofdamages.

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of theCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Zulueta, Puno & Associates forpetitioner. Meer, Meer & Meer and Villaraza & Angangco for

respondentV.M.Bayot.

VELASCO,JR., J.:

The Case

Before us are these two petitions interposed by petitionerMariaRebeccaMakapugayBayotimpugningcertainissu­

474

474 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

anceshandedoutbytheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCA­G.R.SPNo.68187.

Inthefirst,apetitionforcertiorari1underRule65anddocketedasG.R. No. 155635, Rebecca assailsandseekstonullify the April 30, 2002 Resolution2 of the CA, asreiterated in another Resolution of September 2, 2002,3

grantingawritofpreliminaryinjunctioninfavorofprivaterespondent Vicente Madrigal Bayot staving off the trialcourt’sgrantofsupportpendente litetoRebecca.

The second, a petition for review under Rule 45,4

docketed G.R. No. 163979, assails the March 25, 2004Decision5oftheCA,(1)dismissingCivilCaseNo.01­094,asuit for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage withapplication for support commenced by Rebecca againstVicente before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) inMuntinlupaCity;and(2)settingasidecertainordersandaresolutionissuedbytheRTCinthesaidcase.

PeritsResolutionofAugust11,2004,theCourtorderedtheconsolidationofbothcases.

The Facts

VicenteandRebeccaweremarriedonApril20,1979inSanctuariodeSanJose,Greenhills,MandaluyongCity.Onits face, theMarriageCertificate6 identifiedRebecca, then26 years old, to be an American citizen7 born in Agana,Guam,

_______________

1Rollo(G.R.No.155635),pp.3­34.

2 Id., at pp. 36­38. Penned by Associate, now Presiding, Justice

ConradoM.Vasquez,Jr.andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesAndres

B.Reyes,Jr.andMarioL.GuariñaIII.

3Id.,atpp.40­41.

4Rollo(G.R.No.163979),pp.10­43.

5Id.,atpp.575­583.

6Id.,atp.145.

7SeeCertificationofBirthfromtheGovernmentofGuamissuedon

June1,2000;Rollo(G.R.No.155635),p.213.

475

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 475

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

USAtoCesarTanchiongMakapugay,American,andHelenCornMakapugay,American.

On November 27, 1982 in San Francisco, California,RebeccagavebirthtoMarieJosephineAlexandraorAlix.From then on,Vicente andRebecca’smarital relationshipseemed to have soured as the latter, sometime in 1996,initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic.Before the Court of the First Instance of the JudicialDistrict of Santo Domingo, Rebecca personally appeared,while Vicente was duly represented by counsel. OnFebruary 22, 1996, the Dominican court issued Civil

Decree No. 362/96,8orderingthedissolutionofthecouple’smarriageand“leavingthemtoremarryaftercompletingthelegal requirements,” but giving them joint custody andguardianshipoverAlix.Overayear later, the samecourtwouldissueCivilDecree No. 406/97,9settlingthecouple’sproperty relations pursuant to an Agreement10 theyexecutedonDecember14,1996.Saidagreementspecificallystated that the “conjugal property which they acquiredduring their marriage consist[s] only of the real propertyandall the improvements andpersonal properties thereincontainedat502AcaciaAvenue,Alabang,Muntinlupa.”11

Meanwhile,onMarch14,1996,orlessthanamonthfromtheissuanceofCivilDecreeNo.362/96,RebeccafiledwiththeMakatiCityRTCapetition12datedJanuary26,1996,with attachments, for declaration of nullity of marriage,docketedasCivilCaseNo.96­378.Rebecca,however,latermoved13and

_______________

8Rollo (G.R.No.163979),pp.146­150.

9Id.,atpp.214­217.

10Rollo(G.R.No.155635),pp.151­158.

11Id.,atp.154.

12Rollo(G.R.No.163979),pp.206­212.

13Id.,atpp.305­306.PeramotiontowithdrawdatedNovember8,

1996.

476

476 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

securedapproval14ofthemotiontowithdrawthepetition.On May 29, 1996, Rebecca executed an Affidavit of

Acknowledgment15 stating under oath that she is anAmerican citizen; that, since 1993, she and Vicente havebeenlivingseparately;andthatsheiscarryingachildnotofVicente.

OnMarch21,2001,Rebecca filedanotherpetition, thistime before the Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration ofabsolute nullity of marriage16 on the ground of Vicente’sallegedpsychologicalincapacity.DocketedasCivilCaseNo.01­094andentitledasMaria Rebecca Makapugay Bayot v.

Vicente Madrigal Bayot,thepetitionwaseventuallyraffledtoBranch256of the court. In it,Rebeccaalso sought thedissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains withapplication for support pendente lite for her and Alix.Rebecca also prayed that Vicente be ordered to pay apermanentmonthlysupport fortheirdaughterAlix intheamountofPhP220,000.

OnJune8,2001,VicentefiledaMotiontoDismiss17on,inter alia,thegroundsoflackofcauseofactionandthatthepetitionisbarredbythepriorjudgmentofdivorce.Earlier,onJune5,2001,Rebeccafiledandmovedfortheallowanceofherapplicationforsupportpendente lite.

To the motion to dismiss, Rebecca interposed anopposition,insistingonherFilipinocitizenship,asaffirmedby the Department of Justice (DOJ), and that, therefore,thereisnovaliddivorcetospeakof.

Meanwhile,Vicente,whohad in the interimcontractedanothermarriage,andRebeccacommencedseveralcriminalcomplaints against each other. Specifically, Vicente filedadulteryandperjurycomplaintsagainstRebecca.Rebecca,on the other hand, charged Vicente with bigamy andconcubinage.

_______________

14Id.,atp.213.PerOrderofJudgeJosefinaGuevaraSalongadated

November14,1996.

15Id.,atpp.236­237.

16Id.,atpp.126­144.

17Id.,atpp.156­204.

477

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 477

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

Ruling of the RTC on the Motion to Dismiss

and Motion for Support Pendente Lite

OnAugust8,2001,theRTCissuedanOrder18denyingVicente’s motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 01­094 andgranting Rebecca’s application for support pendente lite,disposingasfollows:

“Wherefore, premises considered, theMotion toDismiss filed bythe respondent is DENIED. Petitioner’s Application in Support ofthe Motion for Support Pendente Lite is hereby GRANTED.Respondent is hereby ordered to remit the amount of TWOHUNDREDANDTWENTYTHOUSANDPESOS(Php220,000.00)amonthtoPetitionerassupportforthedurationoftheproceedingsrelativetotheinstantPetition.

SOORDERED.”19

TheRTCdeclared,amongotherthings,thatthedivorcejudgment invoked by Vicente as bar to the petition fordeclaration of absolute nullity of marriage is a matter ofdefensebesttakenupduringactualtrial.Astothegrantofsupport pendente lite, the trial court held that a mereallegationofadulteryagainstRebeccadoesnotoperate toprecludeherfromreceivinglegalsupport.

Followingthedenial20ofhismotionforreconsiderationoftheaboveAugust8,2001RTCorder,Vicentewent to theCAonapetitionforcertiorari,withaprayerfortheissuanceof a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ ofpreliminaryinjunction.21HispetitionwasdocketedasCA­G.R.SPNo.68187.

_______________

18Id.,atpp.123­124.PennedbyPresidingJudgeAlbertoL.Lerma.

19Id.,atp.338.

20Id.,atp.125.PerOrderdatedNovember20,2001.

21Rollo(G.R.No.155635),pp.512­590.

478

478 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

Grant of Writ of Preliminary Injunction by the CA

OnJanuary 9, 2002, theCA issued the desiredTRO.22

On April 30, 2002, the appellate court granted, via aResolution,theissuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunction,thedecretalportionofwhichreads:

“INVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,pendingfinalresolutionof the petition at bar, let the Writ of Preliminary Injunction beISSUED in this case, enjoining the respondent court fromimplementing the assailed Omnibus Order dated August 8, 2001and the Order dated November 20, 2001, and from conductingfurtherproceedingsinCivilCaseNo.01­094,uponthepostingofaninjunctionbondintheamountofP250,000.00.

SOORDERED.”23

Rebeccamoved24 butwas denied reconsideration of theaforementionedApril30,2002resolution.Inthemeantime,on May 20, 2002, the preliminary injunctive writ25 wasissued. Rebecca also moved for reconsideration of thisissuance, but the CA, by Resolution dated September 2,2002,deniedhermotion.

The adverted CA resolutions of April 30, 2002 andSeptember2,2002arepresentlybeingassailedinRebecca’spetitionforcertiorari,docketedunderG.R. No. 155635.

Ruling of the CA

Pending resolution ofG.R. No. 155635, the CA, by aDecisiondatedMarch25, 2004, effectivelydismissedCivilCaseNo. 01­094, and set aside incidental orders theRTCissued in relation to the case. The fallo of the presentlyassailedCADecisionreads:

_______________

22Id.,atpp.592­593.

23Id.,atp.38.

24Id.,atpp.852­869.

25Id.,atpp.850­851.

479

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 479

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED.The Omnibus Order dated August 8, 2001 and the Order datedNovember 20, 2001 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a newoneenteredDISMISSINGCivilCaseNo.01­094,forfailuretostateacauseofaction.Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.”26

To the CA, the RTC ought to have granted Vicente’smotiontodismissonthebasisofthefollowingpremises:

(1) Asheld inChina Road and Bridge Corporation v.

Court of Appeals,thehypothetical­admissionruleappliesindeterminingwhetheracomplaintorpetitionstatesacauseofaction.27Applyingsaid rule in the lightof theessentialelements of a cause of action,28 Rebecca had no cause ofactionagainstVicentefordeclarationofnullityofmarriage.

(2) Rebecca no longer had a legal right in thisjurisdiction to have her marriage with Vicente declaredvoid, the union having previously been dissolved onFebruary 22, 1996 by the foreign divorce decree shepersonallysecuredasanAmericancitizen.Pursuanttothesecond paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, suchdivorce restored Vicente’s capacity to contract anothermarriage.

(3) Rebecca’scontentionaboutthenullityofadivorce,shebeingaFilipinocitizenatthetimetheforeigndivorcedecreewasrendered,wasdubious.HerallegationastoherallegedFilipinocitizenshipwasalsodoubtfulasitwasnotshownthather father,atthetimeofherbirth,wasstillaFilipinocitizen.TheCertificationofBirthofRebeccaissuedbythe

_______________

26Supranote5,atp.583.

27G.R.No.137898,December15,2000,348SCRA401,409.

28Enumerated inSan Lorenzo Village Association, Inc. v. Court of

Appeals, G.R.No. 116825March 26, 1998, 288 SCRA 115, 125: (1) the

legalrightoftheplaintiff,(2)thecorrelativeobligationofthedefendant,

and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal

right.

480

480 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

GovernmentofGuamalsodidnotindicatethenationalityofherfather.

(4) Rebeccawas estopped from denying her Americancitizenship,havingprofessedtohavethatnationalitystatusand having made representations to that effect duringmomentous events of her life, such as: (a) during hermarriage;(b)whensheappliedfordivorce;and(c)whensheappliedforandeventuallysecuredanAmericanpassportonJanuary18,1995,oralittleoverayearbeforesheinitiatedthe first but later withdrawn petition for nullity of hermarriage(CivilCaseNo.96­378)onMarch14,1996.

(5) Assumingthatshehaddualcitizenship,beingbornofapurportedlyFilipinofatherinGuam,USAwhichfollowsthejus soliprinciple,Rebecca’srepresentationandassertionabout being an American citizen when she secured herforeigndivorceprecludedherfromdenyinghercitizenshipandimpugningthevalidityofthedivorce.

Rebeccaseasonablyfiledamotionforreconsiderationofthe above Decision, but this recourse was denied in theequally assailed June 4, 2004 Resolution.29 Hence,Rebecca’sPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45,docketedunderG.R. No. 163979.

The Issues

InG.R. No. 155635,Rebeccaraisesfour(4)assignmentsoferrorsasgroundsfortheallowanceofherpetition,allofwhich converged on the proposition that the CA erred inenjoining the implementation of the RTC’s orders whichwouldhaveentitledhertosupportpendingfinalresolutionofCivilCaseNo.01­094.

InG.R. No. 163979, Rebecca urges the reversal of theassailedCAdecisionsubmittingasfollows:

_______________

29Rollo(G.R.No.163979),p.597.

481

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 481

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

ITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOTMENTIONING AND NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION INITS APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS THE FACT OFPETITIONER’S FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP AS CATEGORICALLYSTATED AND ALLEGED IN HER PETITION BEFORE THECOURTA QUO.

IITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYINGONLYONANNEXES TO THE PETITION IN RESOLVING THEMATTERSBROUGHTBEFOREIT.

IIITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TOCONSIDER THAT RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED FROMCLAIMING THAT HIS MARRIAGE TO PETITIONER HADALREADY BEEN DISSOLVED BY VIRTUE OF HISSUBSEQUENTANDCONCURRENTACTS.

IVTHECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINRULINGTHATTHEREWASABUSEOFDISCRETIONONTHEPARTOFTHETRIALCOURT,MUCHLESSAGRAVEABUSE.30

WeshallfirstaddressthepetitioninG.R.No.163979,itsoutcomebeingdeterminativeofthesuccessorfailureofthepetitioninG.R.No.155635.

Three legal premises need to be underscored at theoutset. First,adivorceobtainedabroadbyanalienmarriedto a Philippine national may be recognized in thePhilippines,providedthedecreeofdivorceisvalidaccordingtothenationallawoftheforeigner.31Second,thereckoningpointisnotthecitizenshipofthedivorcingpartiesatbirthoratthetimeofmarriage,buttheircitizenshipatthetimeavalid divorce is obtained abroad. And third, an absolutedivorcesecuredbya

_______________

30Id.,atpp.22­23.

31Garcia v. Recio,G.R.No.138322,October2,2001,366SCRA437,

447.

482

482 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

Filipino married to another Filipino is contrary to ourconcept of public policy and morality and shall not berecognizedinthisjurisdiction.32

Giventheforegoingperspective,thedeterminativeissuetendered in G.R. No. 155635, i.e., the propriety of thegranting of the motion to dismiss by the appellate court,resolvesitselfintothequestionsof:first,whetherpetitionerRebecca was a Filipino citizen at the time the divorcejudgment was rendered in the Dominican Republic onFebruary 22, 1996; and second, whether the judgment ofdivorce is valid and, if so, what are its consequent legaleffects?

The Court’s Ruling

Thepetitionisbereftofmerit.Rebecca an American Citizen in the Purview of This

Case

TherecanbenoseriousdisputethatRebecca,atthetimesheappliedforandobtainedherdivorcefromVicente,wasanAmericancitizenandremainstobeone,absentproofofan effective repudiation of such citizenship. The followingare compelling circumstances indicative of her Americancitizenship:(1)shewasborninAgana,Guam,USA;(2)theprinciple of jus soli is followed in this American territorygrantingAmericancitizenshiptothosewhoarebornthere;and(3)shewas,andmaystillbe,aholderofanAmericanpassport.33

And as aptly found by the CA, Rebecca had consistentlyprofessed,asserted,andrepresentedherselfasanAmericancitizen, particularly: (1) during hermarriage as shown inthemarriagecertificate; (2) in thebirthcertificateofAlix;and (3)whenshe secured thedivorce from theDominicanRepublic.

_______________

32Llorente v. Court of Appeals,G.R.No.124371,November23,2000,

345SCRA592,600.

33Rollo (G.R.No.155635), pp. 388­389, issued onJanuary18, 1995

withexpirationdateonJanuary17,2005.

483

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 483

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

MentionmaybemadeoftheAffidavitofAcknowledgment34

inwhichshestatedbeinganAmericancitizen.ItistruethatRebeccahadbeenissuedbytheBureauof

Immigration(Bureau)ofIdentification(ID)CertificateNo.RC 9778 and a Philippine Passport. On its face, IDCertificateNo.RC 9778would tend to show that she hasindeed been recognized as a Filipino citizen. It cannot beover­emphasized,however,thatsuchrecognitionwasgivenonlyonJune8,2000upontheaffirmationbytheSecretaryofJusticeofRebecca’srecognitionpursuanttotheOrderofRecognition issued by Bureau Associate CommissionerEdgarL.Mendoza.

For clarity, we reproduce in full the contents of IDCertificateNo.RC9778:

ToWhomItMayConcern:This is to certify that *MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY

BAYOT*whosephotographandthumbprintsareaffixedheretoandpartially covered by the seal of this Office, and whose otherparticularsareasfollows:PlaceofBirth:Guam,USADateofBirth:March5,1953Sex:femaleCivilStatus:marriedColorofHair:brownColorofEyes:brownDistinguishingmarksonface:nonewas–recognized–asacitizenofthePhilippinesasperpursuanttoArticle IV, Section 1, Paragraph 3 of the 1935 Constitution perorderofRecognitionJBL95­213signedbyAssociateCommissionerJose B. Lopez dated October 6, 1995, and duly affirmed bySecretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuquero in his 1st IndorsementdatedJune8,2000.

Issued for identification purposes only. NOT VALID for travelpurposes.

Givenundermyhandandsealthis11thdayofOctober,1995(SGD)EDGARL.MENDOZA

ASSO.COMMISSIONER

_______________

34Supranote15.

484

484 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

OfficialReceiptNo.5939988issuedatManiladatedOct.10,1995forP2,000

From the text of ID Certificate No. RC 9778, the

following material facts and dates may be deduced: (1)BureauAssociate Commissioner Jose B. Lopez issued theOrder of Recognition on October 6, 1995; (2) the 1stIndorsement of Secretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuqueroaffirming Rebecca’s recognition as a Filipino citizen wasissuedonJune 8, 2000oralmostfiveyearsfromthedateoftheorderofrecognition;and(3)IDCertificateNo.RC9778was purportedly issued on October 11, 1995 after thepaymentofthePhP2,000feeonOctober10,1995perORNo.5939988.

What begs the question is, however, how the abovecertificatecouldhavebeenissuedbytheBureauonOctober11,1995whentheSecretaryofJusticeissuedtherequiredaffirmationonlyonJune8,2000.Noexplanationwasgivenforthispatentaberration.Thereseemstobenoerrorwiththedateoftheissuanceofthe1stIndorsementbySecretaryofJusticeTuqueroasthisCourttakesjudicialnoticethathewas the Secretary of Justice from February 16, 2000 toJanuary22,2001.There is, thus,astrongvalidreason toconcludethatthecertificateinquestionmustbespurious.

Under extant immigration rules, applications forrecognitionofFilipinocitizenshiprequiretheaffirmationbytheDOJoftheOrderofRecognitionissuedbytheBureau.Under Executive Order No. 292, also known as the 1987

Administrative Code,specificallyinitsTitleIII,Chapter1,Sec. 3(6), it is the DOJ which is tasked to “provideimmigration and naturalization regulatory services andimplement the laws governing citizenship and theadmissionandstayofaliens.”Thus,theconfirmationbytheDOJ of any Order of Recognition for Filipino citizenshipissuedbytheBureauisrequired.

485

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 485

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

Pertinently,BureauLaw InstructionNo.RBR­99­00235

onRecognitionasaFilipinoCitizenclearlyprovides:

“TheBureau [of Immigration] through itsRecordsSectionshallautomatically furnishtheDepartmentofJusticeanofficialcopyofitsOrderofRecognitionwithin72daysfromitsdateofapprovalbythe way of indorsement for confirmation of the Order by theSecretary of Justice pursuant to Executive Order No. 292. No

Identification Certificate shall be issued before the date of

confirmation by the Secretary of Justice and anyIdentification Certificate issued by the Bureau pursuant to anOrderofRecognitionshallprominentlyindicatethereonthedateofconfirmationbytheSecretaryofJustice.”(Emphasisours.)

NotlostontheCourtistheacquisitionbyRebeccaofherPhilippinepassportonlyonJune13,2000,orfivedaysafterthen Secretary of Justice Tuquero issued the 1stIndorsementconfirmingtheorderofrecognition.Itmaybetoomuchtoattributetocoincidencethisunusualsequenceof close eventswhich, to us, clearly suggests that prior tosaid affirmation or confirmation, Rebecca was not yetrecognizedasaFilipinocitizen.ThesamesequencewouldalsoimplythatIDCertificateNo.RC9778couldnothavebeenissuedin1995,asBureauLawInstructionNo.RBR­99­002mandates thatno identification certificate shall beissued before the date of confirmation by theSecretary ofJustice.Logically,therefore,theaffirmationorconfirmationofRebecca’srecognitionasaFilipinocitizenthroughthe1stIndorsement issued only on June 8, 2000 by Secretary ofJustice Tuquero corresponds to the eventual issuance ofRebecca’spassportafewdayslater,oronJune13,2000tobeexact.

When Divorce Was Granted Rebecca, She Was not

a Filipino Citizen and Was not Yet Recognized as

One

The Court can assume hypothetically that Rebecca isnowaFilipinocitizen.Butfromtheforegoingdisquisition,itisin­

_______________

35AdoptedonApril15,1999.

486

486 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

dubitable that Rebecca did not have that status of, or atleastwasnotyetrecognizedas,aFilipinocitizenwhenshesecuredtheFebruary22,1996judgmentofdivorcefromtheDominicanRepublic.

TheCourtnotesandatthisjuncturewishestopointoutthatRebeccavoluntarilywithdrewheroriginalpetitionfordeclarationofnullity(CivilCaseNo.96­378oftheMakatiCityRTC)obviouslybecauseshecouldnotshowproofofherallegedFilipinocitizenship then. In fact,aperusalof thatpetition shows that, while bearing the date January 26,1996,itwasonlyfiledwiththeRTConMarch14,1996orless thanamonthafterRebeccasecured,onFebruary22,1996,theforeigndivorcedecreeinquestion.Consequently,there was no mention about said divorce in the petition.Significantly, theonlydocumentsappendedasannexes tosaid original petition were: the Vicente­RebeccaMarriageContract (Annex“A”)andBirthCertificateofAlix (Annex“B”).IfindeedIDCertificateNo.RC9778fromtheBureauwastrulyissuedonOctober11,1995,isitnotbutlogicaltoexpectthatthispieceofdocumentbeappendedtoformpartofthepetition,thequestionofhercitizenshipbeingcrucialtohercase?

Asmaybenoted,thepetitionfordeclarationofabsolutenullity ofmarriage under Civil CaseNo. 01­094, like thewithdrawnfirstpetition,alsodidnothavetheIDCertificatefrom the Bureau as attachment. What were attachedconsisted of the following material documents: MarriageContract (Annex “A”) and Divorce Decree. It was onlythroughherOpposition(ToRespondent’sMotiontoDismissdated31May2001)36didRebeccaattachasAnnex“C”IDCertificateNo.RC9778.

Atanyrate,theCAwascorrectinholdingthattheRTChadsufficientbasistodismissthepetitionfordeclarationofabsolutenullityofmarriageassaidpetition,takentogetherwithVicente’smotiontodismissandRebecca’soppositionto

_______________

36Rollo(G.R.No.163979),pp.268­292.

487

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 487

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

motion,withtheirrespectiveattachments,clearlymadeoutacaseoflackofcauseofaction,whichwewillexpoundlater.

Validity of Divorce Decree

Goingtothesecondcoreissue,wefindCivilDecreeNos.362/96and406/97valid.

First, at the time of the divorce, as above elucidated,Rebeccawasstilltoberecognized,assumingforargumentthatshewas in fact laterrecognized,asaFilipinocitizen,butrepresentedherselfinpublicdocumentsasanAmericancitizen. At the very least, she chose, before, during, andshortly after her divorce, her American citizenship togovern her marital relationship. Second, she securedpersonallysaiddivorceasanAmericancitizen,asisevidentinthetextoftheCivilDecrees,whichpertinentlydeclared:

“INTHISACTIONFORDIVORCE inwhich theparties expresslysubmit to the jurisdiction of this court, by reason of the existingincompatibility of temperaments x x x. The parties MARIAREBECCAM.BAYOT,of United States nationality,42yearsofage, married, domiciled and residing at 502 Acacia Ave., AyalaAlabang, Muntin Lupa, Philippines, x x x, who personally

appeared before this court, accompanied by DR. JUANESTEBANOLIVERO, attorney, x x x andVICENTEMADRIGALBAYOT,ofPhilippinenationality, of43yearsofage,marriedanddomiciledandresidingat502AcaciaAve.,AyalaAlabang,MuntinLupa, Filipino, appeared before this court represented by DR.ALEJANDRO TORRENS, attorney, x x x, revalidated by specialpowerofattorneygiventhe19thofFebruaryof1996,signedbeforethe Notary Public Enrico L. Espanol of the City of Manila, dulylegalized and authorizinghim to subscribe all the acts concerningthiscase.”37(Emphasisours.)

Third,beinganAmericancitizen,RebeccawasboundbythenationallawsoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,acountrywhich allows divorce. Fourth, the property relations ofVicente and Rebecca were properly adjudicated throughtheir

_______________

37Id.,atpp.147,214­215.

488

488 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

Agreement38 executed on December 14, 1996 after CivilDecreeNo.362/96wasrenderedonFebruary22,1996,anddulyaffirmedbyCivilDecreeNo.406/97issuedonMarch4,1997.Veritably,theforeigndivorcesecuredbyRebeccawasvalid.

Tobesure, theCourthastakenstockof theholding inGarcia v. Recio that a foreign divorce can be recognizedhere,providedthedivorcedecreeisprovenasafactandasvalidunderthenationallawofthealienspouse.39Bethisasit may, the fact that Rebecca was clearly an Americancitizen when she secured the divorce and that divorce isrecognizedandallowedinanyoftheStatesoftheUnion,40

the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decreeduly

authenticatedbytheforeigncourtissuingsaiddecreeis,ashere,sufficient.

Itbearstostressthattheexistenceofthedivorcedecreehasnotbeendenied,but in factadmittedbybothparties.Andneitherdidtheyimpeachthejurisdictionofthedivorcecourt nor challenge the validity of its proceedings on theground of collusion, fraud, or clearmistake of fact or law,albeitbothappearedtohavetheopportunitytodoso.Thesame holds true with respect to the decree of partition oftheirconjugalproperty.AsthisCourtexplainedinRoehr v.

Rodriguez:

“Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreignjudgment [of divorce] x x x, it must be shown that the partiesopposedtothejudgmenthadbeengivenampleopportunitytodosoongroundsallowedunderRule39,Section50oftheRulesofCourt(nowRule39,Section48,1997RulesofCivilProcedure),towit:

SEC. 50. Effect of foreign judgments.—The effect of ajudgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, havingjurisdictiontopronouncethejudgmentisasfollows:

(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, thejudgmentisconclusiveuponthetitletothething;

_______________

38Supranote10.

39Supranote31.

40Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.,No.L­68470,October8,1985,139SCRA139,

143.

489

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 489

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

(b) Incaseofajudgmentagainstaperson,thejudgmentispresumptiveevidenceofarightasbetweenthepartiesandtheir successors in interest by a subsequent title; but thejudgment may be repelled by evidence of a want ofjurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, orclearmistakeoflaworfact.

It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challengethe foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction toproperly determine its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules ofCourt clearly provide thatwith respect to actions in personam, asdistinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merelyconstitutesprima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of apartyand,assuch,issubjecttoprooftothecontrary.”41

As the records show, Rebecca, assisted by counsel,personally secured the foreign divorce while Vicente wasduly represented by his counsel, a certain Dr. AlejandroTorrens, in said proceedings. As things stand, the foreigndivorce decrees rendered and issued by the DominicanRepublic court are valid and, consequently, bind bothRebeccaandVicente.

Finally, the fact that Rebecca may have been dulyrecognizedasaFilipinocitizenbyforceoftheJune8,2000affirmationbySecretaryofJusticeTuquerooftheOctober6, 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition will not, standingalone, work to nullify or invalidate the foreign divorcesecuredbyRebeccaasanAmericancitizenonFebruary22,1996. For as we stressed at the outset, in determiningwhetherornotadivorcesecuredabroadwouldcomewithinthepaleofthecountry’spolicyagainstabsolutedivorce,thereckoningpointisthecitizenshipofthepartiesatthetimeavaliddivorceisobtained.42

Legal Effects of the Valid Divorce

Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured byRebecca,thesameshallbegivenares judicataeffectinthis

_______________

41G.R.No.142820,June20,2003,404SCRA495,502­503.

42Id.,atpp.501­502.

490

490 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the divorce decreeobtained, the marital vinculum between Rebecca andVicenteisconsideredsevered;theyarebothfreedfromthebondofmatrimony.Inplainlanguage,VicenteandRebeccaarenolongerhusbandandwifetoeachother.Asthedivorcecourt formally pronounced: “[T]hat the marriage betweenMARIA REBECCA M. BAYOT and VICENTEMADRIGALBAYOT isherebydissolved x x x leaving

them free to remarry after completing the legal

requirements.”43

Consequent to the dissolution of themarriage, Vicentecouldnolongerbesubjecttoahusband’sobligationundertheCivilCode.He cannot, for instance, be obliged to livewith, observe respect and fidelity, and render support toRebecca.44

ThedivorcedecreeinquestionalsobringsintoplaythesecondparagraphofArt.26oftheFamilyCode,providingasfollows:

“Art. 26. xxxxWhereamarriagebetweenaFilipino citizenanda foreigner is

validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtainedabroadbythealienspousecapacitatinghimorhertoremarry,theFilipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry underPhilippinelaw.”(As amended by E.O. 227)

In Republic v. Orbecido III, we spelled out the twinelements for the applicability of the second paragraph ofArt.26,thus:

“x x x [W]e state the twin elements for the application ofParagraph2ofArticle26asfollows:

1. ThereisavalidmarriagethathasbeencelebratedbetweenaFilipinocitizenandaforeigner;and

2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spousecapacitatinghimorhertoremarry.

_______________

43Rollo(G.R.No.163979),pp.148,216.

44Van Dorn, supranote40,atp.144.

491

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 491

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at thetimeofthecelebrationofthemarriage,buttheircitizenshipat the

time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spousecapacitatingthelattertoremarry.”45

Both elements obtain in the instant case.WeneednotbelaborfurtherthefactofmarriageofVicenteandRebecca,their citizenship when they wed, and their professedcitizenshipduringthevaliddivorceproceedings.

NottobeoverlookedofcourseisthefactthatCivilDecreeNo. 406/97 and theAgreement executed onDecember 14,1996 bind both Rebecca and Vicente as regards theirproperty relations. The Agreement provided that the ex­couple’sconjugalpropertyconsistedonlytheirfamilyhome,thus:

“9. That the parties stipulate that the conjugal property

which they acquired during their marriage consists only of

the real property and all the improvements and personalpropertiesthereincontainedat502AcaciaAvenue,AyalaAlabang,Muntinlupa,coveredbyTCTNo.168301datedFeb.7,1990issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofMakati,MetroManilaregisteredinthenameofVicenteM.Bayot,married toRebeccaM.Bayot,xxx.”46

(Emphasisours.)

ThispropertysettlementembodiedintheAgreementwasaffirmedbythedivorcecourtwhich,per itsseconddivorcedecree, Civil Decree No. 406/97 dated March 4, 1997,ordered that, “THIRD: That the agreement entered intobetween the parties dated 14th day of December 1996 inMakatiCity,PhilippinesshallsurviveinthisJudgmentofdivorcebyreferencebutnotmergedandthatthepartiesarehereby ordered and directed to comply with each and

every provision of said agreement.”47

_______________

45G.R.No.154380,October5,2005,472SCRA114,122.

46Rollo(G.R.No.155635),p.154.

47Rollo(G.R.No.163979),p.215.

492

492 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

Rebecca has not repudiated the property settlementcontained in the Agreement. She is thus estopped by herrepresentationbeforethedivorcecourtfromassertingthatherandVicente’sconjugalpropertywasnotlimitedtotheirfamilyhomeinAyalaAlabang.48

No Cause of Action in the Petition for

Nullity of Marriage

Upontheforegoingdisquisitions,itisabundantlycleartotheCourtthatRebeccalacks,underthepremises,causeofaction. Philippine Bank of Communications v. Trazo

explainstheconceptandelementsofacauseofaction,thus:

“Acauseofactionisanactoromissionofonepartyinviolationofthe legal right of the other. Amotion to dismiss based on lack ofcauseofactionhypotheticallyadmitsthetruthoftheallegationsinthe complaint. The allegations in a complaint are sufficient toconstituteacauseofactionagainstthedefendantsif,hypotheticallyadmitting the factsalleged, thecourt canrenderavalid judgmentupon the same in accordancewith the prayer therein. A cause ofaction exists if the followingelements are present, namely: (1) aright in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and underwhateverlawitarisesoriscreated;(2)anobligationonthepartofthenameddefendanttorespectornottoviolatesuchright;and(3)an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of therightoftheplaintifforconstitutingabreachoftheobligationofthedefendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain anactionforrecoveryofdamages.”49

OnethingisclearfromaperusalofRebecca’sunderlyingpetition before the RTC, Vicente’s motion to dismiss andRebecca’s opposition thereof, with the documentaryevidence attached therein: The petitioner lacks a cause ofactionfor

_______________

48Van Dorn, supranote44.

49 G.R. No. 165500, August 30, 2006, 500 SCRA 242, 251­252;

citationsomitted.

493

VOL.570,NOVEMBER7,2008 493

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

declarationofnullityofmarriage,asuitwhichpresupposestheexistenceofamarriage.

Tosustainamotiontodismissforlackofcauseofaction,themovantmustshowthattheclaimforreliefdoesnotexistrather than that a claimhas beendefectively stated or isambiguous,indefinite,oruncertain.50Withthevalidforeigndivorce secured by Rebecca, there is no more marital tiebindinghertoVicente.Thereisinfinenomoremarriagetobedissolvedornullified.

The Court to be sure does not lose sight of the legalobligation ofVicente andRebecca to support the needs oftheirdaughter,Alix.Therecordsdonotclearlyshowhowhehad discharged his duty, albeit Rebecca alleged that thesupportgivenhadbeeninsufficient.Atanyrate,wedonotethatAlix,havingbeenbornonNovember27,1982,reachedthe majority age on November 27, 2000, or four monthsbefore hermother initiated her petition for declaration ofnullity.Shewouldnowbe26yearsold.Hence,theissueofback support,which allegedly had been partly shoulderedby Rebecca, is best litigated in a separate civil action forreimbursement. In this way, the actual figure for thesupportofAlixcanbeprovedaswellastheearningcapacityof both Vicente and Rebecca. The trial court can thusdetermine what Vicente owes, if any, considering thatsupport includesprovisionsuntil thechildconcernedshallhavefinishedhereducation.

Upon the foregoing considerations, theCourtno longerneed to delve into the issue tendered inG.R.No. 155635,thatis,Rebecca’srighttosupportpendente lite.Asitwere,her entitlement to that kind of support hinges on thetenability of her petition under Civil CaseNo. 01­094 fordeclaration of nullity of marriage. The dismissal of CivilCase No. 01­094 by the CA veritably removed any legalanchoragefor,andeffectivelymooted,theclaimforsupport

pendente lite.

_______________

50 Azur v. Provincial Board, No. L­22333, February 27, 1969, 27

SCRA50,57­58.

494

494 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari in G.R. No.155635 isherebyDISMISSEDonthegroundofmootness,while thepetition forreview inG.R.No.163979 isherebyDENIEDforlackofmerit.Accordingly,theMarch25,2004DecisionandJune4,2004ResolutionoftheCAinCA­G.R.SP No. 68187 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs againstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio­Morales, Tinga andBrion, JJ., concur.

Petition in G.R. No. 155635 dismissed, while petition in

G.R. No. 163979 denied.

Note.—Theaccusedwhosecureda foreigndivorce,andlater remarried in the Philippines, in the belief that theforeign divorce was valid, is liable for bigamy. (Diego vs.

Castillo,436SCRA67[2004])——o0o——

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.