Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 195432 2014-08-27	EDELINA T. ANDO v. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS SERENO, C.J.
While it has been ruled that a petition for the authority to remarry filed before a trial court actually constitutes a petition for declaratory relief,[11] we are still unable to grant the prayer of petitioner. As held by the RTC, there appears to be insufficient proof or evidence presented on record of both the national law of her first husband, Kobayashi, and of the validity of the divorce decree under that national law. [12] Hence, any declaration as to the validity of the divorce can only be made upon her complete submission of evidence proving the divorce decree and the national law of her alien spouse, in an action instituted in the proper forum.
	GR No. 186571 2010-08-11	GERBERT R. CORPUZ v. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS BRION, J.
This conclusion, the RTC stated, is consistent with the legislative intent behind the enactment of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, as determined by the Court in Republic v. Orbecido III;[10] the provision was enacted to "avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse."[11]
	GR No. 155635 2008-11-07	MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.[45]
	GR No. 170656 2007-08-15	METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO. CARPIO MORALES, J.
The following are the essential requisites for a declaratory relief petition: (a) there must be a justiciable controversy; (b) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (c) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (d) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination.[25]
	GR No. 153986 2007-06-08	IN RE: PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZENS OF PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, it is a settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it, and mere allegation is not evidence.[13] In the present case, aside from said testimonies, there is a dearth of competent evidence that will corroborate petitioners' alleged qualifications which will entitle them to be naturalized as Filipino citizens. Consequently, the CA was correct in dismissing the amended petition for naturalization as Filipino citizens filed by petitioners.
	GR NO. 167109 2007-02-06	FELICITAS AMOR-CATALAN v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In light of the allegations of Felicitas' complaint and the documentary and testimonial evidence she presented, we deem it undisputed that Orlando and Felicitas are American citizens and had this citizenship status when they secured their divorce decree in April 1988. We are not therefore dealing in this case with Filipino citizens whose marital status is governed by the Family Code and our Civil Code, but with American citizens who secured their divorce in the U.S. and who are considered by their national law to be free to contract another marriage. x x x[16] Further, the Court of Appeals mistakenly considered the failure of the petitioner to refute or contest the allegation in respondents' brief, that she and respondent Orlando were American citizens at the time they secured their divorce in April 1988, as sufficient to establish the fact of naturalization and divorce.[17] We note that it was the petitioner who alleged in her complaint that they acquired American citizenship and that respondent Orlando obtained a judicial divorce decree.[18] It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.[19]