475

G.R. No. 155635. November 7, 2008.*

MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT, petitioner, vs. THE VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 475
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE MADRIGAL Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
BAYOT, respondents.
USA to Cesar Tanchiong Makapugay, American, and Helen Corn
Makapugay, American.
G.R. No. 163979. November 7, 2008.* On November 27, 1982 in San Francisco, California, Rebecca gave
MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT, petitioner, vs.  VICENTE birth to Marie Josephine Alexandra or Alix. From then on, Vicente and
MADRIGAL BAYOT, respondent. Rebecca’s marital relationship seemed to have soured as the latter,
sometime in 1996, initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican
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
Republic. Before the Court of the First Instance of the Judicial District of
law of the alien spouse.—The Court has taken stock of the holding in Garcia v. Santo Domingo, Rebecca personally appeared, while Vicente was duly
Recio that a foreign divorce can be recognized here, provided the divorce decree is represented by counsel. On February 22, 1996, the Dominican court
proven as a fact and as valid under the national law of the alien spouse. Be this as it issued Civil Decree No. 362/96,  ordering the dissolution of the couple’s
8

may, the fact that Rebecca was clearly an American citizen marriage and “leaving them to remarry after completing the legal
_______________
requirements,” but giving them joint custody and guardianship over Alix.
Over a year later, the same court would issue Civil Decree No.
* SECOND DIVISION.
406/97,  settling the couple’s property relations pursuant to an
9

473
Agreement  they executed on December 14, 1996. Said agreement
10

specifically stated that the “conjugal property which they acquired during
their marriage consist[s] only of the real property and all the improvements
VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 and personal properties therein contained at 502 Acacia Avenue, Alabang,
73 Muntinlupa.” 11

Meanwhile, on March 14, 1996, or less than a month from the issuance of
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals Civil Decree No. 362/96, Rebecca filed with the Makati City RTC a
when she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized and allowed in petition  dated January 26, 1996, with attachments, for declaration of
12

any of the States of the Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce nullity of marriage, docketed as Civil Case No. 96-378. Rebecca, however,
decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing said decree is, as here, later moved  and 13

sufficient. _______________
Remedial Law; Actions; Causes of Action; Concept and elements of a cause
of action.—Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it is abundantly clear to the Court that
8  Rollo  (G.R. No. 163979), pp. 146-150.
Rebecca lacks, under the premises, cause of action. Philippine Bank of 9  Id., at pp. 214-217.
Communications v. Trazo, 500 SCRA 242 (2006), explains the concept and elements 10 Rollo (G.R. No. 155635), pp. 151-158.
of a cause of action, thus: A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in 11 Id., at p. 154.
violation of the legal right of the other. A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of 12 Rollo (G.R. No. 163979), pp. 206-212.
action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. The 13 Id., at pp. 305-306. Per a motion to withdraw dated November 8, 1996.
allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the
defendants if, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid 476
judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of action
exists if the following elements are present, namely: (1) a right in favor of the 47 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an 6 ANNOTATED
obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right;
and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for
which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. secured approval  of the motion to withdraw the petition.
14

On May 29, 1996, Rebecca executed an Affidavit of

Acknowledgment  stating under oath that she is an American citizen; that,
15

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

since 1993, she and Vicente have been living separately; and that she is
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
carrying a child not of Vicente.
  Zulueta, Puno & Associates for petitioner.
On March 21, 2001, Rebecca filed another petition, this time before
  Meer, Meer & Meer and  Villaraza & Angangco  for respondent
the Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration of absolute nullity of
V.M. Bayot.
marriage  on the ground of Vicente’s alleged psychological incapacity.
16

Docketed as Civil Case No. 01-094 and entitled as Maria Rebecca

VELASCO, JR., J.:
Makapugay Bayot v. Vicente Madrigal Bayot, the petition was eventually
raffled to Branch 256 of the court. In it, Rebecca also sought the
The Case dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains with application for
support pendente lite for her and Alix. Rebecca also prayed that Vicente be
Before us are these two petitions interposed by petitioner Maria Rebecca ordered to pay a permanent monthly support for their daughter Alix in the
Makapugay Bayot impugning certain issu-474 amount of PhP 220,000.
On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss  on, inter alia, the
17

47 SUPREME COURT REPORTS grounds of lack of cause of action and that the petition is barred by the
4 ANNOTATED prior judgment of divorce. Earlier, on June 5, 2001, Rebecca filed and
moved for the allowance of her application for support pendente lite.
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals To the motion to dismiss, Rebecca interposed an opposition, insisting
ances handed out by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 68187. on her Filipino citizenship, as affirmed by the Department of Justice
In the first, a petition for certiorari  under Rule 65 and docketed
1
(DOJ), and that, therefore, there is no valid divorce to speak of.
as G.R. No. 155635, Rebecca assails and seeks to nullify the April 30, Meanwhile, Vicente, who had in the interim contracted another
2002 Resolution  of the CA, as reiterated in another Resolution of
2
marriage, and Rebecca commenced several criminal complaints against
September 2, 2002,  granting a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of
3
each other. Specifically, Vicente filed adultery and perjury complaints
private respondent Vicente Madrigal Bayot staving off the trial court’s against Rebecca. Rebecca, on the other hand, charged Vicente with bigamy
grant of support pendente lite to Rebecca. and concubinage.
The second, a petition for review under Rule 45,  docketed G.R. No.
4 _______________
163979, assails the March 25, 2004 Decision  of the CA, (1) dismissing
5

Civil Case No. 01-094, a suit for declaration of absolute nullity of 14 Id., at p. 213. Per Order of Judge Josefina Guevara Salonga dated November 14, 1996.
15 Id., at pp. 236-237.
marriage with application for support commenced by Rebecca against 16 Id., at pp. 126-144.
Vicente before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Muntinlupa City; and (2) 17 Id., at pp. 156-204.
setting aside certain orders and a resolution issued by the RTC in the said
case. 477
Per its Resolution of August 11, 2004, the Court ordered the
VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 477
consolidation of both cases.
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
The Facts Ruling of the RTC on the Motion to Dismiss
and Motion for Support Pendente Lite
Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20, 1979 in Sanctuario de On August 8, 2001, the RTC issued an Order  denying Vicente’s 18

San Jose, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. On its face, the Marriage motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 01-094 and granting Rebecca’s
Certificate  identified Rebecca, then 26 years old, to be an American
6
application for support pendente lite, disposing as follows:
“Wherefore, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the respondent
citizen  born in Agana, Guam,
7
is DENIED. Petitioner’s Application in Support of the Motion for Support Pendente
_______________
Lite is hereby GRANTED. Respondent is hereby ordered to remit the amount of
TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 220,000.00) a month
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 155635), pp. 3-34. to Petitioner as support for the duration of the proceedings relative to the instant
2 Id., at pp. 36-38. Penned by Associate, now Presiding, Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Petition.
concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Mario L. Guariña III.
3 Id., at pp. 40-41. SO ORDERED.” 19

4 Rollo (G.R. No. 163979), pp. 10-43.

5 Id., at pp. 575-583. The RTC declared, among other things, that the divorce judgment
6 Id., at p. 145.
7 See Certification of Birth from the Government of Guam issued on June 1, invoked by Vicente as bar to the petition for declaration of absolute nullity
2000; Rollo (G.R. No. 155635), p. 213. of marriage is a matter of defense best taken up during actual trial. As to
the grant of support pendente lite, the trial court held that a mere allegation Government of Guam also did not indicate the nationality of her father.
of adultery against Rebecca does not operate to preclude her from (4) Rebecca was estopped from denying her American citizenship,
receiving legal support. having professed to have that nationality status and having made
Following the denial  of his motion for reconsideration of the above
20
representations to that effect during momentous events of her life, such as:
August 8, 2001 RTC order, Vicente went to the CA on a petition (a) during her marriage; (b) when she applied for divorce; and (c) when
for certiorari, with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining she applied for and eventually secured an American passport on January
order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction.  His petition was 21
18, 1995, or a little over a year before she initiated the first but later
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 68187. withdrawn petition for nullity of her marriage (Civil Case No. 96-378) on
_______________ March 14, 1996.
(5) Assuming that she had dual citizenship, being born of a
18 Id., at pp. 123-124. Penned by Presiding Judge Alberto L. Lerma. purportedly Filipino father in Guam, USA which follows the jus
19 Id., at p. 338.
20 Id., at p. 125. Per Order dated November 20, 2001.
soli principle, Rebecca’s representation and assertion about being an
21 Rollo (G.R. No. 155635), pp. 512-590. American citizen when she secured her foreign divorce precluded her from
denying her citizenship and impugning the validity of the divorce.
478 Rebecca seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the above
Decision, but this recourse was denied in the equally assailed June 4, 2004
47 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Resolution.  Hence, Rebecca’s Petition for Review on Certiorari under
29

8 ANNOTATED Rule 45, docketed under G.R. No. 163979.

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
The Issues
Grant of Writ of Preliminary Injunction by the CA
On January 9, 2002, the CA issued the desired TRO.  On April 30, 22

2002, the appellate court granted, via a Resolution, the issuance of a writ In G.R. No. 155635, Rebecca raises four (4) assignments of errors as
of preliminary injunction, the decretal portion of which reads: grounds for the allowance of her petition, all of which converged on the
“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, pending final resolution of the petition proposition that the CA erred in enjoining the implementation of the
at bar, let the Writ of Preliminary Injunction be ISSUED in this case, enjoining the RTC’s orders which would have entitled her to support pending final
respondent court from implementing the assailed Omnibus Order dated August 8, resolution of Civil Case No. 01-094.
2001 and the Order dated November 20, 2001, and from conducting further In G.R. No. 163979, Rebecca urges the reversal of the assailed CA
proceedings in Civil Case No. 01-094, upon the posting of an injunction bond in the
decision submitting as follows:
amount of P250,000.00. _______________
SO ORDERED.” 23

29 Rollo (G.R. No. 163979), p. 597.

Rebecca moved  but was denied reconsideration of the
24

aforementioned April 30, 2002 resolution. In the meantime, on May 20, 481
2002, the preliminary injunctive writ  was issued. Rebecca also moved for
25

reconsideration of this issuance, but the CA, by Resolution dated VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 481
September 2, 2002, denied her motion.
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
The adverted CA resolutions of April 30, 2002 and September 2, 2002
I
are presently being assailed in Rebecca’s petition for certiorari, docketed THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT MENTIONING AND
under G.R. No. 155635. NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION IN ITS APPRECIATION OF THE
FACTS THE FACT OF PETITIONER’S FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP AS
Ruling of the CA CATEGORICALLY STATED AND ALLEGED IN HER PETITION BEFORE THE
COURT A QUO.
II
Pending resolution of G.R. No. 155635, the CA, by a Decision dated THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING ONLY ON
March 25, 2004, effectively dismissed Civil Case No. 01-094, and set ANNEXES TO THE PETITION IN RESOLVING THE MATTERS BROUGHT
aside incidental orders the RTC issued in relation to the case. The fallo of BEFORE IT.
III
the presently assailed CA Decision reads:
_______________ THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER
THAT RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THAT HIS MARRIAGE
TO PETITIONER HAD ALREADY BEEN DISSOLVED BY VIRTUE OF HIS
22 Id., at pp. 592-593. SUBSEQUENT AND CONCURRENT ACTS.
23 Id., at p. 38.
24 Id., at pp. 852-869.
IV
25 Id., at pp. 850-851. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS
ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT, MUCH LESS
479
A GRAVE ABUSE. 30

VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 479 We shall first address the petition in G.R. No. 163979, its outcome
being determinative of the success or failure of the petition in G.R. No.
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
155635.
“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Omnibus
Order dated August 8, 2001 and the Order dated November 20, 2001 are REVERSED Three legal premises need to be underscored at the outset. First, a
and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING Civil Case No. 01-094, for divorce obtained abroad by an alien married to a Philippine national may
failure to state a cause of action. No pronouncement as to costs. be recognized in the Philippines, provided the decree of divorce is valid
SO ORDERED.” 26
according to the national law of the foreigner.  Second, the reckoning point
31

is not the citizenship of the divorcing parties at birth or at the time of

To the CA, the RTC ought to have granted Vicente’s motion to marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained
dismiss on the basis of the following premises: abroad. And third, an absolute divorce secured by a
(1) As held in China Road and Bridge Corporation v. Court of _______________
Appeals, the hypothetical-admission rule applies in determining whether a
complaint or petition states a cause of action.  Applying said rule in the
27 30 Id., at pp. 22-23.
31 Garcia v. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 437, 447.
light of the essential elements of a cause of action,  Rebecca had no cause
28

of action against Vicente for declaration of nullity of marriage.

482
(2) Rebecca no longer had a legal right in this jurisdiction to have
her marriage with Vicente declared void, the union having previously been 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
dissolved on February 22, 1996 by the foreign divorce decree she
personally secured as an American citizen. Pursuant to the second
2 ANNOTATED
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, such divorce restored Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
Vicente’s capacity to contract another marriage. Filipino married to another Filipino is contrary to our concept of public
(3) Rebecca’s contention about the nullity of a divorce, she being a policy and morality and shall not be recognized in this jurisdiction. 32

Filipino citizen at the time the foreign divorce decree was rendered, was Given the foregoing perspective, the determinative issue tendered in
dubious. Her allegation as to her alleged Filipino citizenship was also G.R. No. 155635, i.e., the propriety of the granting of the motion to
doubtful as it was not shown that her father, at the time of her birth, was dismiss by the appellate court, resolves itself into the questions of: first,
still a Filipino citizen. The Certification of Birth of Rebecca issued by the whether petitioner Rebecca was a Filipino citizen at the time the divorce
_______________
judgment was rendered in the Dominican Republic on February 22, 1996;
and second, whether the judgment of divorce is valid and, if so, what are
26 Supra note 5, at p. 583.
27 G.R. No. 137898, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 401, 409. its consequent legal effects?
28 Enumerated in San Lorenzo Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
116825 March 26, 1998, 288 SCRA 115, 125: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff, (2) the correlative
obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal The Court’s Ruling
right.

The petition is bereft of merit.

480
Rebecca an American Citizen in the Purview of This Case
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS There can be no serious dispute that Rebecca, at the time she applied
for and obtained her divorce from Vicente, was an American citizen and
0 ANNOTATED remains to be one, absent proof of an effective repudiation of such
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals citizenship. The following are compelling circumstances indicative of her
American citizenship: (1) she was born in Agana, Guam, USA; (2) the “The Bureau [of Immigration] through its Records Section shall automatically
principle of jus soli is followed in this American territory granting furnish the Department of Justice an official copy of its Order of Recognition within
American citizenship to those who are born there; and (3) she was, and 72 days from its date of approval by the way of indorsement for confirmation of the
Order by the Secretary of Justice pursuant to Executive Order No. 292. No
may still be, a holder of an American passport. 33
Identification Certificate shall be issued before the date of confirmation by the
And as aptly found by the CA, Rebecca had consistently professed, Secretary of Justice and any Identification Certificate issued by the Bureau pursuant
asserted, and represented herself as an American citizen, particularly: (1) to an Order of Recognition shall prominently indicate thereon the date of
during her marriage as shown in the marriage certificate; (2) in the birth confirmation by the Secretary of Justice.” (Emphasis ours.)
certificate of Alix; and (3) when she secured the divorce from the
Dominican Republic. Not lost on the Court is the acquisition by Rebecca of her Philippine
_______________ passport only on June 13, 2000, or five days after then Secretary of Justice
Tuquero issued the 1st Indorsement confirming the order of recognition. It
32 Llorente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000, 345 SCRA 592, 600. may be too much to attribute to coincidence this unusual sequence of close
33 Rollo (G.R. No. 155635), pp. 388-389, issued on January 18, 1995 with expiration date on
January 17, 2005. events which, to us, clearly suggests that prior to said affirmation or
confirmation, Rebecca was not yet recognized as a Filipino citizen. The
483 same sequence would also imply that ID Certificate No. RC 9778 could
not have been issued in 1995, as Bureau Law Instruction No. RBR-99-002
VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 483 mandates that no identification certificate shall be issued before the date of
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals confirmation by the Secretary of Justice. Logically, therefore, the
Mention may be made of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment  in which she 34
affirmation or confirmation of Rebecca’s recognition as a Filipino citizen
stated being an American citizen. through the 1st Indorsement issued only on June 8, 2000 by Secretary of
It is true that Rebecca had been issued by the Bureau of Immigration Justice Tuquero corresponds to the eventual issuance of Rebecca’s
(Bureau) of Identification (ID) Certificate No. RC 9778 and a Philippine passport a few days later, or on June 13, 2000 to be exact.
Passport. On its face, ID Certificate No. RC 9778 would tend to show that When Divorce Was Granted Rebecca, She Was not a Filipino
she has indeed been recognized as a Filipino citizen. It cannot be over- Citizen and Was not Yet Recognized as One
emphasized, however, that such recognition was given only on June 8, The Court can assume hypothetically that Rebecca is now a Filipino
2000 upon the affirmation by the Secretary of Justice of Rebecca’s citizen. But from the foregoing disquisition, it is in-
_______________
recognition pursuant to the Order of Recognition issued by Bureau
Associate Commissioner Edgar L. Mendoza.
35 Adopted on April 15, 1999.
For clarity, we reproduce in full the contents of ID Certificate No. RC
9778: 486
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to certify that *MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT* whose 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
photograph and thumbprints are affixed hereto and partially covered by the seal of
this Office, and whose other particulars are as follows: 6 ANNOTATED
       Place of Birth: Guam, USA Date of Birth: March 5, 1953
       Sex: female Civil Status: married Color of Hair: brown Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
       Color of Eyes: brown Distinguishing marks on face: none dubitable that Rebecca did not have that status of, or at least was not yet
was – recognized – as a citizen of the Philippines as per pursuant to Article IV, recognized as, a Filipino citizen when she secured the February 22, 1996
Section 1, Paragraph 3 of the 1935 Constitution per order of Recognition JBL 95-213 judgment of divorce from the Dominican Republic.
signed by Associate Commissioner Jose B. Lopez dated October 6, 1995, and duly The Court notes and at this juncture wishes to point out that Rebecca
affirmed by Secretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuquero in his 1st Indorsement dated
June 8, 2000. voluntarily withdrew her original petition for declaration of nullity (Civil
Issued for identification purposes only. NOT VALID for travel purposes. Case No. 96-378 of the Makati City RTC) obviously because she could not
Given under my hand and seal this 11th day of October, 1995 show proof of her alleged Filipino citizenship then. In fact, a perusal of
                                            (SGD) EDGAR L. MENDOZA that petition shows that, while bearing the date January 26, 1996, it was
                                                     ASSO. COMMISSIONER only filed with the RTC on March 14, 1996 or less than a month after
Rebecca secured, on February 22, 1996, the foreign divorce decree in
_______________ question. Consequently, there was no mention about said divorce in the
petition. Significantly, the only documents appended as annexes to said
34 Supra note 15. original petition were: the Vicente-Rebecca Marriage Contract (Annex
“A”) and Birth Certificate of Alix (Annex “B”). If indeed ID Certificate
484 No. RC 9778 from the Bureau was truly issued on October 11, 1995, is it
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS not but logical to expect that this piece of document be appended to form
part of the petition, the question of her citizenship being crucial to her
4 ANNOTATED case?
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals As may be noted, the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage under Civil Case No. 01-094, like the withdrawn first petition,
 
                                           Official Receipt No. 5939988 also did not have the ID Certificate from the Bureau as attachment. What
                                                           issued at Manila were attached consisted of the following material documents: Marriage
                                                dated Oct. 10, 1995 for P 2,000 Contract (Annex “A”) and Divorce Decree. It was only through her
Opposition (To Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss dated 31 May 2001)  did 36

  Rebecca attach as Annex “C” ID Certificate No. RC 9778.

From the text of ID Certificate No. RC 9778, the following material At any rate, the CA was correct in holding that the RTC had sufficient
facts and dates may be deduced: (1) Bureau Associate Commissioner Jose basis to dismiss the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
B. Lopez issued the Order of Recognition on October 6, 1995; (2) the 1st as said petition, taken together with Vicente’s motion to dismiss and
Indorsement of Secretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuquero affirming Rebecca’s opposition to
_______________
Rebecca’s recognition as a Filipino citizen was issued on June 8, 2000 or
almost five years from the date of the order of recognition; and (3) ID
36 Rollo (G.R. No. 163979), pp. 268-292.
Certificate No. RC 9778 was purportedly issued on October 11, 1995 after
the payment of the PhP 2,000 fee on October 10, 1995 per OR No.
487
5939988.
What begs the question is, however, how the above certificate could VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 487
have been issued by the Bureau on October 11, 1995 when the Secretary of
Justice issued the required affirmation only on June 8, 2000. No Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
explanation was given for this patent aberration. There seems to be no motion, with their respective attachments, clearly made out a case of lack
error with the date of the issuance of the 1st Indorsement by Secretary of of cause of action, which we will expound later.
Justice Tuquero as this Court takes judicial notice that he was the
Secretary of Justice from February 16, 2000 to January 22, 2001. There is, Validity of Divorce Decree
thus, a strong valid reason to conclude that the certificate in question must
be spurious. Going to the second core issue, we find Civil Decree Nos. 362/96 and
Under extant immigration rules, applications for recognition of 406/97 valid.
Filipino citizenship require the affirmation by the DOJ of the Order of First, at the time of the divorce, as above elucidated, Rebecca was
Recognition issued by the Bureau. Under Executive Order No. 292, also still to be recognized, assuming for argument that she was in fact later
known as the 1987 Administrative Code, specifically in its Title III, recognized, as a Filipino citizen, but represented herself in public
Chapter 1, Sec. 3(6), it is the DOJ which is tasked to “provide immigration documents as an American citizen. At the very least, she chose, before,
and naturalization regulatory services and implement the laws governing during, and shortly after her divorce, her American citizenship to govern
citizenship and the admission and stay of aliens.” Thus, the confirmation her marital relationship. Second, she secured personally said divorce as an
by the DOJ of any Order of Recognition for Filipino citizenship issued by American citizen, as is evident in the text of the Civil Decrees, which
the Bureau is required.485 pertinently declared:
VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 485 “IN THIS ACTION FOR DIVORCE in which the parties expressly submit to the
jurisdiction of this court, by reason of the existing incompatibility of temperaments
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals x x x. The parties MARIA REBECCA M. BAYOT, of United States nationality, 42
years of age, married, domiciled and residing at 502 Acacia Ave., Ayala Alabang,
Pertinently, Bureau Law Instruction No. RBR-99-002  on35

Muntin Lupa, Philippines, x x x, who personally appeared before this court,

Recognition as a Filipino Citizen clearly provides: accompanied by DR. JUAN ESTEBAN OLIVERO, attorney, x x x and VICENTE
MADRIGAL BAYOT, of Philippine nationality, of 43 years of age, married and
domiciled and residing at 502 Acacia Ave., Ayala Alabang, Muntin Lupa, Filipino, 49 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
appeared before this court represented by DR. ALEJANDRO TORRENS, attorney,
x x x, revalidated by special power of attorney given the 19th of February of 1996,
0 ANNOTATED
signed before the Notary Public Enrico L. Espanol of the City of Manila, duly Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
legalized and authorizing him to subscribe all the acts concerning this
case.”  (Emphasis ours.)
37
jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the divorce decree obtained, the
marital vinculum  between Rebecca and Vicente is considered severed;
Third, being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national they are both freed from the bond of matrimony. In plain language,
laws of the United States of America, a country which allows Vicente and Rebecca are no longer husband and wife to each other. As the
divorce. Fourth, the property relations of Vicente and Rebecca were divorce court formally pronounced: “[T]hat the marriage between MARIA
properly adjudicated through their REBECCA M. BAYOT and VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT is
_______________ hereby dissolved x x x leaving them free to remarry after completing
the legal requirements.” 43

37 Id., at pp. 147, 214-215. Consequent to the dissolution of the marriage, Vicente could no
longer be subject to a husband’s obligation under the Civil Code. He
488 cannot, for instance, be obliged to live with, observe respect and fidelity,
and render support to Rebecca. 44

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS The divorce decree in question also brings into play the second
8 ANNOTATED paragraph of Art. 26 of the Family Code, providing as follows:
“Art. 26. x x x x
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
Agreement  executed on December 14, 1996 after Civil Decree No. 362/96
38 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 capacity to
was rendered on February 22, 1996, and duly affirmed by Civil Decree No.
remarry under Philippine law.” (As amended by E.O. 227)
406/97 issued on March 4, 1997. Veritably, the foreign divorce secured by
Rebecca was valid.
In Republic v. Orbecido III, we spelled out the twin elements for the
To be sure, the Court has taken stock of the holding in Garcia v.
applicability of the second paragraph of Art. 26, thus:
Recio that a foreign divorce can be recognized here, provided the divorce
“x x x [W]e state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article
decree is proven as a fact and as valid under the national law of the alien 26 as follows:
spouse.  Be this as it may, the fact that Rebecca was clearly an American
39
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen
citizen when she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized and and a foreigner; and
allowed in any of the States of the Union,  the presentation of a copy of
40
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing her to remarry.
_______________
said decree is, as here, sufficient.
It bears to stress that the existence of the divorce decree has not been 43 Rollo (G.R. No. 163979), pp. 148, 216.
denied, but in fact admitted by both parties. And neither did they impeach 44 Van Dorn, supra note 40, at p. 144.
the jurisdiction of the divorce court nor challenge the validity of its
proceedings on the ground of collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of fact or 491

law, albeit both appeared to have the opportunity to do so. The same holds
true with respect to the decree of partition of their conjugal property. As VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 491
this Court explained in Roehr v. Rodriguez:
“Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment [of Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
divorce] x x x, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the
given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
the Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), to wit: obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.”45

SEC. 50. Effect of foreign judgments.—The effect of a judgment of

a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the
judgment is as follows: Both elements obtain in the instant case. We need not belabor further
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is the fact of marriage of Vicente and Rebecca, their citizenship when they
conclusive upon the title to the thing; wed, and their professed citizenship during the valid divorce proceedings.
_______________ Not to be overlooked of course is the fact that Civil Decree No.
406/97 and the Agreement executed on December 14, 1996 bind both
38 Supra note 10.
39 Supra note 31.
Rebecca and Vicente as regards their property relations. The Agreement
40 Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., No. L-68470, October 8, 1985, 139 SCRA 139, 143. provided that the ex-couple’s conjugal property consisted only their family
home, thus:
489 “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 personal properties therein contained at 502 Acacia Avenue, Ayala Alabang,
VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 489 Muntinlupa, covered by TCT No. 168301 dated Feb. 7, 1990 issued by the Register
of Deeds of Makati, Metro Manila registered in the name of Vicente M. Bayot,
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals married to Rebecca M. Bayot, x x x.”  (Emphasis ours.)
46

(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is

presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors
in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by This property settlement embodied in the Agreement was affirmed by
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, the divorce court which, per its second divorce decree, Civil Decree No.
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. 406/97 dated March 4, 1997, ordered that, “THIRD: That the agreement
It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign entered into between the parties dated 14th day of December 1996 in
judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. Makati City, Philippines shall survive in this Judgment of divorce by
In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions  in reference but not merged and that the parties are hereby ordered and
personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely
constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is
directed to comply with each and every provision of said agreement.” 47

_______________
subject to proof to the contrary.” 41

45 G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 114, 122.

As the records show, Rebecca, assisted by counsel, personally secured 46 Rollo (G.R. No. 155635), p. 154.
the foreign divorce while Vicente was duly represented by his counsel, a 47 Rollo (G.R. No. 163979), p. 215.
certain Dr. Alejandro Torrens, in said proceedings. As things stand, the
foreign divorce decrees rendered and issued by the Dominican Republic 492
court are valid and, consequently, bind both Rebecca and Vicente. 49 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Finally, the fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognized as a
Filipino citizen by force of the June 8, 2000 affirmation by Secretary of 2 ANNOTATED
Justice Tuquero of the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition will
not, standing alone, work to nullify or invalidate the foreign divorce Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
secured by Rebecca as an American citizen on February 22, 1996. For as Rebecca has not repudiated the property settlement contained in the
we stressed at the outset, in determining whether or not a divorce secured Agreement. She is thus estopped by her representation before the divorce
abroad would come within the pale of the country’s policy against absolute court from asserting that her and Vicente’s conjugal property was not
divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a limited to their family home in Ayala Alabang. 48

valid divorce is obtained. 42

No Cause of Action in the Petition for

Legal Effects of the Valid Divorce Nullity of Marriage

Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by Rebecca, the Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it is abundantly clear to the Court
same shall be given a res judicata effect in this that Rebecca lacks, under the premises, cause of action. Philippine Bank of
_______________ Communications v. Trazo explains the concept and elements of a cause of
action, thus:
41 G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003, 404 SCRA 495, 502-503. “A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal
42 Id., at pp. 501-502. right of the other. A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action hypothetically
admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. The allegations in a complaint are
490 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, hypothetically
admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in
accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of action exists if the
following elements are present, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by
whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on
the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act
or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the
latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.” 49

One thing is clear from a perusal of Rebecca’s underlying petition

before the RTC, Vicente’s motion to dismiss and Rebecca’s opposition
thereof, with the documentary evidence attached therein: The petitioner
lacks a cause of action for
_______________

48 Van Dorn, supra note 44.

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

493

VOL. 570, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 493

Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
declaration of nullity of marriage, a suit which presupposes the existence
of a marriage.
To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the movant
must show that the claim for relief does not exist rather than that a claim
has been defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite, or uncertain.  With 50

the valid foreign divorce secured by Rebecca, there is no more marital tie
binding her to Vicente. There is in fine no more marriage to be dissolved
or nullified.
The Court to be sure does not lose sight of the legal obligation of
Vicente and Rebecca to support the needs of their daughter, Alix. The
records do not clearly show how he had discharged his duty, albeit
Rebecca alleged that the support given had been insufficient. At any rate,
we do note that Alix, having been born on November 27, 1982, reached
the majority age on November 27, 2000, or four months before her mother
initiated her petition for declaration of nullity. She would now be 26 years
old. Hence, the issue of back support, which allegedly had been partly
shouldered by Rebecca, is best litigated in a separate civil action for
reimbursement. In this way, the actual figure for the support of Alix can be
proved as well as the earning capacity of both Vicente and Rebecca. The
trial court can thus determine what Vicente owes, if any, considering that
support includes provisions until the child concerned shall have finished
her education.
Upon the foregoing considerations, the Court no longer need to delve
into the issue tendered in G.R. No. 155635, that is, Rebecca’s right to
support pendente lite. As it were, her entitlement to that kind of support
hinges on the tenability of her petition under Civil Case No. 01-094 for
declaration of nullity of marriage. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 01-094
by the CA veritably removed any legal anchorage for, and effectively
mooted, the claim for support pendente lite.
_______________

50 Azur v. Provincial Board, No. L-22333, February 27, 1969, 27 SCRA 50, 57-58.

494

49 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

4 ANNOTATED
Bayot vs. Court of Appeals
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 155635 is
hereby DISMISSED on the ground of mootness, while the petition for
review in G.R. No. 163979 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the March 25, 2004 Decision and June 4, 2004 Resolution of
the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 68187 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Tinga and Brion,
JJ., concur.

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

163979 denied.