Scribd
Upload
119 views2 pages

19.pimentel Vs Adiao OCTOBER 12, 2018 Facts

The Court ruled that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code does not have a restrictive application only to cases where the alien spouse solely sought divorce. The provision also applies when the divorce was mutually agreed upon by both spouses. The purpose of paragraph 2 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married while the foreign spouse is free to remarry under the laws of his/her country after a valid foreign divorce. Therefore, the Court reversed the lower court's decision and recognized the divorce decree that was jointly obtained by the Filipino petitioner and her Japanese spouse in Japan.

Uploaded by

Ezekiel T. MOSTIERO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
119 views2 pages

19.pimentel Vs Adiao OCTOBER 12, 2018 Facts

The Court ruled that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code does not have a restrictive application only to cases where the alien spouse solely sought divorce. The provision also applies when the divorce was mutually agreed upon by both spouses. The purpose of paragraph 2 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married while the foreign spouse is free to remarry under the laws of his/her country after a valid foreign divorce. Therefore, the Court reversed the lower court's decision and recognized the divorce decree that was jointly obtained by the Filipino petitioner and her Japanese spouse in Japan.

Uploaded by

Ezekiel T. MOSTIERO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

19.

PIMENTEL VS ADIAO
OCTOBER 12, 2018

FACTS:
Joanne Pimentel filed a complaint for damages against Reynaldo Adiao, Christian Adiao and Cristy Adiao-Nierves
Joanne alleged she entered into a Construction Agreement with Reynaldo and Christian whereby Reynaldo, as
contractor, agreed to undertake the renovation of Joanne's bungalow but the respondents did not complete the
renovation of Joanna's house and left the project unfinished. During the pre-trial, Joanna filed her PT brief, which was
objected to by the counsels of the other parties for being filed late. She claimed that given her counsel received the
Notice of PC only on February 12, 2014, it was improbable for her to file her PT brief at least three days prior to
February 14, 2014, the date of the PC.
The RTC dismissed the case because Joanne’s counsel violated the mandate found in Section 6, Rule 18 of the
Rules in relation to Section 5 of the same Rule and it was affirmed on appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the complaint for Joanna's failure to file her PT brief on time, given that
respondents also violated Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 18.

RULING:

The Court is convinced with the explanations of Joanna for her plea to relax the application of the Rules in her case. 

Given the realities obtaining in this case, the liberal construction of the Rules will promote and secure a just
determination of the parties' causes of action against each other. As the court of the last resort, justice should be the
paramount consideration when the Court is confronted with an issue on the interpretation of the Rules, subject to the
petitioner's burden to convince the Court that enough reasons obtain to warrant the suspension of a strict adherence
to procedural rules. Accordingly, the ends of justice and fairness would be best served if the parties are given the full
opportunity to thresh out the real issues and litigate their claims in a full-blown trial. 
20. Nullada vs. Hon. Civil Registrar of Manila
January 23, 2019

FACTS:
The action arose from a Petition for registration and/or recognition of foreign divorce decree and cancellation
of entry of marriage that was filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Article 26 of the
Family Code, by Marlyn Nullada in 2014 with the RTC of Manila. She claimed that on July 29, 1997, she and
Akira Ito got married Japan, as evidenced by a Report of Marriage that was issued by the Philippine
Embassy in Tokyo, Japan. However, the trial court denied the fact that Marlyn also agreed to the divorce
and jointly filed for it with Akira barred the application of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code, which would have otherwise allowed a Filipino spouse to remarry after the alien spouse had validly
obtained a divorce.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code has a restrictive application so as to apply only in
cases where it is the alien spouse who sought the divorce, and not where the divorce was mutually agreed
upon by the spouses

RULING:
Applying the same legal considerations and considering the similar factual milieu that attended in Manalo,
the present case warrants a reversal of the RTC's decision that refused to recognize the divorce decree that
was mutually obtained by Marlyn and her foreigner spouse in Japan solely on the ground that the divorce
was jointly initiated by the spouses. To reiterate, the purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the 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. The
provision is a corrective measure to address an anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage
while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country. 

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy