4/6/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. 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 capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied) In Orbecido, the Court laid down the elements for the application of Article 26(2), bearing in mind the spirit and intent behind the provision as reflected in the Committee deliberations. The Court held: x x x [The Court states] the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. 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. In this case, when [the Filipino spouse's] wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between [them]. As fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus x x x the "divorced" Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.[36] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics in the original) Here, the CA anchored the assailed Decision on the absence of the second element set forth in Orbecido. According to the CA, the fact that the divorce decree had been obtained by mutual agreement of Cynthia and Park precludes the application of Article 26(2), since the language of the provision requires that the divorce decree be obtained solely by the foreign spouse. Adopting the same view, the OSG argues that the divorce decree in question is not one "obtained x x x by the alien spouse alone[,] but [one obtained] at the instance of both [spouses]."[37] Hence, the OSG insists that Article 26(2) simply cannot apply to Cynthia.[38] In this connection, the OSG claims that Abigail 's testimony to the effect that Cynthia had been merely forced to agree to the divorce should not be given credence for being hearsay.[39] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65987 6/10