G.R. No. 249011 - Marriage
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogG.R. No. 249011 - Marriage
Uploaded by
Rizchelle Sampang-ManaogCristita Anaban, Crispina Anaban, Pureza Anaban, Cresencia Anaban-Walang, and
Rosita Anaban-Baristo vs. Betty Anaban-Alfiler, Mercedes Anaban, and Marcelo Anaban,
G.R. No. 249011, March 15, 2021, Second Division, Lazaro-Javier, J.:
Nature of the action: Summary settlement or judicial partition of the intestate estate
Facts: In 1942, Pedrito Anaban (Pedrito) and Virginia Erasmo (Virginia) got married in
accordance with the native customs of the Ibaloi Tribe to which they both belonged. They had
three (3) children, i.e., respondents Betty Anaban-Alfiler, Mercedes Anaban, and Marcelo
Anaban.
In 1947, however, the council of tribe elders took notice of Virginia's insanity and based thereon
approved the couple's divorce and allowed Pedrito to remarry.
In 1952, Pedrito got married to fellow Ibaloi Pepang still in accordance with their tribe's
customs. They begot eight (8) children – Lardi Anaban, Teodoro Anaban, Monina Anaban and
respondents Cristita Anaban, Crispina Anaban, Pureza Anaban, Cresencia Anaban-Walang, and
Rosita Anaban-Baristo. Upon Pedrito's death on September 2, 2004, respondents sued for
summary settlement or judicial partition of the intestate estate of their father Pedrito. They
named as respondents their half-siblings.
Respondents averred that during the marriage of their father Pedrito to their mother Virginia,
Pedrito acquired from his father Pedro Anaban a portion of land covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-14574. But the new certificate of title issued to Pedrito reflected that he
was married to petitioners' mother Pepang. Although in truth, his marriage with their mother
Virginia was not yet legally dissolved. Thus, petitioners are actually the illegitimate children of
their father Pedrito.
Petitioners, on the other hand, argued that they are the legitimate children of their father Pedrito
with their mother Pepang. Pedrito and respondents' mother Virginia were married in accordance
with the Ibaloi Tribe customs and their marriage was also dissolved in accordance with Ibaloi
tribe customs and traditions. Thereafter, Pedrito married their (petitioners') mother Pepang
similarly in accord with the Ibaloi customs. Since the celebration of marriage pursuant to a tribe's
customs was recognized under the Old Civil Code of the Philippines, then its dissolution in
accordance with that tribe's customs must also be recognized. Thus, both the marriage and the
subsequent divorce between Pedrito and Virginia are valid. Consequently, the marriage of their
parents must also be deemed valid.
MCTC ruled that, first, the marriage between Pedrito and Virginia was validly dissolved in
accordance with the customs of the Ibaloi tribe; and second, petitioners are the legitimate
children of Pedrito who must succeed in equal proportion with respondents. On appeal, RTC-
Branch 10, La Trinidad, Benguet, by Decision dated October 10, 2017, declared as bigamous the
marriage of Pedrito and Pepang. By its assailed Decision dated July 24, 2019, the Court of
Appeals affirmed.
Issues: Can the divorce granted under Ibaloi customs and practices be legally recognized as to
make Pedrito's subsequent marriage to Pepang as valid?
Ruling: No.
All of the courts below resolved the validity of the so-called divorce between Pedrito and
Virginia through the lens of the old Civil Code. But, in reality, when Pedrito and Virginia got
married and even when they later on supposedly divorced, the old Civil Code was not yet in
effect. For it took effect on June 18, 1949, or two (2) years after the divorce decree was
purportedly handed down by the Ibaloi council of elders. The law in effect prior thereto was still
the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, Article 5 of which stated:
Article 5. Laws are abrogated only by other subsequent laws, and the disuse or any
custom or practice to the contrary shall not prevail against their observance.
(Emphasis supplied)
Divorce, then, can be granted only on two (2) grounds, i.e., adultery and concubinage. This was
the prevailing law when Pedrito and Virginia got married in 1942. In 1943, however, during the
Japanese occupation, Act No. 2710 was abolished and Executive Order No. 141 (EO 141) was
enacted and took effect on March 25, 1943.
Under EO 141, absolute divorce may be granted on these grounds: (a) adultery and concubinage;
(b) attempt on the life of one spouse by the other; (c) a subsequent marriage by either party
before the previous one was dissolved; (d) loathsome contagious diseases contracted by either
spouse; (e) incurable insanity; (f) impotency; (g) repeated bodily violence by one against the
other; (h) intentional or unjustified desertion continuously for at least one year; (i) unexplained
absence from the last conjugal abode continuously for at least three years; and (j) slander by deed
or gross insult by one spouse against the other.
Only a little over a year, however, after the Americans had taken over the Japanese as colonizers
again of the Philippines, EO 141 became ineffective and Act No. 2710, which allowed divorce
on ground of concubinage and adultery, was once again reinstated. This was the prevailing law
when Pedrito and Virginia were granted divorce by the Ibaloi council of elders in 1947.
Thus, in 1947, only two (2) grounds were accepted for divorce, i.e., adultery and concubinage.
Neither was the reason for Pedrito and Virginia's divorce. The Ibaloi council of elders granted
the divorce on ground of Virginia's alleged insanity. The divorce, therefore, is contrary to law,
hence, cannot be recognized.
Petition is denied.
