Gender Reviewer For Midterms
Gender Reviewer For Midterms
**Respondents' Defense:** - The sanctity of family life and the duty of the state to protect the family.
1. **Right to Health**: Respondents argue that the RH Law promotes public - The right to life of both the mother and the unborn child from conception.
health and the well-being of families, ensuring access to safe and legal
- The natural right and duty of parents in the upbringing of their children.
contraceptives.
**Conclusion**: The Supreme Court's ruling reflects a balance between
2. **Personal Choice**: They assert that the use of contraceptives is a
public health interests and the protection of individual rights, particularly
personal choice protected by the right to privacy and that the law does not
concerning religious beliefs and parental authority.
allow abortifacients.
Republic vs Manalo GR 221029, April 24, 2018
3. **Duty to Refer**: The respondents maintain that the duty to refer
**Facts:**
patients is a reasonable regulation that respects religious freedom while
- Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, a Filipino citizen, filed a petition for cancellation
ensuring access to healthcare.
of her marriage entry in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, based
4. **Separation of Church and State**: They emphasize that the RH Law is on a divorce decree from a Japanese court.
secular and does not impose any religious beliefs. - Manalo was previously married to a Japanese national, Yoshino Minoru,
and sought to have her marriage entry canceled to remarry.
**Court's Decision:**
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied her petition, stating that Philippine
1. **Constitutionality Upheld**: The Supreme Court ruled that the RH Law is law does not allow Filipinos to file for divorce, regardless of where they
constitutional, affirming that it does not violate the right to life of the unborn, reside.
as it does not promote abortion. - Manalo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's
decision, ruling that Article 26 of the Family Code applies even if the Filipino
2. **Spousal Consent Provision**: The Court declared the provision requiring spouse initiated the divorce.
spousal consent for family planning services unconstitutional, recognizing the
unity of direction in marriage. **Issue:**
Gender Sensitivity and Laws on Women and Children’s Rights
Reviewer for Midterms
2022-107196
- Does a Filipino citizen who obtains a divorce decree from a foreign court
have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law? **Significance:**
- This case affirms the recognition of foreign divorce decrees for Filipino
**Ruling:** citizens, allowing them to remarry and addressing the complexities faced by
- The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, ruling that a Filipino citizen those in mixed marriages.
who obtains a divorce decree from a foreign court can remarry in the - It highlights the ongoing debate regarding divorce laws in the Philippines
Philippines under Article 26(2) of the Family Code. and the need for legislative action to address the rights of Filipinos in such
situations.
**Legal Basis:**
- Article 26(2) states that if a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a Republic vs Manalo GR 221029, April 24, 2018
foreigner is validly celebrated abroad, and the foreigner obtains a divorce, **Facts:**
the Filipino spouse shall also have the capacity to remarry. - Richelle Busque Ordoña was married to Ariel O. Libut but separated due to
- The Court emphasized that this provision is a narrow exception to the Ariel's illicit relationship.
prohibition against absolute divorce in the Philippines, aimed at addressing - While working in Abu Dhabi, Richelle had an intimate relationship with
the unfair situation of a Filipino spouse remaining married while the foreign Allan D. Fulgueras, resulting in the birth of her son, Alrich Paul Ordoña
spouse is free to remarry. Fulgueras, on January 26, 2010.
- The child's birth certificate listed Allan as the father, although Richelle
**Arguments and Deliberations:** claimed he did not sign the Affidavit of Acknowledgment.
- The Court discussed the implications of Article 26(2) and its potential - Richelle filed a Rule 108 petition to change Alrich's surname to her maiden
discrimination against Filipinos married to fellow Filipinos. name and delete Allan's information from the birth certificate.
- It was argued that the provision recognizes the effects of foreign divorce
decrees on Filipinos, preventing an absurd situation where a Filipino spouse **Lower Court Decisions:**
is still considered married while the foreign spouse is not. - The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition, stating that deleting the
- The Court held that the distinctions made by Article 26(2) are reasonable father's information would leave Alrich without a father, which would be
and based on substantial differences, thus not violating the equal protection more embarrassing for him.
clause of the Constitution. - The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing the
presumption of legitimacy and the limited grounds for contesting a child's
**Conclusion:** legitimacy.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Article 26(2) should be interpreted to allow
a Filipino citizen who obtains a divorce from a foreign court to remarry in
the Philippines.
- The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings to assess the **Supreme Court Decision:**
relevant Japanese law on divorce and its implications for Manalo's situation.
Gender Sensitivity and Laws on Women and Children’s Rights
Reviewer for Midterms
2022-107196
- The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, stating that - Amadea claims to be the natural child of Arturo C. Aquino, who is the son
legitimacy and filiation cannot be collaterally attacked in a Rule 108 petition. of Miguel. She was born after Arturo's death, which raised questions about
- The Court emphasized that only the husband or his heirs can impugn the her filiation and inheritance rights.
legitimacy of a child born within a valid marriage. - Rodolfo C. Aquino, Arturo's brother, opposed Amadea's claim, arguing that
- The petition was dismissed for failing to comply with procedural she failed to prove her relationship to Arturo and was born more than nine
requirements, specifically the need to implead all indispensable parties, months after his death.
including Ariel.
**Trial Court Proceedings:**
**Key Legal Principles:** - The trial court initially recognized Amadea as an acknowledged natural
- Under Philippine law, the legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage child of Arturo, allowing her to inherit from Miguel's estate.
is presumed and can only be contested through a direct action by the - Rodolfo and Abdulah C. Aquino (another brother) filed motions for
husband or his heirs. reconsideration, which were denied.
- The Court noted the procedural requirements under Rule 108 must be
strictly followed to ensure orderly justice. **Court of Appeals:**
- The Supreme Court called for legislative action to address the disparity in - Rodolfo appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
the legal standing of mothers and fathers regarding the ability to contest a decision, ruling that Amadea did not prove her filiation and thus could not
child's legitimacy. inherit.
**Conclusion:**
The case illustrates the evolving interpretation of inheritance laws
concerning nonmarital children in the Philippines, balancing legal provisions
with the principles of equity and the best interests of the child. The
Supreme Court's decision marks a significant step towards recognizing the
rights of nonmarital children in succession matters.