Indissoluble non-Christian marriage

This is another case of a bigamous marriage. The issue that arose here is whether the marriage solemnized pursuant to non-Christian rites and customs can be dissolved by a divorce decree also in accordance with the non-Christian practices of said tribe. This is the case of Lito and Lita.

Lito and Lita got married in accordance with the native customs of the Ibaloi tribe to which they both belonged. They had three children: Ana, Minda and Mario. After five years, however, the Council of Tribe elders took notice of Lita’s insanity and based thereon approved the couple’s divorce and allowed Lito to remarry. So five years later, Lito got married again to fellow Ibaloi tribe member Pacing, still in accordance with their tribe’s customs. They begot eight children: Lani, Ted, Nina, Tita, Pinang, Riza, Wilma and Rose.

After 52 years of marriage, Lito died. So, Ana, Minda and Mario filed a petition for summary settlement or judicial partition of the intestate estate of their father Lito. They named as respondents their half siblings, Tita, Pinang, Riza, Wilma and Rose. They averred that during the marriage of their father Lito to their mother Lita, Lito acquired from his father a portion of land covered by TCT no. T-54741. But the new TCT issued to their father Lito showed that he was already married to Pacing, although in truth, Lito’s marriage to their mother Lita was not yet legally dissolved. Thus their half-siblings are the illegitimate children of their father Lito.

Tita, Pinang, Wilma and Rose, on the other hand, argued that they are the legitimate children of their father Lito with their mother Pacing because Lito’s marriage to Lita was already dissolved in accordance with the Ibaloi customs. Thereafter, Lito married their mother Pacing, similarly in accord with Ibaloi customs. Since the celebration of marriage pursuant to the tribe’s customs was recognized under the Old Civil Code, then its dissolution must also be recognized. Hence both the marriage and subsequent divorce of Lito and Lita are valid. Consequently, the marriage of their parents Lito and Pacing must also be deemed valid.

The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled that the marriage between Lito and Lita was validly dissolved in accordance with the customs of the Ibaloi tribe. So Tita, Pinang Wilma and Rose and their four other siblings are legitimate children of Lito, who must succeed in equal proportion with Ana, Minda and Mario.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), however, declared the second marriage of Lito to Pacing void and bigamous. So Tita, Pinang, Wilma and Rose and their four other siblings are illegitimate. It held that customs and traditions cannot supplant existing laws unless specifically provided under said laws. Under the Civil Code, a subsisting marriage may be dissolved only by death of either spouse or when the marriage is annulled or declared void.

It is true that Article 78 of the Old Civil Code, which was applicable at that time, recognizes the validity of marriages performed in accordance with the couple’s customs, rites or practices. But this recognition is limited to the solemnization of marriage and does not extend to its dissolution. Thus Lito’s divorce to Lita cannot be legally recognized.

This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA said that even in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 (RA8371), the State recognizes only the marriages solemnized pursuant to the non-Christian rites and customs. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

Yes, said the Supreme Court (SC). According to the SC, it is clear that both under the Old Civil Code and the IPRA-IRR provisions, the State recognition is limited to marriages performed in accordance with the customary laws, rites, traditions and practices. There is no mention of the recognition of dissolution of marriage in accordance with the Indigenous People’s customs. Only divorce according to Muslim customs, rites and practices are recognized by the State through the enactment of Presidential Decree 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines. There is no similar law explicitly recognizing the matrimonial, customs, rites and practices of the Ibaloi tribe as to the dissolution of marriage.

Even assuming that the constitutional and statutory right to cultural integrity includes recognition of indigenous divorce or any other form of dissolution of marriages, the record is bereft of evidence that the culture of the Ibaloi tribe recognizes divorce or any form of dissolution of marriage which is a central aspect of their cultural integrity and not merely peripheral to it. And this recognition has been the central cultural practice since time immemorial up to this day in its modern form, together with its contents and procedures, if any.

The CA therefore did not err in pronouncing that the marriage of Lito and Lita was not legally dissolved. As a consequence, Lito’s subsequent marriage to Pacing was bigamous. And void from the beginning. Thus, Pinang, Wilma and Rose and their four other siblings are illegitimate children of the late Lito. This is the ruling in the case of Critita Anaban et. al. vs Betty Anaban-Alfiler et. al, G.R. 249011, March 15, 2021.