The plaintiff is a Philippino national resident in
Zimbabwe. She, on 1 June 1984, married Apolonio Ramos Dacany, a Philipino, in
the Philippines. She, thereafter, on 16 February 2000, married the late Baker
Eddy Morten, an American who was resident in Zimbabwe. The latter marriage was
solemnised in Zimbabwe. She, at the subsequent marriage, ...
The plaintiff is a Philippino national resident in
Zimbabwe. She, on 1 June 1984, married Apolonio Ramos Dacany, a Philipino, in
the Philippines. She, thereafter, on 16 February 2000, married the late Baker
Eddy Morten, an American who was resident in Zimbabwe. The latter marriage was
solemnised in Zimbabwe. She, at the subsequent marriage, presented herself as a
divorcee. She apparently complied with the requirements for the marriage of a
divorcee. The magistrate who conducted the marriage said she presented a
divorce order which enabled him to issue them with a marriage certificate.
The first defendant is the late Baker Eddy Morten's
daughter, who has been appointed the executrix dative of her late father's
estate. She challenged the validity of the plaintiff's Zimbabwean marriage to
her late father. She alleged that the plaintiff was, at the time of the
Zimbabwean marriage, still married to Apolonio Ramos Dacany.
The parties agreed on the issues to be determined at
their trial. The issue of the validity of the plaintiff's marriage to the first
defendant's father was agreed to be a determining issue and thus the parties
agreed that it be determined first before the trial progresses into the other
issues.
The first defendant, who raised the challenge to the
validity of the plaintiff's marriage, led evidence, after which counsel for the
plaintiff's applied for absolution from the instance…,.
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that;
(1) The plaintiff presented a decree of divorce to the Marriage
Officer.
(2) That Wendy Dias' search in the Supreme Court of Santo
Domingo is not exhaustive and is thus not proof that the plaintiff did not
divorce in the Dominican Republic.
(3) That the late Baker Eddy Morten admitted in an e-mail
message that he hired a con artist who obtained a decree of divorce for the
plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the first defendant,
in evidence, admitted that this was merely the deceased's opinion on the
validity of the decree of divorce.
(4) That Apolonio Dacany deposed to an affidavit in which
he says he is aware of the divorce which the plaintiff instituted.
(5) That the first defendant conceded that the search in
the Dominican Republic was not exhaustive.
(6) That the Philippines' law on divorce has not
been properly ventilated, etc.
Counsel for the first defendant submitted that the first
defendant has established that, according to the Constitution of the
Philippines, Philippino nationals are not allowed to divorce. He relied on the
evidence of Marlene Denise Kemui Morten and a judgment of the Philippines
Supreme Court in the case of Van
Dorn vs Judge
Romilo G.R No L-68470 October 8, 1985. He further submitted that
according to the records held by the Administrator and Civil Registrar General
National Statistics' Office of The Republic of The Philippines, exhibit 2, the
plaintiff is still married to Apolonio Ramos Dacany. This means the plaintiff
has two co-existing marriages. That suggests that she was married when she
entered into the Zimbabwean marriage, which could only have been validly
entered into after the lawful dissolution of the Philippine marriage.
The real dispute is not on whether the plaintiff and the
late Baker Eddy Morten performed the formalities which could have constituted a
valid marriage in Zimbabwe. It is also not the production of a decree of
divorce to the Marriage Officer which determines whether or not the plaintiff
was actually divorced. The searches by Wendy Dias, and Apolonio Dacany's
confirmation of the divorce, are also not conclusive evidence of the existence
of the Divorce Order.
The ventilation of the Philippines' law on
divorce is conclusive evidence on the existence of a subsisting marriage
between the plaintiff and Apolonio Ramos Dacany. That issue will be considered
in detail in the court's main judgment guided by the provisions of section 25
of the Civil Evidence Act [Chapter 8:01].
