Fujiki v Marinay

7/17/2019 Fujiki v Marinay

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fujiki-v-marinay 1/29

Fujiki v Marinay (2013)

G.R. No. 196049 | 2013-06-26

Subject: A.M. No. 02-11-10-SCdoes not apply in a petition torecognize a foreign judgmentrelating to the status of a marriagewhere one of the parties is a citizenof a foreign country; PhilippineCourts recognize a foreign divorcedecree under the secondparagraph of Article 26 of the

Family Code; Section 2(a) of A.M.No. 02-11-10-SC does notpreclude a spouse of a subsistingmarriage to question the validity ofa subsequent marriage on theground of bigamy; A petition forcorrection or cancellation of anentry in the civil registry cannotsubstitute for an action to

invalidate a marriage; The foreign judgment is already "presumptiveevidence of a right between theparties"; The recognition of aforeign judgment nullifying abigamous marriage is withoutprejudice to prosecution forbigamy

Facts:

Minoru Fujiki is a Japanesenational who married Maria PazGalela Marinay in the Philippines.Fujiki could not bring his wife toJapan where he resides.

Eventually, they lost contact witheach other.

Marinay, without the first marriage

being dissolved, married Maekara.Maekara brought Marinay to Japan.However, Marinay left Maekaraand started to contact Fujiki.

Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a

judgment from a family court inJapan which declared the marriagebetween Marinay and Maekaravoid on the ground of bigamy.Fujiki filed a petition in the RTCentitled: "Judicial Recognition ofForeign Judgment (or Decree ofAbsolute Nullity of Marriage)."

The RTC immediately issued anOrder dismissing the petition. Itruled that the petition was in"gross violation" of the Section 2and 4 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SCwhich provides that "failure tocomply with any of the precedingrequirements may be a ground forimmediate dismissal of thepetition”. Apparently, the RTC tookthe view that only "the husband orthe wife," in this case eitherMaekara or Marinay, can file thepetition to declare their marriagevoid, and not Fujiki.

Held:

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does notapply in a petition to recognizea foreign judgment relating tothe status of a marriage whereone of the parties is a citizen ofa foreign country

1. The Rule on Declaration of

Absolute Nullity of Void Marriagesand Annulment of VoidableMarriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC)does not apply in a petition to



recognize a foreign judgmentrelating to the status of a marriagewhere one of the parties is a citizenof a foreign country. The rule inA.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does notapply if the reason behind the

petition is bigamy. (See Juliano-Llave v. Republic )

2. If every judgment of a foreigncourt were reviewable on themerits, the plaintiff would beforced back on his/her originalcause of action, renderingimmaterial the previously

concluded litigation. (See Mijaresv. Rañada)

Philippine Courts recognize aforeign divorce decree underthe second paragraph of Article26 of the Family Code

3. While the Philippines does nothave a divorce law, Philippinecourts may, however, recognize aforeign divorce decree under thesecond paragraph of Article 26 ofthe Family Code, to capacitate aFilipino citizen to remarry when hisor her foreign spouse obtained adivorce decree abroad. Since the

recognition of a foreign judgmentonly requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may be made in aspecial proceeding for cancellationor correction of entries in the civilregistry under Rule 108 of theRules of Court since a specialproceeding is a remedy by which aparty seeks to establish a status, a

right, or a particular fact.

Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a

spouse of a subsistingmarriage to question the

validity of a subsequentmarriage on the ground ofbigamy

4. Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouseof a subsisting marriage toquestion the validity of asubsequent marriage on theground of bigamy. Under Article35(4) of the Family Code,bigamous marriages are void fromthe beginning. Thus, the parties in

a bigamous marriage are neitherthe husband nor the wife under thelaw. The husband or the wife of theprior subsisting marriage is theone who has the personality to filea petition for declaration ofabsolute nullity of void marriageunder Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

5. In this case, Fujiki has thepersonality to file a petition torecognize the Japanese FamilyCourt judgment nullifying themarriage between Marinay andMaekara on the ground of bigamybecause the judgment concerns

his civil status as married toMarinay. For the same reason hehas the personality to file a petitionunder Rule 108 to cancel the entryof marriage between Marinay andMaekara in the civil registry on thebasis of the decree of the JapaneseFamily Court.

A petition for correction orcancellation of an entry in thecivil registry cannot substitutefor an action to invalidate a



marriage

6. A petition for correction orcancellation of an entry in the civilregistry cannot substitute for anaction to invalidate a marriage.

However, this does not apply in apetition for correction orcancellation of a civil registry entrybased on the recognition of aforeign judgment annulling amarriage where one of the partiesis a citizen of the foreigncountry. A recognition of a foreign

judgment is not an action to nullify

a marriage. It is an action forPhilippine courts to recognize theeffectivity of a foreign judgment,which presupposes a case whichwas already tried and decidedunder foreign law. The procedurein A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does notapply in a petition to recognize aforeign judgment annulling abigamous marriage where one ofthe parties is a citizen of theforeign country. Neither can R.A.No. 8369 define the jurisdiction ofthe foreign court.

The foreign judgment isalready "presumptive evidence

of a right between the parties"

7. Philippine courts will onlydetermine the following inrecognizing foreign decisions: (1)whether the foreign judgment isinconsistent with an overridingpublic policy in the Philippines; and(2) whether any alleging party is

able to prove an extrinsic groundto repel the foreign judgment, i.e.want of jurisdiction, want of noticeto the party, collusion, fraud, or

clear mistake of law or fact.

8. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of theRules of Court states that theforeign judgment is already"presumptive evidence of a right

between the parties." Therecognition of the foreign

judgment nullifying a bigamousmarriage is a subsequent eventthat establishes a new status, rightand fact that needs to be reflectedin the civil registry.

The recognition of a foreign

judgment nullifying abigamous marriage is withoutprejudice to prosecution forbigamy

9. The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamousmarriage is without prejudice toprosecution for bigamy underArticle 349 of the Revised PenalCode. The recognition of a foreign

judgment nullifying a bigamousmarriage is not a ground forextinction of criminal liability underArticles 89 and 94 of the RevisedPenal Code.



MINORU FUJIKI, Petitioner,

vs.

MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY,

SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL

CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON

CITY, and THE

ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL

REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE

NATIONAL STATISTICS

OFFICE, Respondents.

G.R. No. 196049 | 2013-06-26

Tagged under keywords

View Summary

SECOND DIVISION

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a direct recourse to thisCourt from the Regional TrialCourt (RTC), Branch 107, Quezon

City, through a petition for reviewon certiorari under Rule 45 of theRules of Court on a pure questionof law. The petition assails theOrder' dated 31 January 2011 ofthe RTC in Civil Case No. Q-11-68582 and its Resolution dated 2March 2011 denying petitioner'sMotion for Reconsideration. The

RTC dismissed the petition for"Judicial Recognition of ForeigriJudgment · (or Decree of AbsoluteNullity of Marriage)" based on

improper venue and the lack ofpersonality of petitioner, MinoruFujiki, to file the petition.

The Facts

Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is aJapanese national whomarried respondent Maria PazGalela Marinay (Marinay) in thePhilippines2 on 23 January 2004.The marriage did not sit well withpetitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki

could not bring his wife to Japanwhere he resides. Eventually,they lost contact with each other.

In 2008, Marinay met anotherJapanese, Shinichi Maekara(Maekara). Without the firstmarriage being dissolved, Marinay

and Maekara were married on 15May 2008 in Quezon City,Philippines. Maekarabrought Marinay to Japan.However, Marinay allegedlysuffered physical abusefrom Maekara. She left Maekaraand started to contact Fujiki.3

Fujiki and Marinay met in Japanand they were able toreestablish their relationship. In2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtaina judgment from a family court inJapan which declared the marriagebetween Marinay and Maekara

void on the ground of bigamy.4 On14 January 2011, Fujiki fileda petition in the RTC entitled:

“Judicial Recognition of Foreign

http://undefined/

http://undefined/

https://web.mylegalwhiz.com/summary/view/1011/59162



http://undefined/



Judgment (or Decree of AbsoluteNullity of Marriage).” Fujiki prayed

that (1) the Japanese Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) thatthe bigamous marriage betweenMarinay and Maekara be declared

void ab initio under Articles 35(4)and 41 of the Family Code of thePhilippines;5 and (3) for the RTCto direct the Local Civil Registrar ofQuezon City to annotatethe Japanese Family Court

judgment on the Certificate ofMarriage between Marinay andMaekara and to endorse such

annotation to the Office ofthe Administrator and CivilRegistrar General in the NationalStatistics Office (NSO).6

The Ruling of the RegionalTrial Court

A few days after the filing of thepetition, the RTC immediatelyissued an Order dismissing thepetition and withdrawing the casefrom its active civil docket.7 TheRTC cited the following provisionsof the Rule on Declaration of

Absolute Nullity of Void Marriagesand Annulment of VoidableMarriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC):

Sec. 2. Petition for declaration ofabsolute nullity of void marriages.– (a) Who may file. – A petition for

declaration of absolute nullity ofvoid marriage may be filed solelyby the husband or the wife.

x x x x

Sec. 4. Venue. – The petition shallbe filed in the Family Court of

the province or city where thepetitioner or the respondent hasbeen residing for at least sixmonths prior to the date of filing,or in the case of a nonresidentrespondent, where he may befound in the Philippines, atthe election of the petitioner. x x x

The RTC ruled, without furtherexplanation, that the petition wasin “gross violation” of the above

provisions. The trial court based itsdismissal on Section 5(4) of A.M.No. 02-11-10-SC which providesthat “[f]ailure to comply with any

of the preceding requirementsmay be a ground for immediatedismissal of thepetition.”8 Apparently, the RTCtook the view that only “thehusband or the wife,” in this case

either Maekara or Marinay, can filethe petition to declare theirmarriage void, and not Fujiki.

Fujiki moved that the Order bereconsidered. He argued thatA.M. No. 02-11-10-SCcontemplated ordinary civil actionsfor declaration of nullity andannulment of marriage. Thus, A.M.No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply.

A petition for recognition of foreign judgment is a specialproceeding, which “seeks to



establish a status, a right or aparticular fact,”9 and not a civilaction which is “for theenforcement or protection of aright, or the prevention or redressof a wrong.”10 In other words, the

petition in the RTC sought toestablish (1) the status andconcomitant rights of Fujikiand Marinay as husband and wifeand (2) the fact of the rendition ofthe Japanese Family Court

judgment declaring the marriagebetween Marinay and Maekara asvoid on the ground of bigamy. The

petitioner contended that theJapanese judgment was consistentwith Article 35(4) of the FamilyCode of the Philippines11 onbigamy and was therefore entitledto recognition by Philippinecourts.12

In any case, it was also Fujiki’s

view that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applied only to void marriagesunder Article 36 of the Family Codeon the ground of psychologicalincapacity.13 Thus, Section 2(a) ofA.M. No. 02-11-10-SC providesthat “a petition for declaration of

absolute nullity of void marriagesmay be filed solely by the husbandor the wife.” To apply Section 2(a)in bigamy would be absurdbecause only the guilty partieswould be permitted to sue. In thewords of Fujiki, “[i]t is not, ofcourse, difficult to realize that theparty interested in having a

bigamous marriage declareda nullity would be the husband inthe prior, pre-existingmarriage.”14 Fujiki had material

interest and therefore thepersonality to nullify abigamous marriage.

Fujiki argued that Rule 108

(Cancellation or Correction ofEntries in the Civil Registry) of theRules of Court is applicable. Rule108 is the “proceduralimplementation” of the Civil

Register Law (Act No. 3753)15in relation to Article 413 of theCivil Code.16 The Civil RegisterLaw imposes a duty on the

“successful petitioner for divorceor annulment of marriage to senda copy of the final decree of thecourt to the local registrar ofthe municipality where thedissolved or annulled marriagewas solemnized.”17Section 2 ofRule 108 provides that entries inthe civil registry relatingto “marriages,” “judgments ofannulments of marriage” and

“judgments declaring marriagesvoid from the beginning” aresubject to cancellationor correction.18 The petition in theRTC sought (among others) toannotate the judgment of the

Japanese Family Court on thecertificate of marriage betweenMarinay and Maekara.

Fujiki’s motion for reconsiderationin the RTC also asserted thatthe trial court “gravely erred”when, on its own, it dismissed the

petition based on improper venue.Fujiki stated that the RTC may beconfusing the concept of venuewith the concept of jurisdiction,



because it is lack of jurisdiction which allows a court todismiss a case on its own. Fujikicited Dacoycoy v. IntermediateAppellate Court19 which held thatthe “trial court cannot preempt the

defendant’s prerogative to objectto the improper laying ofthe venue by motu propriodismissing the case.”20 Moreover,petitioner alleged that the trialcourt should not have

“immediately dismissed” thepetition under Section 5 of A.M. No.02-11-10-SC because he

substantially complied with theprovision.

On 2 March 2011, the RTCresolved to deny petitioner’smotion for reconsideration. In itsResolution, the RTC stated thatA.M. No. 02-11-10-SC appliesbecause the petitioner, in effect,prays for a decree ofabsolute nullity of marriage.21The trial court reiterated its twogrounds for dismissal, i.e. lack ofpersonality to sue and impropervenue under Sections 2(a) and 4of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. The RTC

considered Fujiki as a “thirdperson”22in the proceedingbecause he “is not the husband inthe decree of divorce issued by theJapanese Family Court, which henow seeks to be

judicially recognized, x x x.”23 Onthe other hand, the RTC did notexplain its ground of impropriety

of venue. It only said that “[a]lthough the Court cited Sec. 4(Venue) x x x as a ground fordismissal of this case[,] it should

be taken together with the otherground cited by the Court x x xwhich is Sec. 2(a) x x x.”24

The RTC further justified its motu

proprio dismissal of thepetition based on Braza v. The CityCivil Registrar of Himamaylan City,Negros Occidental.25 The Court inBraza ruled that “[i]n a special

proceeding for correction of entryunder Rule 108 (Cancellation orCorrection of Entries in theOriginal Registry), the trial court

has no jurisdiction to nullifymarriages x x x.”26 Brazaemphasized that the “validity of

marriages as well as legitimacyand filiation can be questionedonly in a direct actionseasonably filed by the properparty, and not through a collateralattack such as [a] petition [forcorrection of entry] x x x.”27

The RTC considered the petition asa collateral attack on the validity ofmarriage between Marinay andMaekara. The trial court held thatthis is a “jurisdictional ground” to

dismiss the petition.28 Moreover,the verification and certificationagainst forum shopping of thepetition was not authenticated asrequired under Section 529 of A.M.No. 02-11-10-SC.

Hence, this also warranted the

“immediate dismissal” of thepetition under the same provision.



The Manifestation and Motionof the Office of the Solicitor

General and

the Letters of Marinay andMaekara

On 30 May 2011, the Courtrequired respondents to file theircomment on the petition forreview.30 The public respondents,the Local Civil Registrar of QuezonCity and the Administrator andCivil Registrar General of the NSO,

participated through the Office ofthe Solicitor General. Instead of acomment, the Solicitor Generalfiled a Manifestation and Motion.31

The Solicitor General agreed withthe petition. He prayed thatthe RTC’s “pronouncement that

the petitioner failed to comply withx x x A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC x x xbe set aside” and that the case be

reinstated in the trial court forfurther proceedings.32 TheSolicitor General argued thatFujiki, as the spouse of the firstmarriage, is an injured party whocan sue to declare the bigamous

marriage between Marinay andMaekara void. TheSolicitor General cited Juliano-Llave v. Republic33 which heldthat Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in casesof bigamy. In Juliano-Llave, thisCourt explained:

[t]he subsequent spouse may onlybe expected to take action if he or

she had only discovered during theconnubial period that the marriagewas bigamous, and especially ifthe conjugal bliss had alreadyvanished. Should parties in asubsequent marriage benefit from

the bigamous marriage, it wouldnot be expected that they wouldfile an action to declare themarriage void and thus, in suchcircumstance, the “injuredspouse” who should be given alegal remedy is the one in asubsisting previous marriage. Thelatter is clearly the aggrieved party

as the bigamous marriage not onlythreatens the financial and theproperty ownership aspect of theprior marriage but most of all, itcauses an emotional burden to theprior spouse. The subsequentmarriage will always be a reminderof the infidelity of the spouse andthe disregard of the prior marriagewhich sanctity is protected by theConstitution.34

The Solicitor General contendedthat the petition to recognizethe Japanese Family Court

judgment may be made in a Rule

108 proceeding.35In Corpuz v.Santo Tomas, 36 this Court heldthat “[t]he recognition ofthe foreign divorce decree may bemade in a Rule 108 proceedingitself, as the object of specialproceedings (such as that in Rule108 of the Rules of Court) isprecisely to establish the status or

right of a party or a particularfact.”37 While Corpuz concerned aforeign divorce decree, in thepresent case the Japanese Family



Court judgment also affected thecivil status of theparties, especially Marinay, who isa Filipino citizen.

The Solicitor General asserted thatRule 108 of the Rules of Courtis the procedure to record “[a]cts,

events and judicial decreesconcerning the civil status ofpersons” in the civil registry asrequired by Article 407 of the CivilCode. In other words, “[t]he lawrequires the entry in the civil

registry of judicial decrees thatproduce legal consequences upona person’s legal capacity andstatus x x x.”38 The Japanese

Family Court judgmentdirectly bears on the civil status ofa Filipino citizen and shouldtherefore be proven as a fact in aRule 108 proceeding.

Moreover, the Solicitor Generalargued that there is no

jurisdictional infirmity in assailinga void marriage under Rule 108,citing De Castro v. De Castro39and Niñal v. Bayadog40 which

declared that “[t]he validity of avoid marriage may be collaterallyattacked.”41

Marinay and Maekara individuallysent letters to the Court tocomply with the directive for themto comment on the petition.42

Maekara wrote that Marinayconcealed from him the fact thatshe was previously marriedto Fujiki.43 Maekara also denied

that he inflicted any form ofviolence on Marinay.44 On theother hand, Marinay wrote thatshe had no reason to oppose thepetition.45 She would like tomaintain her silence for fear

that anything she say might causemisunderstanding between herand Fujiki.46

The Issues

Petitioner raises the following legal

issues:

(1) Whether the Rule onDeclaration of Absolute Nullity ofVoid Marriages and Annulment ofVoidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.

(2) Whether a husband or wife ofa prior marriage can file a petitionto recognize a foreign judgmentnullifying the subsequent marriagebetween his or her spouse and aforeign citizen on the ground ofbigamy.

(3) Whether the Regional TrialCourt can recognize theforeign judgment in a proceedingfor cancellation or correction ofentries in the Civil Registry underRule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The Ruling of the Court



We grant the petition.

The Rule on Declaration ofAbsolute Nullity of Void Marriagesand Annulment of Voidable

Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC)does not apply in a petition torecognize a foreign judgmentrelating to the status of a marriagewhere one of the parties is a citizenof a foreign country. Moreover, inJuliano-Llave v. Republic,47 thisCourt held that the rule in A.M. No.02-11-10-SC that only the

husband or wife can file adeclaration of nullity or annulmentof marriage “does not apply if the

reason behind the petitionis igamy.”48

I.

For Philippine courts to recognize aforeign judgment relating tothe status of a marriage where oneof the parties is a citizen of aforeign country, the petitioner onlyneeds to prove the foreign

judgment as a fact under the Rulesof Court. To be more specific, acopy of the foreign judgment may

be admitted in evidence andproven as a fact under Rule 132,Sections 24 and 25, in relation toRule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rulesof Court.49 Petitioner may provethe Japanese Family Court

judgment through (1) anofficial publication or (2) acertification or copy attested by

the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the office which hascustody is in a foreign country

such as Japan, the certificationmay be made by theproper diplomatic or consularofficer of the Philippine foreignservice in Japan and authenticatedby the seal of office.50

To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SCapplies to a petition for recognitionof foreign judgment would meanthat the trial court and the partiesshould follow its provisions,including the form and contents ofthe petition,51 the service of

summons,52 the investigation ofthe public prosecutor,53 thesetting of pre-trial,54 the trial55and the judgment of thetrial court.56 This is absurdbecause it will litigate the caseanew. It will defeat the purpose ofrecognizing foreign judgments,which is “to limit

repetitive litigation on claims andissues.”57 The interpretation of

the RTC is tantamount torelitigating the case on the merits.In Mijares v. Rañada,58 this Courtexplained that “[i]f every

judgment of a foreign court werereviewable on the merits, the

plaintiff would be forced back onhis/her original cause of action,rendering immaterial thepreviously concluded litigation.”59

A foreign judgment relating to thestatus of a marriage affects thecivil status, condition and legal

capacity of its parties. However,the effect of a foreign judgment isnot automatic. To extend the effectof a foreign judgment in the



Philippines, Philippine courts mustdetermine if the foreign judgmentis consistent with domestic publicpolicy and othermandatory laws.60 Article 15 ofthe Civil Code provides that

“[l]aws relating to family rightsand duties, or to the status,condition and legal capacity ofpersons are binding upon citizensof the Philippines, even thoughliving abroad.” This is the rule oflex nationalii in privateinternational law. Thus, thePhilippine State may require, for

effectivity in the Philippines,recognition by Philippine courts ofa foreign judgment affecting itscitizen, over whom it exercisespersonal jurisdiction relating to thestatus, condition andlegal capacity of such citizen.

A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriagevoid does not require relitigationunder a Philippine court of the caseas if it were a new petition fordeclaration of nullity of marriage.Philippine courts cannot presumeto know the foreign laws under

which the foreign judgmentwas rendered. They cannotsubstitute their judgment on thestatus, condition and legalcapacity of the foreign citizen whois under the jurisdiction ofanother state. Thus, Philippinecourts can only recognize theforeign judgment as a fact

according to the rules of evidence.

Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rulesof Court provides that aforeign judgment or final orderagainst a person creates a

“presumptive evidence of a rightas between the parties and their

successors in interest by asubsequent title.” Moreover,Section 48 of the Rules of Courtstates that “the judgment or finalorder may be repelled by evidenceof a want of jurisdiction, wantof notice to the party, collusion,fraud, or clear mistake of law orfact.” Thus, Philippine courts

exercise limited review on foreign judgments. Courts are not allowedto delve into the merits of a foreign

judgment. Once aforeign judgment is admitted andproven in a Philippine court, it canonly be repelled on groundsexternal to its merits, i.e. , “want

of jurisdiction, want of notice tothe party, collusion, fraud, or clearmistake of law or fact.” The rule onlimited review embodies the policyof efficiency and the protectionof party expectations,61 as well asrespecting the jurisdiction of otherstates.62

Since 1922 in Adong v. CheongSeng Gee,63 Philippine courtshave recognized foreign divorcedecrees between a Filipino and aforeign citizen if they aresuccessfully proven under therules of evidence.64Divorce involves the dissolution of

a marriage, but the recognition ofa foreign divorce decree does notinvolve the extended procedureunder A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or



the rules of ordinary trial. Whilethe Philippines does not havea divorce law, Philippine courtsmay, however, recognize a foreigndivorce decree under the secondparagraph of Article 26 of the

Family Code, to capacitate aFilipino citizen to remarry when hisor her foreign spouse obtained adivorce decree abroad.65

There is therefore no reason todisallow Fujiki to simply prove asa fact the Japanese Family Court

judgment nullifying the marriagebetween Marinay and Maekara onthe ground of bigamy. While thePhilippines has no divorce law, theJapanese Family Court judgment isfully consistent with Philippinepublic policy, as bigamousmarriages are declared void fromthe beginning under Article 35(4)of the Family Code. Bigamy is acrime under Article 349 of theRevised Penal Code. Thus, Fujikican prove the existence of theJapanese Family Court judgmentin accordance with Rule132, Sections 24 and 25, inrelation to Rule 39, Section 48(b)

of the Rules of Court.

II.

Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof offact of the judgment, it may bemade in a special proceeding forcancellation or correction of

entries in the civil registry underRule 108 of the Rules of Court.Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of

Court provides that “[a]

special proceeding is a remedy bywhich a party seeks to establish astatus, a right, or a particular fact.”Rule 108 creates a remedy torectify facts of a person’s life which

are recorded by the State pursuantto the Civil Register Law or Act No.3753. These are facts of publicconsequence such as birth, deathor marriage,66 which the Statehas an interest in recording. Asnoted by the Solicitor General, inCorpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Courtdeclared that “[t]he recognition of

the foreign divorce decree may bemade in a Rule 108 proceedingitself, as the object of specialproceedings (such as that inRule 108 of the Rules of Court) isprecisely to establish the status orright of a party or a particularfact.”67

Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules ofCourt states:

Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act,event, order or

decree concerning the civilstatus of persons which hasbeen recorded in the civilregister, may file a verifiedpetition for the cancellation orcorrection of any entry relatingthereto, with the Regional TrialCourt of the province where thecorresponding civil registry

is located. (Emphasis supplied)



Fujiki has the personality to file apetition to recognize the JapaneseFamily Court judgment nullifyingthe marriage between Marinay andMaekara on the ground of bigamybecause the judgment concerns

his civil status as married toMarinay. For the same reason hehas the personality to filea petition under Rule 108 to cancelthe entry of marriage betweenMarinay and Maekara in the civilregistry on the basis of the decreeof the Japanese Family Court.

There is no doubt that the priorspouse has a personal andmaterial interest in maintainingthe integrity of the marriage hecontracted and the propertyrelations arising from it. There isalso no doubt that he isinterested in the cancellation of anentry of a bigamous marriage inthe civil registry, whichcompromises the public record ofhis marriage. The interestderives from the substantive rightof the spouse not only to preserve(or dissolve, in limitedinstances68) his most intimate

human relation, but also to protecthis property interests that arise byoperation of law the moment hecontracts marriage.69 Theseproperty interests in marriageinclude the right to be supported

“in keeping with the financialcapacity of the family”70

and preserving the property

regime of the marriage.71

Property rights are alreadysubstantive rights protected bythe Constitution,72 but a spouse’sright in a marriage extends furtherto relational rights recognizedunder Title III (“Rights and

Obligations between Husband andWife”) of the Family Code.73 A.M.No. 02-11-10-SC cannot

“diminish, increase, or modify” thesubstantive right of the spouse tomaintain the integrity of hismarriage.74 In any case, Section2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SCpreserves this substantive right by

limiting the personality to sue tothe husband or the wife of theunion recognized by law.

Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouse ofa subsisting marriage to questionthe validity of a subsequentmarriage on the ground of bigamy.On the contrary, when Section2(a) states that “[a] petition fordeclaration of absolute nullity ofvoid marriage may be filed solelyby the husband or thewife”75 it refers to the husbandor the wife of the subsisting

marriage. Under Article 35(4) ofthe Family Code,bigamous marriages are void fromthe beginning. Thus, the parties ina bigamous marriage are neitherthe husband nor the wife under thelaw. The husband or the wife of theprior subsisting marriage is theone who has the personality to file

a petition for declaration ofabsolute nullity of void marriageunder Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.



Article 35(4) of the Family Code,which declares bigamousmarriages void from the beginning,is the civil aspect of Article 349 ofthe Revised Penal Code,76 whichpenalizes bigamy. Bigamy is apublic crime. Thus, anyone caninitiate prosecution for bigamybecause any citizen has an interestin the prosecution and preventionof crimes.77 If anyone can filea criminal action which leads to thedeclaration of nullity of a

bigamous marriage,78 there ismore reason to confer personalityto sue on the husband or the wifeof a subsisting marriage. The priorspouse does not only share in thepublic interest of prosecuting andpreventing crimes, he isalso personally interested in thepurely civil aspect of protecting his

marriage.

When the right of the spouse toprotect his marriage is violated,the spouse is clearly an injuredparty and is therefore interested inthe judgment of the suit.79Juliano-Llave ruled that the prior

spouse “is clearly the aggrievedparty as the bigamous marriagenot only threatens thefinancial and the propertyownership aspect of the priormarriage but most of all, it causesan emotional burden to the priorspouse.”80 Being a real partyin interest, the prior spouse isentitled to sue in order to declarea bigamous marriage void. For thispurpose, he can petition a court to

recognize a foreign judgmentnullifying the bigamous marriageand judicially declare as a fact thatsuch judgment is effective in thePhilippines. Onceestablished, there should be no

more impediment to cancel theentry of the bigamous marriage inthe civil registry.

III.

In Braza v. The City Civil Registrarof Himamaylan City,

Negros Occidental, this Court heldthat a “trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages” in

a special proceeding forcancellation or correction ofentry under Rule 108 of the Rulesof Court.81 Thus, the “validity ofmarriage[ ] x x x can bequestioned only in a direct action”

to nullify the marriage.82 The RTCrelied on Braza in dismissing thepetition for recognition of foreign

judgment as a collateral attack onthe marriage between Marinayand Maekara.

Braza is not applicable because

Braza does not involve arecognition of a foreign judgmentnullifying a bigamous marriagewhere one of the parties is acitizen of the foreign country.

To be sure, a petition for correctionor cancellation of an entry in

the civil registry cannot substitutefor an action to invalidate amarriage. A direct action is



necessary to preventcircumvention of the substantiveand procedural safeguards ofmarriage under the Family Code,A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and otherrelated laws. Among these

safeguards are the requirement ofproving the limited grounds for thedissolution of marriage,83support pendente lite of thespouses and children,84 theliquidation, partitionand distribution of the propertiesof the spouses,85 and theinvestigation of the public

prosecutor to determinecollusion.86 A direct action fordeclaration of nullity or annulmentof marriage is also necessary toprevent circumvention of the

jurisdiction of the Family Courtsunder the Family Courts Act of1997 (Republic Act No. 8369), as apetition for cancellation orcorrection of entries in the civilregistry may be filed in theRegional Trial Court “where thecorresponding civil registry islocated.”87 In other words, aFilipino citizen cannot dissolve hismarriage by the mere expedient ofchanging his entry of marriage in

the civil registry.

However, this does not apply in apetition for correctionor cancellation of a civil registryentry based on the recognition of aforeign judgment annulling amarriage where one of the parties

is a citizen of the foreign country.There is neither circumvention ofthe substantive and proceduralsafeguards of marriage under

Philippine law, nor ofthe jurisdiction of Family Courtsunder R.A. No. 8369. A recognitionof a foreign judgment is not anaction to nullify a marriage. It is anaction for Philippine courts to

recognize the effectivity of aforeign judgment,which presupposes a case whichwas already tried and decidedunder foreign law. The procedurein A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does notapply in a petition to recognize aforeign judgment annulling abigamous marriage where one

of the parties is a citizen of theforeign country. Neither can R.A.No. 8369 define the jurisdiction ofthe foreign court.

Article 26 of the Family Codeconfers jurisdiction onPhilippine courts to extend theeffect of a foreign divorce decreeto a Filipino spouse withoutundergoing trial to determine thevalidity of the dissolution ofthe marriage. The secondparagraph of Article 26 of theFamily Code provides that

“[w]here a marriage between a

Filipino citizen and a foreigner isvalidly celebrated and a divorce isthereafter validly obtained abroadby the alien spouse capacitatinghim or her to remarry, the Filipinospouse shall have capacity toremarry under Philippine law.” InRepublic v. Orbecido,88 this Courtrecognized the legislative intent of

the second paragraph of Article26 which is “to avoid the absurdsituation where the Filipino spouseremains married to the alien



spouse who, after obtaining adivorce, is no longer married tothe Filipino spouse”89 under thelaws of his or her country.The second paragraph of Article 26of the Family Code only

authorizes Philippine courts toadopt the effects of a foreigndivorce decree precisely becausethe Philippines does not allowdivorce. Philippine courts cannottry the case on the merits becauseit is tantamount to trying a case fordivorce.The second paragraph ofArticle 26 is only a corrective

measure to address the anomalythat results from a marriagebetween a Filipino, whose laws donot allow divorce, and a foreigncitizen, whose laws allow divorce.

The anomaly consists in theFilipino spouse being tied to themarriage while the foreign spouseis free to marry under the laws ofhis or her country. The correctionis made by extending in thePhilippines the effect of theforeign divorce decree, which isalready effective in the countrywhere it was rendered. The second

paragraph of Article 26 of theFamily Code is based on thisCourt’s decision in Van Dorn v.Romillo90 which declared thatthe Filipino spouse “should not bediscriminated against in her owncountry if the ends of justice are tobe served.”91

The principle in Article 26 of theFamily Code applies in amarriage between a Filipino and a

foreign citizen who obtains aforeign judgment nullifying themarriage on the ground of bigamy.The Filipino spouse may file apetition abroad to declare themarriage void on the ground of

bigamy. The principle in thesecond paragraph of Article 26 ofthe Family Code applies becausethe foreign spouse, after theforeign judgment nullifyingthe marriage, is capacitated toremarry under the laws of his orher country. If the foreign

judgment is not recognized in the

Philippines, the Filipino spouse willbe discriminated—the foreignspouse can remarry while theFilipino spouse cannot remarry.

Under the second paragraph ofArticle 26 of the FamilyCode, Philippine courts areempowered to correct a situationwhere the Filipino spouse is stilltied to the marriage while theforeign spouse is free tomarry. Moreover, notwithstandingArticle 26 of the Family Code,Philippine courts already have

jurisdiction to extend the effect of

a foreign judgment inthe Philippines to the extent thatthe foreign judgment does notcontravene domestic public policy.A critical difference between thecase of a foreign divorce decreeand a foreign judgment nullifying abigamous marriage is that bigamy,as a ground for the nullity of

marriage, is fully consistentwith Philippine public policy asexpressed in Article 35(4) of theFamily Code and Article 349 of the



Revised Penal Code. The Filipinospouse has the option to undergofull trial by filing a petition fordeclaration of nullity of marriageunder A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, butthis is not the only

remedy available to him or her.Philippine courts have jurisdictionto recognize a foreign judgmentnullifying a bigamous marriage,without prejudice to a criminalprosecution for bigamy.

In the recognition of foreign

judgments, Philippine courtsare incompetent to substitute their

judgment on how a case wasdecided under foreign law. Theycannot decide on the “family rightsand duties, or on the status,condition and legal capacity” of the foreign citizen who is a party to theforeign judgment. Thus, Philippinecourts are limited to the questionof whether to extend the effect ofa foreign judgment in thePhilippines. In a foreign judgmentrelating to the status of a marriageinvolving a citizen of a foreigncountry, Philippine courts onlydecide whether to extend its effect

to the Filipino party, under the ruleof lex nationalii expressed inArticle 15 of the Civil Code.

For this purpose, Philippine courtswill only determine (1) whetherthe foreign judgment isinconsistent with an overriding

public policy in the Philippines;and (2) whether any alleging partyis able to prove anextrinsic ground to repel the

foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to theparty, collusion, fraud, or clearmistake of law or fact. If thereis neither inconsistency with publicpolicy nor adequate proof to repel

the judgment, Philippine courtsshould, by default, recognize theforeign judgment as part of thecomity of nations. Section 48(b),Rule 39 of the Rules of Courtstates that the foreign judgment isalready “presumptive evidence ofa right between the parties.” Upon

recognition of the

foreign judgment, this rightbecomes conclusive and the

judgment serves as the basis forthe correction or cancellation ofentry in the civil registry.The recognition of the foreign

judgment nullifying a bigamousmarriage is a subsequent eventthat establishes a new status, rightand fact92 that needs to bereflected in the civil registry.Otherwise, there will be aninconsistency between therecognition of the effectivity of theforeign judgment and the publicrecords in the Philippines.

However, the recognition of aforeign judgment nullifying abigamous marriage is withoutprejudice to prosecution forbigamy under Article 349 of theRevised Penal Code.93 Therecognition of a foreign judgmentnullifying a bigamous maniage is

not a ground for extinction ofcriminal liability under Articles 89and 94 of the Revised Penal Code.Moreover, under Article 91 of the



Revised Penal Code, "[t]he term ofprescription [of the crime ofbigamy] shall not run when theoffender is absent from thePhilippine archipelago."

Since A.M. No. 02-11-1 0-SC isinapplicable, the Court no longersees the need to address thequestions on venue and thecontents and form of the petitionunder Sections 4 and 5,respectively, of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT thepetition. The Order dated31 January 2011 and theResolution dated 2 March 2011 ofthe Regional Trial Court, Branch107, Quezon City, in Civil Case No.Q-11-68582

are REVERSED and SETASIDE. The Regional Trial CourtisORDERED to REINSTATE thepetition for further proceedings inaccordance with this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in theabove Decision had been reachedin consultation before the casewas assigned to the writer of theopinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIIIof the Constitution, andthe Division Chairperson'sAttestation, I certifY that theconclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultationbefore the case was assigned tothe writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO



Chief Justice

________________________

Footnotes

1 Penned by Judge Jose L BautistaJr.

2

In Pasay City, Metro Manila.

3b

See rollo, p. 88; Trial Family CourtDecree No. 15 of 2009, Decree ofAbsolute Nullity of Marriage

between Maria Paz Galela Marinayand Shinichi Maekara dated 18August 2010. Translated by

Yoshiaki Kurisu, KurisuGyoseishoshi Lawyer’s Office (see

rollo, p. 89).

4

Id.

5

FAMILY CODE OF THEPHILIPPINES (E.O. No. 209 asamended):

Art. 35. The following marriagesshall be void from the beginning:

x x x x

(4) Those bigamous orpolygamous marriages not fallingunder Article 41;

x x x x

Art. 41. A marriage contracted byany person during subsistence of aprevious marriage shall be null andvoid, unless before the celebrationof the subsequent marriage, theprior spouse had been absent forfour consecutive years and thespouse present has a well-foundedbelief that the absent spouse wasalready dead. In case ofdisappearance where there isdanger of death under thecircumstances set forth in theprovisions of Article 391 of the Civil

Code, an absence of only twoyears shall be sufficient.

6

Rollo, pp. 79-80.

7 The dispositive portionstated:WHEREFORE, the instantcase is hereby ordered DISMISSEDand WITHDRAWN from the activecivil docket of this Court. The RTC-OCC, Quezon City is directed torefund to the petitioner theamount of One Thousand Pesos(P1,000) to be taken from the

Sheriff’s Trust Fund.



8 Rollo, pp. 44-45. Section 5 of theRule on Declaration of AbsoluteNullity of Void Marriages andAnnulment of Voidable Marriages(A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) provides:

Sec. 5. Contents and form ofpetition. – (1) The petition shallallege the complete factsconstituting the cause of action.

(2) It shall state the names andages of the common children of the

parties and specify the regimegoverning their property relations,as well as the propertiesinvolved.If there is no adequateprovision in a written agreementbetween the parties, the petitionermay apply for a provisional orderfor spousal support, custody andsupport of common children,

visitation rights, administration ofcommunity or conjugal property,and other matters similarlyrequiring urgent action.

(3) It must be verified andaccompanied by a certificationagainst forum shopping. Theverification and certification mustbe signed personally by thepetitioner. No petition may be filedsolely by counsel or through anattorney-in-fact.If the petitioner isin a foreign country, theverification and certificationagainst forum shopping shall be

authenticated by the dulyauthorized officer of the Philippineembassy or legation, consul

general, consul or vice-consul orconsular agent in said country.

(4) It shall be filed in six copies.The petitioner shall serve a copy of

the petition on the Office of theSolicitor General and the Office ofthe City or Provincial Prosecutor,within five days from the date ofits filing and submit to the courtproof of such service within thesame period.

Failure to comply with any of thepreceding requirements may be aground for immediate dismissal ofthe petition

9

RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, Sec.

3(c). See rollo, pp. 55-56(Petitioner’s Motion forReconsideration).

10 RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, Sec.3(a).

11 FAMILY CODE (E.O. No. 209 asamended), Art. 35. The followingmarriages shall be void from thebeginning:

x x x x

(4) Those bigamous or

polygamous marriages not fallingunder Article 41;



12 Rollo, p. 56.

13 FAMILY CODE, Art. 36. Amarriage contracted by any partywho, at the time of the celebration,

was psychologically incapacitatedto comply with the essentialmarital obligations of marriage,shall likewise be void even if suchincapacity becomes manifest onlyafter its solemnization.

14 Rollo, p. 68.

15 Enacted 26 November 1930.

16 CIVIL CODE, Art. 413. All othermatters pertaining to theregistration of civil status shall begoverned by special laws.

17 Act No. 3753, Sec. 7.Registration of marriage. - All civilofficers and priests or ministersauthorized to solemnize marriagesshall send a copy of each marriagecontract solemnized by them tothe local civil registrar within thetime limit specified in the existingMarriage Law.

In cases of divorce and annulmentof marriage, it shall be the duty ofthe successful petitioner fordivorce or annulment of marriage

to send a copy of the final decreeof the court to the local civilregistrar of the municipality where

the dissolved or annulled marriagewas solemnized.

In the marriage register there shallbe entered the full name and

address of each of the contractingparties, their ages, the place anddate of the solemnization of themarriage, the names andaddresses of the witnesses, the fullname, address, and relationship ofthe minor contracting party orparties or the person or personswho gave their consent to the

marriage, and the full name, title,and address of the person whosolemnized the marriage.

In cases of divorce or annulment ofmarriages, there shall be recordedthe names of the parties divorcedor whose marriage was annulled,

the date of the decree of the court,and such other details as theregulations to be issued mayrequire.

18 RULES OF COURT, Rule 108,Sec. 2. Entries subject tocancellation or correction. — Upongood and valid grounds, thefollowing entries in the civilregister may be cancelled orcorrected: (a) births; (b)marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legalseparations; (e) judgments ofannulments of marriage; (f)

judgments declaring marriages

void from the beginning; (g)legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i)acknowledgments of naturalchildren; (j) naturalization; (k)



election, loss or recovery ofcitizenship; (1) civil interdiction;(m) judicial determination offiliation; (n) voluntaryemancipation of a minor; and (o)changes of name.

19 273 Phil. 1 (1991).

20 Id. at 7. See rollo, pp. 65 and67.

21 Rollo, p. 47.

22 Id. at 46.

23 Id. at 48.

24 Id.

25 G.R. No. 181174, 4 December2009, 607 SCRA 638.

26 Id. at 641.

27 Id. at 643.

28 See rollo, p. 49.

29 Section 5 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC states in part:

Contents and form of petition. – xx x

x x x x

(3) It must be verified andaccompanied by a certificationagainst forum shopping. Theverification and certification mustbe signed personally by thepetitioner. No petition may be filedsolely by counsel or through anattorney-in-fact.If the petitioner is

in a foreign country, theverification and certificationagainst forum shopping shall beauthenticated by the dulyauthorized officer of the Philippineembassy or legation, consulgeneral, consul or vice-consul orconsular agent in said country.

x x x x

Failure to comply with any of thepreceding requirements may be aground for immediate dismissal ofthe petition.

30 Resolution dated 30 May 2011.Rollo, p. 105.

31 Under Solicitor General JoseAnselmo I. Cadiz.

32 Rollo, p. 137. The “Conclusionand Prayer” of the “Manifestationand Motion (In Lieu of Comment)”



of the Solicitor General stated:Infine, the court a quo’s

pronouncement that the petitionerfailed to comply with therequirements provided in A.M. No.02-11-10-SC should accordingly

be set aside. It is, thus,respectfully prayed that Civil CaseNo. Q-11-68582 be reinstated forfurther proceedings.Other reliefs,

just and equitable under thepremises are likewise prayed for.

33 G.R. No. 169766, 30 March

2011, 646 SCRA 637.

34 Id. at 656. Quoted in theManifestation and Motion of theSolicitor General, pp. 8-9. Seerollo, pp. 132-133.

35 Rollo, p. 133.

36 G.R. No. 186571, 11 August2010, 628 SCRA 266.

37 Id. at 287.

38 Rollo, p. 133.

39 G.R. No. 160172, 13 February2008, 545 SCRA 162.

40 384 Phil. 661 (2000).

41 De Castro v. De Castro, supranote 39 at 169.

42 Supra note 30.


44 Id.


46 Id.

47 Supra note 33.

48 Supra note 33 at 655.

49 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132,Sec. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documentsreferred to in paragraph (a) ofSection 19, when admissible forany purpose, may be evidenced byan official publication thereof or bya copy attested by the officer

having the legal custody of therecord, or by his deputy, andaccompanied, if the record is notkept in the Philippines, with acertificate that such officer has thecustody. If the office in which therecord is kept is in a foreigncountry, the certificate may bemade by a secretary of theembassy or legation, consulgeneral, consul, vice consul, orconsular agent or by any officer in



the foreign service of thePhilippines stationed in the foreigncountry in which the record is kept,and authenticated by the seal ofhis office.Sec. 25. What attestationof copy must state. — Whenever a

copy of a document or record isattested for the purpose ofevidence, the attestation muststate, in substance, that the copyis a correct copy of the original, ora specific part thereof, as the casemay be. The attestation must beunder the official seal of theattesting officer, if there be any, or

if he be the clerk of a court havinga seal, under the seal of such court.

Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. — Theeffect of a judgment or final orderof a tribunal of a foreign country,having jurisdiction to render the

judgment or final order, is asfollows:

(a) In case of a judgment or finalorder upon a specific thing, the

judgment or final order isconclusive upon the title of the

thing; and

(b) In case of a judgment or finalorder against a person, the

judgment or final order ispresumptive evidence of a right asbetween the parties and theirsuccessors in interest by a

subsequent title.

In either case, the judgment orfinal order may be repelled byevidence of a want of jurisdiction,want of notice to the party,collusion, fraud, or clear mistake oflaw or fact.

50 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 132,Sec. 24-25. See also Corpuz v.Santo Tomas, supra note 36 at 282.

51 A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Sec. 5.

52 Id., Sec. 6.

53 Id., Sec. 9.

54 Id., Sec. 11-15.

55 Id., Sec. 17-18.

56 Id., Sec. 19 and 22-23.

57 Mijares v. Rañada, 495 Phil.372, 386 (2005) citing EUGENE

SCOLES & PETER HAY, CONFLICTOF LAWS 916 (2nd ed., 1982).

58 Id.

59 Id. at 386.

60 CIVIL CODE, Art. 17. x x x



x x x x

Prohibitive laws concerningpersons, their acts or property,and those which have for their

object public order, public policyand good customs shall not berendered ineffective by laws or

judgments promulgated, or bydeterminations or conventionsagreed upon in a foreign country.

61 Mijares v. Rañada, supra note

57 at 386. “Otherwise known asthe policy of preclusion, it seeks toprotect party expectationsresulting from previous litigation,to safeguard against theharassment of defendants, toinsure that the task of courts notbe increased by never-endinglitigation of the same disputes, and– in a larger sense – to promotewhat Lord Coke in the Ferrer’s

Case of 1599 stated to be the goalof all law: ‘rest and quietness.’”

(Citations omitted)

62 Mijares v. Rañada, supra note57 at 382. “The rules of comity,utility and convenience of nationshave established a usage amongcivilized states by which final

judgments of foreign courts ofcompetent jurisdiction arereciprocally respected andrendered efficacious under certainconditions that may vary in

different countries.” (Citationsomitted)

63 43 Phil. 43 (1922).

64 Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No.186571, 11 August 2010, 628SCRA 266, 280; Garcia v. Recio,

418 Phil. 723 (2001); Adong v.Cheong Seng Gee,supra.

65 FAMILY CODE, Art. 26. x xx Where a marriage between aFilipino citizen and a foreigner isvalidly celebrated and a divorce isthereafter validly obtained abroad

by the alien spouse capacitatinghim or her to remarry, the Filipinospouse shall have capacity toremarry under Philippine law.

66 Act No. 3753, Sec. 1. CivilRegister. — A civil register isestablished for recording the civil

status of persons, in which shall beentered: (a) births; (b) deaths; (c)marriages; (d) annulments ofmarriages; (e) divorces; (f)legitimations; (g) adoptions; (h)acknowledgment of naturalchildren; (i) naturalization; and (j)changes of name.

Cf. RULES OF COURT, Rule 108,Sec. 2. Entries subject tocancellation or correction. — Upongood and valid grounds, thefollowing entries in the civilregister may be cancelled orcorrected: (a) births; (b)

marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legalseparations; (e) judgments ofannulments of marriage; (f)

judgments declaring marriages



void from the beginning; (g)legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i)acknowledgments of naturalchildren; (j) naturalization; (k)election, loss or recovery ofcitizenship; (1) civil interdiction;

(m) judicial determination offiliation; (n) voluntaryemancipation of a minor; and (o)changes of name.

67 Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, supranote 36 at 287.

68 FAMILY CODE, Art. 35-67.


70 FAMILY CODE, Art. 195 inrelation to Art. 194.

71 See supra note 69.

72 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec.1: “No person shall be deprived oflife, liberty, or property withoutdue process of law x x x.”


74 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec.5(5). The Supreme Court shallhave the following powers:

x x x x

(5) Promulgate rules concerningthe protection and enforcement ofconstitutional rights, pleading,practice, and procedure in allcourts, the admission to thepractice of law, the integrated bar,

and legal assistance to theunderprivileged. Such rules shallprovide a simplified andinexpensive procedure for thespeedy disposition of cases, shallbe uniform for all courts of thesame grade, and shall notdiminish, increase, or modifysubstantive rights. x x x

x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

75 Emphasis supplied.

76 REVISED PENAL CODE (Act No.

3815, as amended), Art. 349.Bigamy. - The penalty of prisiónmayor shall be imposed upon anyperson who shall contract a secondor subsequent marriage before theformer marriage has been legallydissolved, or before the absentspouse has been declaredpresumptively dead by means of a

judgment rendered in the properproceedings.

77 See III RAMON AQUINO, THEREVISED PENAL CODE (1997),518.

78 RULES OF COURT, Rule 111,Sec. 1. Institution of criminal andcivil actions. — (a) When a criminal



action is instituted, the civil actionfor the recovery of civil liabilityarising from the offense chargedshall be deemed instituted withthe criminal action unless theoffended party waives the civil

action, reserves the right toinstitute it separately or institutesthe civil action prior to the criminalaction.

x x x x

79 Cf. RULES OF COURT, Rule 3,Sec. 2. Parties in interest. A realparty in interest is the party whostands to be benefited or injuredby the judgment in the suit, or theparty entitled to the avails of thesuit. Unless otherwise authorized

by law or these Rules, every actionmust be prosecuted or defended inthe name of the real party ininterest.

80 Juliano-Llave v. Republic, supranote 33.

81 Supra note 25.

82 Supra note 25.

83 See supra note 68

84 FAMILY CODE, Art. 49. Duringthe pendency of the action and inthe absence of adequate

provisions in a written agreementbetween the spouses, the Courtshall provide for the support of thespouses and the custody andsupport of their common children.The Court shall give paramount

consideration to the moral andmaterial welfare of said childrenand their choice of the parent withwhom they wish to remain asprovided to in Title IX. It shall alsoprovide for appropriate visitationrights of the other parent.Cf.RULES OF COURT, Rule 61.

85 FAMILY CODE, Art. 50. Theeffects provided for by paragraphs(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43and by Article 44 shall also applyin the proper cases to marriageswhich are declared ab initio orannulled by final judgment underArticles 40 and 45.

The final judgment in such casesshall provide for the liquidation,partition and distribution of theproperties of the spouses, thecustody and support of thecommon children, and the delivery

of third presumptive legitimes,unless such matters had beenadjudicated in previous judicialproceedings.

All creditors of the spouses as wellas of the absolute community orthe conjugal partnership shall be

notified of the proceedings forliquidation.



In the partition, the conjugaldwelling and the lot on which it issituated, shall be adjudicatedin accordance with the provisionsof Articles 102 and 129.

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Sec. 19.Decision (1) If the court renders adecision granting the petition,it shall declare therein that thedecree of absolute nullity or decreeof annulment shall be issued bythe court only after compliancewith Articles 50 and 51 of the

Family Code as implementedunder the Rule on Liquidation,Partition and Distribution ofProperties.

x x x x

86 FAMILY CODE, Art. 48. In allcases of annulment or declarationof absolute nullity of marriage, theCourt shall order the prosecutingattorney or fiscal assigned to it toappear on behalf of the State totake steps to prevent collusionbetween the parties and to takecare that evidence is not fabricatedor suppressed.

In the cases referred to in thepreceding paragraph, no judgmentshall be based upon a stipulationof facts or confession of judgment.

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Sec. 9.Investigation report of publicprosecutor. (1) Within one month

after receipt of the court ordermentioned in paragraph (3) ofSection 8 above, the publicprosecutor shall submit a report tothe court stating whether theparties are in collusion and serve

copies thereof on the parties andtheir respective counsels, if any.

(2) If the public prosecutor findsthat collusion exists, he shall statethe basis thereof in his report. Theparties shall file their respectivecomments on the finding of

collusion within ten daysfrom receipt of a copy of the reportThe court shall set the report forhearing and if convinced that theparties are in collusion, it shalldismiss the petition.

(3) If the public prosecutor reports

that no collusion exists, the courtshall set the case for pretrial. Itshall be the duty of the publicprosecutor to appear for the Stateat the pre-trial.

87 RULES OF COURT, Rule 108,Sec. 1.

88 509 Phil. 108 (2005).

89 Id. at 114.

90 223 Phil. 357 (1985).

91 Id. at 363.



92 See RULES OF COURT, Rule 1,Sec. 3(c).

93 See Rules of CourT, Rule 72,

Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civilactions. -In the absence ofspecial provisions, the rulesprovided for in ordinary actionsshall be, as far as practicable,applicable in special proceedings.

Rule Ill, Sec. 2. When separatecivil action is suspended - x x x

If the criminal action is filed afterthe said civil action has alreadybeen instituted, the latter shall besuspended in whatever stage itmay be found before judgment on

the merits. The suspension shalllast until final judgment isrendered in the criminal action.Nevertheless, before judgment onthe merits is rendered in the civilaction, the same may, uponmotion ofthe offended party, beconsolidated with the criminalaction in the court trying the

criminal action. In case ofconsolidation, theevidence already adduced in thecivil action shall be deemedautomatically reproduced in thecriminal action without prejudiceto the right of the prosecution tocross-examine the witnessespresented by the offended party in

the criminal case and of the partiesto present additional evidence. The

actions shall·be tried and decided jointly.

During the pendency of thecriminal action, the running of the

period of prescription of the civilaction which cannot be institutedor whose proceeding has beensuspended shall be tolled.

The extinction of the penal actiondoes not carry with it extinctionofthe civil action. However, the

civil action based on delict shall bedeemed extinguished if there is afinding in a final judgment in

the criminal action that the act oromission from which the civilliability may arise did not exist.

Documents

Fujiki v Marinay