G.R.No.196049. June26,2013.*

MINORU FUJIKI, petitioner, vs. MARIA PAZ GALELAMARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVILREGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and THEADMINISTRATORANDCIVILREGISTRARGENERALOFTHENATIONALSTATISTICSOFFICE,respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Foreign Judgments; Conflict ofLaw; For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relatingto the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of aforeign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreignjudgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.—ForPhilippinecourtstorecognizeaforeignjudgmentrelatingtothestatusofamarriagewhere one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, thepetitioneronlyneedstoprovetheforeignjudgmentasafactunderthe

_______________

*SECONDDIVISION.

70

70 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

RulesofCourt.Tobemorespecific,acopyoftheforeignjudgmentmaybeadmittedinevidenceandprovenasafactunderRule132,Sections24and25,inrelationtoRule39,Section48(b)oftheRulesofCourt.PetitionermayprovetheJapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentthrough (1) an official publication or (2) a certification or copyattestedbytheofficerwhohascustodyofthejudgment.Iftheofficewhich has custody is in a foreign country such as Japan, thecertification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consularofficerofthePhilippineforeignserviceinJapanandauthenticatedbythesealofoffice.

Same; Same; Same; Same; A foreign judgment relating to thestatus of a marriage affects the civil status, condition and legalcapacity of its parties. However, the effect of a foreign judgment isnot automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in thePhilippines, Philippine courts must determine if the foreignjudgment is consistent with domestic public policy and othermandatory laws.—A foreign judgment relating to the status of amarriageaffects thecivil status, conditionand legal capacityof itsparties.However,theeffectofaforeignjudgmentisnotautomatic.To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines,Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment isconsistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory laws.Article15of theCivilCodeprovidesthat“[l]awsrelatingto familyrights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity ofpersons are bindingupon citizens of thePhilippines, even thoughliving abroad.” This is the rule of lex nationalii in privateinternational law. Thus, the Philippine State may require, foreffectivity in the Philippines, recognition byPhilippine courts of aforeign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom it exercisespersonal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition and legalcapacityofsuchcitizen.

Same; Same; Same; Same; A petition to recognize a foreignjudgment declaring a marriage void does not require relitigationunder a Philippine court of the case as if it were a new petition fordeclaration of nullity of marriage.—Apetitiontorecognizeaforeignjudgment declaring a marriage void does not require relitigationunderaPhilippinecourtofthecaseasifitwereanewpetitionfordeclarationofnullityofmarriage.Philippinecourtscannotpresumeto know the foreign laws under which the foreign judgment wasrendered.Theycannotsubstitutetheirjudgmentonthestatus,

71

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 71

Fujiki vs. Marinay

conditionandlegalcapacityoftheforeigncitizenwhoisunderthejurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine courts can onlyrecognizetheforeignjudgmentas a factaccording to therulesofevidence.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Once a foreign judgment is admittedand proven in a Philippine court, it can only be repelled on groundsexternal to its merits, i.e., “want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the

party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.”—Section48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a foreignjudgment or final order against a person creates a “presumptiveevidence of a right as between the parties and their successors ininterestbyasubsequenttitle.”Moreover,Section48oftheRulesofCourt states that “the judgment or final ordermay be repelled byevidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,collusion, fraud, or clearmistake of law or fact.” Thus, Philippinecourtsexerciselimitedreviewonforeignjudgments.Courtsarenotallowed to delve into the merits of a foreign judgment. Once aforeign judgment is admitted and proven in a Philippine court, itcanonlyberepelledongroundsexternaltoitsmerits,i.e.,“wantofjurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clearmistake of law or fact.” The rule on limited review embodies thepolicyofefficiencyandtheprotectionofpartyexpectations,aswellasrespectingthejurisdictionofotherstates.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Civil Law; Divorce; While thePhilippines does not have a divorce law, Philippine courts may,however, recognize a foreign divorce decree under the secondparagraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, to capacitate a Filipinocitizen to remarry when his or her foreign spouse obtained a divorcedecree abroad.—Since1922inAdong v. Cheong Seng Gee,43Phil.43(1922),Philippinecourtshaverecognizedforeigndivorcedecreesbetween a Filipino and a foreign citizen if they are successfullyprovenundertherulesofevidence.Divorceinvolvesthedissolutionofamarriage,but the recognitionofa foreigndivorcedecreedoesnotinvolvetheextendedprocedureunderA.M.No.02­11­10­SCorthe rules of ordinary trial.While the Philippines does not have adivorce law, Philippine courts may, however, recognize a foreigndivorce decree under the second paragraph of Article 26 of theFamilyCode,tocapacitateaFilipinocitizentoremarrywhenhisorherforeignspouseobtainedadivorcedecreeabroad.

72

72 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

Same; Same; Same; Same; Since the recognition of a foreignjudgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may bemade in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entriesin the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1,Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a] special proceedingis a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a

particular fact.”—Since the recognitionofa foreign judgmentonlyrequiresproofof factofthe judgment, itmaybemadeinaspecialproceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civilregistryunderRule108oftheRulesofCourt.Rule1,Section3oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat“[a]specialproceedingisaremedybywhichapartyseekstoestablishastatus,aright,oraparticularfact.” Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person’s lifewhicharerecordedbytheStatepursuanttotheCivilRegisterLaworActNo.3753.Thesearefactsofpublicconsequencesuchasbirth,deathormarriage,whichtheStatehasaninterestinrecording.AsnotedbytheSolicitorGeneral,inCorpuz v. Sto. Tomas,628SCRA266 (2010), this Court declared that “[t]he recognition of theforeigndivorcedecreemaybemadeinaRule108proceedingitself,astheobjectofspecialproceedings(suchasthatinRule108oftheRulesofCourt)ispreciselytoestablishthestatusorrightofapartyoraparticularfact.”

Civil Law; Marriages; Parties; When Section 2(a) states that“[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage maybe filed solely by the husband or the wife” — it refers to thehusband or the wife of the subsisting marriage; The husband or thewife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has thepersonality to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity ofvoid marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02­11­10­SC.—Section2(a)ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SCdoesnotprecludeaspouseofa subsisting marriage to question the validity of a subsequentmarriageonthegroundofbigamy.Onthecontrary,whenSection2(a) states that “[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity ofvoidmarriagemaybefiledsolely by the husband or the wife”— it refers to thehusbandor thewife of the subsistingmarriage.Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages arevoidfromthebeginning.Thus,thepartiesinabigamousmarriageareneitherthehusbandnorthewifeunderthelaw.Thehusbandorthewifeofthepriorsubsistingmarriageistheonewhohasthepersonality to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity ofvoidmarriageunderSection2(a)ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SC.

73

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 73

Fujiki vs. Marinay

Criminal Law; Bigamy; Parties; Bigamy is a public crime.Thus, anyone can initiate prosecution for bigamy because anycitizen has an interest in the prosecution and prevention of crimes.

If anyone can file a criminal action which leads to the declarationof nullity of a bigamous marriage, there is more reason to conferpersonality to sue on the husband or the wife of a subsistingmarriage.—Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which declaresbigamousmarriagesvoid from thebeginning, is the civil aspect ofArticle 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes bigamy.Bigamyisapubliccrime.Thus,anyonecaninitiateprosecutionforbigamybecauseanycitizenhasaninterest intheprosecutionandprevention of crimes. If anyone can file a criminal action whichleadstothedeclarationofnullityofabigamousmarriage, there ismorereasontoconferpersonalitytosueonthehusbandorthewifeofasubsistingmarriage.Thepriorspousedoesnotonlyshareinthepublic interest of prosecuting and preventing crimes, he is alsopersonally interested in the purely civil aspect of protecting hismarriage.

Remedial Law; Special Proceedings; Correction of Entries; Apetition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registrycannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A directaction is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive andprocedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No.02­11­10­SC and other related laws.—To be sure, a petition forcorrection or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannotsubstitute foranactionto invalidateamarriage.Adirectaction isnecessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive andproceduralsafeguardsofmarriageundertheFamilyCode,A.M.No.02­11­10­SC and other related laws. Among these safeguards aretherequirementofprovingthelimitedgroundsforthedissolutionofmarriage, support pendente lite of the spouses and children, theliquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of thespouses,andtheinvestigationofthepublicprosecutortodeterminecollusion.Adirectaction fordeclarationofnullityorannulmentofmarriage is also necessary to prevent circumvention of thejurisdiction of the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of1997 (Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for cancellation orcorrectionofentriesinthecivilregistrymaybefiledintheRegionalTrial Court “where the corresponding civil registry is located.” Inotherwords, aFilipino citizen cannotdissolvehismarriageby themere expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civilregistry.However,thisdoesnot

74

74 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

apply in a petition for correction or cancellation of a civil registryentry based on the recognition of a foreign judgment annulling amarriagewhereoneofthepartiesisacitizenoftheforeigncountry.There is neither circumvention of the substantive and proceduralsafeguardsofmarriageunderPhilippinelaw,norofthejurisdictionof Family Courts under R.A.No. 8369. A recognition of a foreignjudgment isnotanactiontonullifyamarriage. It isanaction forPhilippinecourtstorecognizetheeffectivityofaforeignjudgment,which presupposes a case which was already tried anddecided under foreign law.TheprocedureinA.M.No.02­11­10­SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgmentannullingabigamousmarriagewhereoneofthepartiesisacitizenof the foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define thejurisdictionoftheforeigncourt.

Civil Law; Conflict of Law; Marriages; Annulment of Marriage;Foreign Judgments; Divorce; Article 26 of the Family Code confersjurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreigndivorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial todetermine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.—Article26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts toextend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spousewithoutundergoingtrialtodeterminethevalidityofthedissolutionof themarriage.ThesecondparagraphofArticle26of theFamilyCode provides that “[w]here amarriage between aFilipino citizenand a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereaftervalidlyobtainedabroadbythealienspousecapacitatinghimorhertoremarry,theFilipinospouseshallhavecapacitytoremarryunderPhilippinelaw.”InRepublic v. Orbecido,472SCRA114(2005),thisCourt recognized the legislative intent of the second paragraph ofArticle26whichis“toavoidtheabsurdsituationwheretheFilipinospouseremainsmarried to thealienspousewho,afterobtainingadivorce,isnolongermarriedtotheFilipinospouse”underthelawsof his or her country. The second paragraph of Article 26 of theFamilyCodeonlyauthorizesPhilippinecourtstoadopttheeffectsofa foreigndivorcedecreepreciselybecause thePhilippinesdoesnotallow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on themeritsbecauseitistantamounttotryingacasefordivorce.

Same; Same; Marriages; Annulment of Marriage; Divorce;Foreign Judgments; The principle in Article 26 of the Family Codeapplies in a marriage between a Filipino and a foreign citizen who

75

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 75

Fujiki vs. Marinay

obtains a foreign judgment nullifying the marriage on the groundof bigamy; If the foreign judgment is not recognized in thePhilippines, the Filipino spouse will be discriminated — the foreignspouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry.—Theprinciple in Article 26 of the Family Code applies in a marriagebetween a Filipino and a foreign citizen who obtains a foreignjudgment nullifying the marriage on the ground of bigamy. TheFilipino spousemay file a petition abroad to declare themarriagevoid on the ground of bigamy. The principle in the secondparagraph of Article 26 of the Family Code applies because theforeignspouse,aftertheforeignjudgmentnullifyingthemarriage,iscapacitatedtoremarryunderthelawsofhisorhercountry.Iftheforeign judgment is not recognized in thePhilippines, theFilipinospouse will be discriminated — the foreign spouse can remarrywhiletheFilipinospousecannotremarry.

Same; Same; Same; Bigamy, as a ground for the nullity ofmarriage, is fully consistent with Philippine public policy asexpressed in Article 35(4) of the Family Code and Article 349 of theRevised Penal Code.—Under thesecondparagraphofArticle26ofthe Family Code, Philippine courts are empowered to correct asituationwheretheFilipinospouseisstilltiedtothemarriagewhilethe foreign spouse is free to marry. Moreover, notwithstandingArticle 26 of the Family Code, Philippine courts already havejurisdiction to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in thePhilippines to the extent that the foreign judgment does notcontravenedomesticpublicpolicy.Acriticaldifferencebetweenthecaseofaforeigndivorcedecreeandaforeignjudgmentnullifyingabigamousmarriage is that bigamy, as a ground for the nullity ofmarriage, is fully consistent with Philippine public policy asexpressedinArticle35(4)oftheFamilyCodeandArticle349oftheRevisedPenalCode.TheFilipinospousehastheoptiontoundergofull trial by filing a petition for declaration of nullity ofmarriageunder A.M. No. 02­11­10­SC, but this is not the only remedyavailable to him or her. Philippine courts have jurisdiction torecognize a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage,withoutprejudicetoacriminalprosecutionforbigamy.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Conflict of Law;Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreignjudgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in thePhilippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove anextrinsic ground to

76

76 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of noticeto the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.—Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreignjudgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in thePhilippines;and(2)whetheranyallegingpartyisabletoproveanextrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want ofjurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clearmistakeof lawor fact. If there isneither inconsistencywithpublicpolicy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courtsshould, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part of thecomityofnations.Section48(b),Rule39oftheRulesofCourtstatesthat the foreign judgment is already “presumptive evidence of aright between the parties.” Upon recognition of the foreignjudgment,thisrightbecomesconclusiveandthejudgmentservesasthe basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the civilregistry. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying abigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a newstatus,rightandfactthatneedstobereflectedinthecivilregistry.Otherwise,therewillbeaninconsistencybetweentherecognitionoftheeffectivityoftheforeignjudgmentandthepublicrecordsinthePhilippines.

Criminal Law; Bigamy; Foreign Judgments; Conflict of Law;The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamousmarriage is not a ground for extinction of criminal liability underArticles 89 and 94 of the Revised Penal Code.—Therecognitionofaforeign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is withoutprejudicetoprosecutionforbigamyunderArticle349oftheRevisedPenal Code. The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying abigamous marriage is not a ground for extinction of criminalliability under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised Penal Code.Moreover,underArticle91oftheRevisedPenalCode,“[t]hetermofprescription [of the crime of bigamy] shall not run when theoffenderisabsentfromthePhilippinearchipelago.”

PETITION for review on certiorari of the order of theRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCity,Br.107.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt. Lorenzo U. Padillaforpetitioner.

77

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 77

Fujiki vs. Marinay

CARPIO, J.:The Case

ThisisadirectrecoursetothisCourtfromtheRegionalTrial Court (RTC), Branch 107, Quezon City, through apetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtonapurequestionoflaw.ThepetitionassailstheOrder1dated31January2011oftheRTCinCivilCaseNo.Q­11­68582anditsResolutiondated2March2011denyingpetitioner’sMotionforReconsideration.TheRTCdismissedthepetitionfor“JudicialRecognitionofForeignJudgment(or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)” based onimproper venue and the lack of personality of petitioner,MinoruFujiki,tofilethepetition.

The FactsPetitionerMinoruFujiki(Fujiki)isaJapanesenational

who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay(Marinay) in the Philippines2 on 23 January 2004. Themarriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus,Fujiki couldnotbringhiswife toJapanwhereheresides.Eventually,theylostcontactwitheachother.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, ShinichiMaekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage beingdissolved,MarinayandMaekaraweremarriedon15May2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara broughtMarinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly sufferedphysicalabusefromMaekara.SheleftMaekaraandstartedtocontactFujiki.3

_______________

1PennedbyJudgeJoseL.BautistaJr.

2InPasayCity,MetroManila.

3See Rollo,p.88;TrialFamilyCourtDecreeNo.15of2009,Decree

ofAbsoluteNullityofMarriagebetweenMariaPazGalelaMarinayand

ShinichiMaekaradated18August2010.Translatedby

78

78 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

FujikiandMarinaymetinJapanandtheywereabletoreestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helpedMarinay obtain a judgment froma family court in Japanwhich declared the marriage between Marinay andMaekara void on the ground of bigamy.4 On 14 January2011,Fujiki filedapetition in theRTCentitled: “JudicialRecognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of AbsoluteNullity ofMarriage).”Fujikiprayed that (1) theJapaneseFamily Court judgment be recognized; (2) that thebigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara bedeclared voidab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of theFamily Code of the Philippines;5 and (3) for the RTC todirecttheLocalCivilRegistrarofQuezonCitytoannotatetheJapaneseFamilyCourt judgmentontheCertificateofMarriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorsesuchannotationtotheOfficeoftheAdministratorandCivilRegistrarGeneralintheNationalStatisticsOffice(NSO).6

_______________

YoshiakiKurisu,KurisuGyoseishoshi Lawyer’sOffice (seeRollo, p.

89).

4Id.

5FAMILYCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES(E.O.No.209asamended):

Art. 35. Thefollowingmarriagesshallbevoidfromthebeginning:

xxxx

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under

Article41;

xxxx

Art. 41. Amarriagecontractedbyanypersonduringsubsistenceof

apreviousmarriageshallbenullandvoid,unlessbeforethecelebration

of the subsequentmarriage, theprior spousehadbeenabsent for four

consecutiveyearsandthespousepresenthasawell­foundedbeliefthat

the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where

there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the

provisionsofArticle391oftheCivilCode,anabsenceofonlytwoyears

shallbesufficient.

6Rollo,pp.79­80.

79

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 79

Fujiki vs. Marinay

The Ruling of the Regional Trial CourtA few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC

immediately issued an Order dismissing the petition andwithdrawingthecasefromitsactivecivildocket.7TheRTCcitedthefollowingprovisionsoftheRuleonDeclarationofAbsolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment ofVoidableMarriages(A.M.No.02­11­10­SC):

Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of voidmarriages.—(a) Who may file.—A petition for declaration of absolutenullityofvoidmarriagemaybefiledsolelybythehusbandorthewife.xxxxSec. 4. Venue.—The petition shall be filed in the FamilyCourt of the province or city where the petitioner or therespondenthasbeenresidingforat leastsixmonthspriortothedateoffiling,orinthecaseofanon­residentrespondent,wherehemaybe found inthePhilippines,at theelectionofthepetitioner.xxx

The RTC ruled, without further explanation, that thepetitionwasin“grossviolation”oftheaboveprovisions.ThetrialcourtbaseditsdismissalonSection5(4)ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SCwhichprovidesthat“[f]ailuretocomplywithanyof the preceding requirements may be a ground forimmediatedismissalofthepetition.”8Apparently,theRTCtooktheview

_______________

7Thedispositiveportionstated:

WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby ordered DISMISSED and

WITHDRAWNfromtheactivecivildocketofthisCourt.TheRTC­OCC,

QuezonCity isdirected to refund to the petitioner the amount ofOne

ThousandPesos(P1,000)tobetakenfromtheSheriff’sTrustFund.

8Rollo,pp. 44­45. Section 5 of theRule onDeclaration of Absolute

Nullity ofVoidMarriages andAnnulment ofVoidableMarriages (A.M.

No.02­11­10­SC)provides:

80

80 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

that only “the husband or the wife,” in this case either

Maekara orMarinay, can file thepetition todeclare theirmarriagevoid,andnotFujiki.

FujikimovedthattheOrderbereconsidered.Hearguedthat A.M. No. 02­11­10­SC contemplated ordinary civilactions for declaration of nullity and annulment ofmarriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02­11­10­SC does not apply. Apetition for recognition of foreign judgment is a specialproceeding,which“seekstoestablishastatus,arightoraparticularfact,”9and

_______________

Sec. 5. Contents and form of petition.—(1)Thepetitionshallallege

thecompletefactsconstitutingthecauseofaction.

(2) Itshallstatethenamesandagesofthecommonchildrenofthe

parties and specify the regime governing their property relations, as

wellasthepropertiesinvolved.

Ifthereisnoadequateprovisioninawrittenagreementbetweenthe

parties, the petitioner may apply for a provisional order for spousal

support, custody and support of common children, visitation rights,

administration of community or conjugal property, and other matters

similarlyrequiringurgentaction.

(3) Itmust be verified and accompanied by a certification against

forum shopping. The verification and certification must be signed

personallybythepetitioner.Nopetitionmaybefiledsolelybycounsel

orthroughanattorney­in­fact.

If the petitioner is in a foreign country, the verification and

certificationagainst forumshoppingshallbeauthenticatedby theduly

authorizedofficerofthePhilippineembassyorlegation,consulgeneral,

consulorvice­consulorconsularagentinsaidcountry.

(4) Itshallbefiledinsixcopies.Thepetitionershallserveacopyof

thepetitionontheOfficeof theSolicitorGeneralandtheOfficeof the

CityorProvincialProsecutor,withinfivedaysfromthedateofitsfiling

andsubmittothecourtproofofsuchservicewithinthesameperiod.

Failuretocomplywithanyof theprecedingrequirementsmaybea

groundforimmediatedismissalofthepetition.

9RULESOFCOURT,Rule1,Sec.3(c).SeeRollo,pp.55­56(Petitioner’s

MotionforReconsideration).

81

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 81

Fujiki vs. Marinay

notacivilactionwhichis“fortheenforcementorprotectionof a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.”10 In

otherwords,thepetitionintheRTCsoughttoestablish(1)thestatusandconcomitantrightsofFujikiandMarinayashusband andwife and (2) the fact of the rendition of theJapanese Family Court judgment declaring themarriagebetweenMarinay andMaekara as void on the ground ofbigamy. The petitioner contended that the Japanesejudgment was consistent with Article 35(4) of the FamilyCode of the Philippines11 on bigamy and was thereforeentitledtorecognitionbyPhilippinecourts.12

Inanycase,itwasalsoFujiki’sviewthatA.M.No.02­11­10­SCappliedonlytovoidmarriagesunderArticle36oftheFamily Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.13

Thus,Section2(a)ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SCprovidesthat“apetitionfordeclarationofabsolutenullityofvoidmarriagesmaybe filed solely by thehusband or thewife.”To applySection 2(a) in bigamywould be absurd because only theguilty parties would be permitted to sue. In the words ofFujiki,“[i]tisnot,ofcourse,difficulttorealizethatthepartyinterestedinhavingabigamousmarriagedeclaredanullitywouldbethehusbandintheprior,pre­existingmarriage.”14

Fujikihad

_______________

10RULESOFCOURT,Rule1,Sec.3(a).

11 FAMILY CODE (E.O. No. 209 as amended), Art. 35. The following

marriagesshallbevoidfromthebeginning:

xxxx

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under

Article41;

xxxx

12Rollo,p.56.

13FAMILYCODE,Art. 36. Amarriage contracted by anypartywho,

at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to

complywiththeessentialmaritalobligationsofmarriage,shalllikewise

be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its

solemnization.

14Rollo,p.68.

82

82 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

materialinterestandthereforethepersonalitytonullifyabigamousmarriage.

FujikiarguedthatRule108(CancellationorCorrectionof Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court isapplicable.Rule108 is the“procedural implementation”oftheCivilRegisterLaw(ActNo.3753)15inrelationtoArticle413of theCivilCode.16TheCivilRegisterLaw imposesadutyonthe“successfulpetitionerfordivorceorannulmentofmarriagetosendacopyofthefinaldecreeofthecourttothelocalregistrarofthemunicipalitywherethedissolvedorannulledmarriagewassolemnized.”17Section2ofRule108provides that entries in the civil registry relating to“marriages,” “judgments of annulments of marriage” and“judgments declaringmarriages void from the beginning”aresubjecttocancellation

_______________

15Enacted26November1930.

16 CIVIL CODE, Art. 413. All other matters pertaining to the

registrationofcivilstatusshallbegovernedbyspeciallaws.

17ActNo.3753,Sec. 7. Registration of marriage.—Allcivilofficers

andpriestsorministersauthorizedtosolemnizemarriagesshallsenda

copy of each marriage contract solemnized by them to the local civil

registrarwithinthetimelimitspecifiedintheexistingMarriageLaw.

Incasesofdivorceandannulmentofmarriage,itshallbethedutyof

thesuccessfulpetitionerfordivorceorannulmentofmarriagetosenda

copy of the final decree of the court to the local civil registrar of the

municipalitywherethedissolvedorannulledmarriagewassolemnized.

In the marriage register there shall be entered the full name and

addressofeachofthecontractingparties,theirages,theplaceanddate

of the solemnization of themarriage, the names and addresses of the

witnesses, the full name, address, and relationship of the minor

contracting party or parties or the person or persons who gave their

consent to the marriage, and the full name, title, and address of the

personwhosolemnizedthemarriage.

In cases of divorce or annulment of marriages, there shall be

recorded the names of the parties divorced or whose marriage was

annulled,thedateofthedecreeofthecourt,andsuchotherdetailsas

theregulationstobeissuedmayrequire.

83

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 83

Fujiki vs. Marinay

or correction.18 The petition in the RTC sought (amongothers) to annotate the judgment of the Japanese FamilyCourtonthecertificateofmarriagebetweenMarinayandMaekara.

Fujiki’s motion for reconsideration in the RTC alsoasserted that the trial court “gravely erred” when, on itsown, it dismissed the petition based on improper venue.FujikistatedthattheRTCmaybeconfusingtheconceptofvenuewiththeconceptof jurisdiction,becauseit islackofjurisdiction which allows a court to dismiss a case on itsown.FujikicitedDacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court19

which held that the “trial court cannot preempt thedefendant’sprerogative toobject to the improper layingofthevenuebymotu propriodismissingthecase.”20Moreover,petitioner alleged that the trial court should not have“immediately dismissed” the petition under Section 5 ofA.M. No. 02­11­10­SC because he substantially compliedwiththeprovision.

On2March2011,theRTCresolvedtodenypetitioner’smotion for reconsideration. In its Resolution, the RTCstated that A.M. No. 02­11­10­SC applies because thepetitioner,ineffect,praysforadecreeofabsolutenullityofmarriage.21 The trial court reiterated its two grounds fordismissal,i.e.lackofpersonalitytosueandimpropervenueunderSections2(a)and4ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SC.TheRTCconsideredFujikias

_______________

18RULESOFCOURT,Rule108,Sec.2. Entries subject to cancellation or

correction.—Upongood and valid grounds, the following entries in the

civilregistermaybecancelledorcorrected:(a)births;(b)marriages;(c)

deaths; (d) legalseparations; (e) judgmentsofannulmentsofmarriage;

(f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g)

legitimations;(h)adoptions;(i)acknowledgmentsofnaturalchildren;(j)

naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil

interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary

emancipationofaminor;and(o)changesofname.

19273Phil.1;195SCRA641(1991).

20 Id.,atp.7;p.646.See Rollo,pp.65and67.

21Rollo,p.47.

84

84 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

a“thirdperson”22 intheproceedingbecausehe“isnot thehusband in the decree of divorce issued by the JapaneseFamily Court, which he now seeks to be judiciallyrecognized, x x x.”23 On the other hand, theRTC did notexplainitsgroundofimproprietyofvenue.Itonlysaidthat“[a]lthoughtheCourtcitedSec.4(Venue)xxxasagroundfordismissalofthiscase[,]itshouldbetakentogetherwiththeothergroundcitedbytheCourtxxxwhichisSec.2(a)xxx.”24

TheRTC further justified itsmotuproprio dismissal ofthepetition based onBraza v. The City Civil Registrar ofHimamaylan City, Negros Occidental.25TheCourtinBrazaruledthat“[i]naspecialproceeding forcorrectionofentryunderRule108(CancellationorCorrectionofEntriesintheOriginal Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction tonullify marriages x x x.”26 Braza emphasized that the“validityofmarriagesaswellaslegitimacyandfiliationcanbequestionedonlyinadirectactionseasonablyfiledbytheproperparty,andnotthroughacollateralattacksuchas[a]petition[forcorrectionofentry]xxx.”27

TheRTCconsideredthepetitionasacollateralattackonthe validity of marriage between Marinay and Maekara.Thetrialcourtheldthatthisisa“jurisdictionalground”todismiss the petition.28 Moreover, the verification andcertificationagainstforumshoppingofthepetitionwasnotauthenticatedasrequiredunderSection529ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SC.

_______________

22 Id.,atp.46.

23 Id.,atp.48.

24 Id.

25G.R.No.181174,4December2009,607SCRA638.

26 Id.,atp.641.

27Id.,atp.643.

28SeeRollo,p.49.

29Section5ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SCstatesinpart:

Contentsandformofpetition.—xxx

xxxx

85

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 85

Fujiki vs. Marinay

Hence,thisalsowarrantedthe“immediatedismissal”ofthepetitionunderthesameprovision.

The Manifestation and Motion of the Office of theSolicitor General and the Letters of Marinay

and Maekara

On30May2011,theCourtrequiredrespondentstofiletheir comment on the petition for review.30 The publicrespondents, theLocalCivilRegistrarofQuezonCityandtheAdministratorandCivilRegistrarGeneraloftheNSO,participated through the Office of the Solicitor General.Instead of a comment, the Solicitor General filed aManifestationandMotion.31

TheSolicitorGeneralagreedwiththepetition.HeprayedthattheRTC’s“pronouncementthatthepetitionerfailedtocomplywithxxxA.M.No.02­11­10­SCxxxbesetaside”andthatthecasebereinstatedinthetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.32TheSolicitorGeneralarguedthatFujiki,asthe

_______________

(3) Itmust be verified and accompanied by a certification against

forum shopping. The verification and certification must be signed

personallybythepetitioner.Nopetitionmaybefiledsolelybycounsel

orthroughanattorney­in­fact.

If the petitioner is in a foreign country, the verification and

certificationagainst forumshoppingshallbeauthenticatedby theduly

authorizedofficerofthePhilippineembassyorlegation,consulgeneral,

consulorvice­consulorconsularagentinsaidcountry.

xxxx

Failuretocomplywithanyof theprecedingrequirementsmaybea

groundforimmediatedismissalofthepetition.

30Resolutiondated30May2011.Rollo,p.105.

31UnderSolicitorGeneralJoseAnselmoI.Cadiz.

32Rollo,p. 137.The “Conclusion andPrayer” of the “Manifestation

andMotion(InLieuofComment)”oftheSolicitorGeneralstated:

Infine,thecourta quo’spronouncementthatthepetitionerfailedto

complywiththerequirementsprovidedinA.M.

86

86 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

spouseofthefirstmarriage,isaninjuredpartywhocansueto declare the bigamous marriage between Marinay andMaekaravoid.TheSolicitorGeneralcitedJuliano­Llave v.Republic33whichheld thatSection2(a)ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SCdoesnotapplyincasesofbigamy.InJuliano­Llave,thisCourtexplained:

[t]hesubsequentspousemayonlybeexpectedtotakeactionifheorshehadonlydiscoveredduringtheconnubialperiodthat the marriage was bigamous, and especially if theconjugal bliss had already vanished. Should parties in asubsequentmarriagebenefit fromthebigamousmarriage, itwould not be expected that they would file an action todeclarethemarriagevoidandthus,insuchcircumstance,the“injured spouse” who should be given a legal remedy is theoneinasubsistingpreviousmarriage.Thelatterisclearlytheaggrievedpartyasthebigamousmarriagenotonlythreatensthe financial and theproperty ownershipaspect of thepriormarriagebutmostofall,itcausesanemotionalburdentotheprior spouse. The subsequent marriage will always be areminderof the infidelityof the spouseand thedisregardofthe prior marriage which sanctity is protected by theConstitution.34

The Solicitor General contended that the petition torecognize the Japanese Family Court judgment may bemade in a Rule 108 proceeding.35 In Corpuz v. SantoTomas,36thisCourt

_______________

No. 02­11­10­SC should accordingly be set aside. It is, thus,

respectfully prayed that Civil Case No. Q­11­68582 be reinstated for

furtherproceedings.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise

prayedfor.

33G.R.No.169766,30March2011,646SCRA637.

34 Id., at p. 656. Quoted in the Manifestation and Motion of the

SolicitorGeneral,pp.8­9. See Rollo,pp.132­133.

35 Rollo,p.133.

36G.R.No.186571,11August2010,628SCRA266.

87

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 87

Fujiki vs. Marinay

held that “[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce decreemaybemadeinaRule108proceedingitself,astheobjectofspecialproceedings(suchasthatinRule108oftheRulesofCourt)ispreciselytoestablishthestatusorrightofapartyor a particular fact.”37 While Corpuz concerned a foreigndivorce decree, in the present case the Japanese FamilyCourtjudgmentalsoaffectedthecivilstatusoftheparties,especiallyMarinay,whoisaFilipinocitizen.

TheSolicitorGeneralassertedthatRule108oftheRulesof Court is the procedure to record “[a]cts, events andjudicialdecreesconcerningthecivilstatusofpersons”inthecivilregistryasrequiredbyArticle407oftheCivilCode.Inother words, “[t]he law requires the entry in the civilregistryofjudicialdecreesthatproducelegalconsequencesupon a person’s legal capacity and status x x x.”38 TheJapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentdirectlybearsonthecivilstatusofaFilipinocitizenandshouldthereforebeprovenasafactinaRule108proceeding.

Moreover, theSolicitorGeneralargued that there isnojurisdictional infirmity inassailingavoidmarriageunderRule 108, citing De Castro v. De Castro39 and Niñal v.Bayadog40 which declared that “[t]he validity of a voidmarriagemaybecollaterallyattacked.”41

Marinay and Maekara individually sent letters to theCourttocomplywiththedirectiveforthemtocommentonthepetition.42MaekarawrotethatMarinayconcealedfromhim the fact that she was previouslymarried to Fujiki.43

Maekaraalsodeniedthatheinflictedanyformofviolenceon

_______________

37Id.,atp.287.

38Rollo,p.133.

39G.R.No.160172,13February2008,545SCRA162.

40384Phil.661;328SCRA122(2000).

41De Castro v. De Castro, supranote39atp.169.

42 Supranote30.

43SeeRollo,p.120.

88

88 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

Marinay.44Ontheotherhand,Marinaywrotethatshehadno reason to oppose the petition.45 She would like tomaintainhersilence for fear thatanythingshesaymightcausemisunderstandingbetweenherandFujiki.46

The IssuesPetitionerraisesthefollowinglegalissues:(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute

Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of VoidableMarriages(A.M.No.02­11­10­SC)isapplicable.

(2) Whetherahusbandorwifeofapriormarriagecanfileapetitiontorecognizeaforeignjudgmentnullifyingthesubsequent marriage between his or her spouse and aforeigncitizenonthegroundofbigamy.

(3) WhethertheRegionalTrialCourtcanrecognizetheforeign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation orcorrectionofentriesintheCivilRegistryunderRule108oftheRulesofCourt.

The Ruling of the CourtWegrantthepetition.The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void

MarriagesandAnnulmentofVoidableMarriages(A.M.No.02­11­10­SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize aforeignjudgmentrelatingtothestatusofamarriagewhereoneofthepartiesisacitizenofaforeigncountry.Moreover,inJuliano­Llave v. Republic,47thisCourtheldthattheruleinA.M.No.02­11­10­SCthatonlythehusbandorwifecanfileadeclara­

_______________

44Id.

45SeeRollo,p.146.

46Id.

47Supranote33.

89

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 89

Fujiki vs. Marinay

tionofnullityorannulmentofmarriage“doesnotapplyifthereasonbehindthepetitionisbigamy.”48

I.For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment

relatingtothestatusofamarriagewhereoneofthepartiesisacitizenofaforeigncountry,thepetitioneronlyneedstoprove the foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules ofCourt.Tobemorespecific,acopyof the foreign judgmentmay be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact underRule132,Sections24and25,inrelationtoRule39,Section48(b) of the Rules of Court.49 Petitioner may prove theJapaneseFamilyCourt

_______________

48Supranote33atp.655.

49 Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 24.Proof of official record.—The

record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,

when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official

publicationthereoforbyacopyattestedbytheofficerhavingthelegal

custodyof therecord,orbyhisdeputy,andaccompanied, if therecord

isnotkeptinthePhilippines,withacertificatethatsuchofficerhasthe

custody.Iftheofficeinwhichtherecordiskeptisina foreigncountry,

thecertificatemaybemadebyasecretaryoftheembassy or legation,

consulgeneral, consul,viceconsul,orconsularagentorbyanyofficer

intheforeignserviceofthePhilippinesstationedintheforeigncountry

inwhichtherecordiskept,andauthenticatedbythesealofhisoffice.

Sec. 25. What attestation of copy must state.—Whenevera copy of

a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the

attestationmust state, in substance, that the copy isa correct copy of

the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The

attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if

therebeany, or ifhebe the clerkof a courthavinga seal, under the

sealofsuchcourt.

Rule 39, Sec 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.—The

effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country,

havingjurisdictiontorenderthejudgmentorfinalorder,isasfollows:

90

90 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

judgment through (1) an official publication or (2) acertificationorcopyattestedbytheofficerwhohascustodyof the judgment. If the office which has custody is in aforeign country such as Japan, the certification may be

made by the proper diplomatic or consular officer of thePhilippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated bythesealofoffice.50

ToholdthatA.M.No.02­11­10­SCappliestoapetitionfor recognition of foreign judgment would mean that thetrial court and the parties should follow its provisions,includingtheformandcontentsofthepetition,51theserviceofsummons,52 the investigation of the public prosecutor,53

thesettingofpre­trial,54thetrial55andthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.56Thisisabsurdbecauseitwilllitigatethecaseanew. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreignjudgments,whichis“tolimitrepetitivelitigationonclaimsandissues.”57TheinterpretationoftheRTCistantamounttorelitigatingthecase

_______________

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

judgmentorfinalorderisconclusiveuponthetitleofthething;and

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

judgmentor final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between

thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterestbyasubsequenttitle.

In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by

evidenceofawantofjurisdiction,wantofnoticetotheparty,collusion,

fraud,orclearmistakeoflaworfact.

50See RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Secs. 24­25. See also Corpuz v.

Santo Tomas, supranote36atp.282.

51A.M.No.02­11­10­SC,Sec.5.

52Id.,Sec.6.

53Id.,Sec.9.

54Id.,Secs.11­15.

55Id.,Secs.17­18.

56Id.,Secs.19and22­23.

57Mijares v. Rañada, 495Phil. 372, 386; 455SCRA397, 412 (2005)

citing EUGENE SCOLES & PETER HAY, CONFLICT OF LAWS 916 (2nd ed.,

1982).

91

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 91

Fujiki vs. Marinay

onthemerits.InMijares v. Rañada,58thisCourtexplainedthat“[i]feveryjudgmentofaforeigncourtwerereviewableonthemerits,theplaintiffwouldbeforcedbackonhis/heroriginal cause of action, rendering immaterial the

previouslyconcludedlitigation.”59

Aforeignjudgmentrelatingtothestatusofamarriageaffects the civil status, condition and legal capacity of itsparties. However, the effect of a foreign judgment is notautomatic.ToextendtheeffectofaforeignjudgmentinthePhilippines,Philippinecourtsmustdetermineiftheforeignjudgmentisconsistentwithdomesticpublicpolicyandothermandatorylaws.60Article15oftheCivilCodeprovidesthat“[l]awsrelatingtofamilyrightsandduties,ortothestatus,condition and legal capacity of persons are binding uponcitizensofthePhilippines,eventhoughlivingabroad.”Thisis the rule of lex nationalii in private international law.Thus,thePhilippineStatemayrequire,foreffectivityinthePhilippines, recognition by Philippine courts of a foreignjudgment affecting its citizen, over whom it exercisespersonal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition andlegalcapacityofsuchcitizen.

A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring amarriage void does not require relitigation under aPhilippinecourtofthecaseasifitwereanewpetitionfordeclarationofnullityofmarriage.Philippinecourtscannotpresumetoknowtheforeignlawsunderwhichtheforeignjudgment was rendered. They cannot substitute theirjudgmentonthestatus,

_______________

58Id.

59Id.,atp.386.

60CIVILCODE,Art. 17. xxx

xxxx

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and

those which have for their object public order, public policy and good

customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments

promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a

foreigncountry.

92

92 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who isunder the jurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippinecourts can only recognize the foreign judgment as a fact

accordingtotherulesofevidence.Section48(b),Rule39oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat

aforeignjudgmentorfinalorderagainstapersoncreatesa“presumptiveevidenceofarightasbetweenthepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterestbyasubsequenttitle.”Moreover,Section48oftheRulesofCourtstatesthat“thejudgmentorfinal order may be repelled by evidence of a want ofjurisdiction,wantofnoticetotheparty,collusion,fraud,orclear mistake of law or fact.” Thus, Philippine courtsexerciselimitedreviewonforeignjudgments.Courtsarenotallowedtodelveintothemeritsofaforeignjudgment.OnceaforeignjudgmentisadmittedandproveninaPhilippinecourt, it can only be repelled on grounds external to itsmerits,i.e.,“wantofjurisdiction,wantofnoticetotheparty,collusion,fraud,orclearmistakeoflaworfact.”Theruleonlimited review embodies the policy of efficiency and theprotectionofpartyexpectations,61aswellasrespectingthejurisdictionofotherstates.62

_______________

61 Mijares v. Rañada, supra note 57 at p. 386; p. 412. “Otherwise

knownasthepolicyofpreclusion,itseekstoprotectpartyexpectations

resultingfromprevious litigation,tosafeguardagainsttheharassment

of defendants, to insure that the task of courts not be increased by

never­endinglitigationofthesamedisputes,and—inalargersense—

topromotewhatLordCokeintheFerrer’sCaseof1599statedtobethe

goalofalllaw:‘restandquietness.’”(Citationsomitted)

62Mijares v. Rañada, supranote57atp.382;pp.407­408.“Therules

of comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage

among civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of

competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered

efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different

countries.”(Citationsomitted)

93

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 93

Fujiki vs. Marinay

Since 1922 inAdong v. Cheong Seng Gee,63 Philippinecourts have recognized foreign divorce decrees between aFilipinoandaforeigncitizeniftheyaresuccessfullyprovenunder the rules of evidence.64 Divorce involves thedissolution of amarriage, but the recognition of a foreigndivorce decree does not involve the extended procedure

underA.M.No.02­11­10­SCortherulesofordinarytrial.While the Philippines does not have a divorce law,Philippinecourtsmay,however,recognizeaforeigndivorcedecree under the second paragraph of Article 26 of theFamily Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen to remarrywhen his or her foreign spouse obtained a divorce decreeabroad.65

ThereisthereforenoreasontodisallowFujikitosimplyprove as a fact the Japanese Family Court judgmentnullifyingthemarriagebetweenMarinayandMaekaraonthegroundofbigamy.WhilethePhilippineshasnodivorcelaw,theJapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentisfullyconsistentwith Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages aredeclaredvoidfromthebeginningunderArticle35(4)oftheFamilyCode. Bigamy is a crime underArticle 349 of theRevisedPenalCode.Thus,Fujikicanprovetheexistenceofthe Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance withRule132,Sections24and25,inrelationtoRule39,Section48(b)oftheRulesofCourt.

_______________

6343Phil.43(1922).

64 Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010, 628

SCRA 266, 280;Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723; 366 SCRA 437 (2001);

Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, supra.

65FAMILYCODE,Art. 26. xxx

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is

validlycelebratedandadivorceisthereaftervalidlyobtainedabroadby

thealienspousecapacitatinghimorhertoremarry,theFilipinospouse

shallhavecapacitytoremarryunderPhilippinelaw.

94

94 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

II.Sincetherecognitionofaforeignjudgmentonlyrequires

proof of fact of the judgment, itmaybemade ina specialproceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in thecivilregistryunderRule108oftheRulesofCourt.Rule1,Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that “[a] specialproceedingisaremedybywhichapartyseekstoestablishastatus, a right, or a particular fact.” Rule 108 creates aremedytorectifyfactsofaperson’slifewhicharerecorded

bytheStatepursuanttotheCivilRegisterLaworActNo.3753.Theseare facts ofpublic consequence suchasbirth,death or marriage,66 which the State has an interest inrecording.As noted by theSolicitorGeneral, inCorpuz v.Sto. TomasthisCourtdeclaredthat“[t]herecognitionoftheforeign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108proceeding itself,as theobjectofspecialproceedings (suchas that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely toestablishthestatusorrightofapartyoraparticularfact.”67

Rule108,Section1oftheRulesofCourtstates:

_______________

66 Act No. 3753, Sec. 1. Civil Register.—A civil register is

established for recording the civil status of persons, in which shall be

entered: (a) births; (b) deaths; (c) marriages; (d) annulments of

marriages; (e) divorces; (f) legitimations; (g) adoptions; (h)

acknowledgment ofnatural children; (i) naturalization; and (j) changes

ofname.

Cf.RULESOFCOURT,Rule108,Sec.2.Entries subject to cancellation or

correction.—Upongood and valid grounds, the following entries in the

civilregistermaybecancelledorcorrected:(a)births;(b)marriages;(c)

deaths; (d) legalseparations; (e) judgmentsofannulmentsofmarriage;

(f) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g)

legitimations;(h)adoptions;(i)acknowledgmentsofnaturalchildren;(j)

naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civil

interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary

emancipationofaminor;and(o)changesofname.

67Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, supranote36atp.287.

95

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 95

Fujiki vs. Marinay

Sec. 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested inany act, event, order or decree concerning the civilstatus of persons which has been recorded in the civilregister, may file a verified petition for the cancellation orcorrection of any entry relating thereto, with the RegionalTrial Court of the province where the corresponding civilregistryislocated.(Emphasissupplied)

FujikihasthepersonalitytofileapetitiontorecognizetheJapaneseFamilyCourt judgmentnullifying themarriagebetweenMarinay andMaekara on the ground of bigamy

becausethejudgmentconcernshiscivilstatusasmarriedtoMarinay.ForthesamereasonhehasthepersonalitytofileapetitionunderRule108 to cancel theentryofmarriagebetweenMarinayandMaekarainthecivilregistryonthebasisofthedecreeoftheJapaneseFamilyCourt.

There isnodoubt that theprior spousehasapersonaland material interest in maintaining the integrity of themarriagehe contractedand theproperty relations arisingfromit.There isalsonodoubtthathe is interested inthecancellationofanentryofabigamousmarriageinthecivilregistry, which compromises the public record of hismarriage.Theinterestderivesfromthesubstantiverightofthe spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, in limitedinstances68)hismost intimatehuman relation, butalso toprotecthispropertyintereststhatarisebyoperationoflawthe moment he contracts marriage.69 These propertyinterests inmarriageincludetherighttobesupported“inkeeping with the financial capacity of the family”70 andpreservingthepropertyregimeofthemarriage.71

Propertyrightsarealreadysubstantiverightsprotectedby the Constitution,72 but a spouse’s right in a marriageextends

_______________

68FAMILYCODE,Arts.35­67.

69FAMILYCODE,Arts.74­148.

70FAMILYCODE,Art.195inrelationtoArt.194.

71See supranote69.

72CONSTITUTION,Art.III,Sec.1: “Nopersonshallbedeprivedof life,

liberty,orpropertywithoutdueprocessoflawxxx.”

96

96 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

further to relational rights recognized under Title III(“Rights and Obligations between Husband and Wife”) oftheFamilyCode.73A.M.No.02­11­10­SCcannot“diminish,increase, ormodify” the substantive right of the spouse tomaintain the integrity of his marriage.74 In any case,Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02­11­10­SC preserves thissubstantive rightby limiting thepersonality to sue to thehusbandorthewifeoftheunionrecognizedbylaw.

Section2(a)ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SCdoesnotprecludea

spouseofasubsistingmarriagetoquestionthevalidityofasubsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On thecontrary, when Section 2(a) states that “[a] petition fordeclarationofabsolutenullityofvoidmarriagemaybefiledsolely by the husband or the wife”75―itreferstothehusband or the wife of the subsisting marriage. UnderArticle 35(4) of theFamilyCode, bigamousmarriages arevoid from the beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamousmarriage areneither thehusbandnor thewifeunder thelaw. The husband or the wife of the prior subsistingmarriageistheonewhohasthepersonalitytofileapetitionfor declaration of absolute nullity of voidmarriage underSection2(a)ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SC.

Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which declaresbigamous marriages void from the beginning, is the civilaspectofArti­

_______________

73FAMILYCODE,Arts.68­73.

74CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5). The SupremeCourt shall have

thefollowingpowers:

xxxx

(5) Promulgaterulesconcerningtheprotectionandenforcementof

constitutionalrights,pleading,practice,andprocedureinallcourts,the

admissiontothepracticeoflaw,theintegratedbar,andlegalassistance

to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and

inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be

uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish,

increase,ormodifysubstantiverights.xxx

xxxx(Emphasissupplied)

75Emphasissupplied.

97

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 97

Fujiki vs. Marinay

cle 349 of the Revised Penal Code,76 which penalizesbigamy.Bigamyisapubliccrime.Thus,anyonecaninitiateprosecutionforbigamybecauseanycitizenhasaninterestintheprosecutionandpreventionofcrimes.77Ifanyonecanfile a criminal action which leads to the declaration ofnullity of a bigamousmarriage,78 there ismore reason toconfer personality to sue on the husband or thewife of asubsistingmarriage.Thepriorspousedoesnotonlysharein

thepublicinterestofprosecutingandpreventingcrimes,heis also personally interested in the purely civil aspect ofprotectinghismarriage.

Whentherightof thespousetoprotecthismarriage isviolated, the spouse is clearly an injured party and isthereforeinterestedinthejudgmentofthesuit.79Juliano­Llave ruled that theprior spouse “is clearly theaggrievedparty as the bigamous marriage not only threatens thefinancial and the property ownership aspect of the priormarriagebutmostof

_______________

76REVISEDPENALCODE(ActNo.3815,asamended),Art.349.Bigamy.

—Thepenaltyofprisión mayorshall be imposeduponanypersonwho

shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former

marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has

beendeclaredpresumptivelydeadbymeansofa judgmentrenderedin

theproperproceedings.

77SeeIIIRAMONAQUINO,THEREVISEDPENALCODE(1997),518.

78RULESOFCOURT,Rule111,Sec.1. Institution of criminal and civil

actions.—(a)Whenacriminalactionisinstituted,thecivilactionforthe

recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be

deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party

waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or

institutesthecivilactionpriortothecriminalaction.

xxxx

79Cf. RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 2. Parties in interest.―A real

party in interest is thepartywho stands to bebenefited or injured by

thejudgmentinthesuit,orthepartyentitledtotheavailsofthesuit.

Unless otherwiseauthorizedby lawor theseRules, everyactionmust

beprosecutedordefendedinthenameoftherealpartyininterest.

98

98 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse.”80

Beingarealpartyininterest,thepriorspouseisentitledtosueinordertodeclareabigamousmarriagevoid.Forthispurpose, he can petition a court to recognize a foreignjudgmentnullifying thebigamousmarriageand judiciallydeclare as a fact that such judgment is effective in thePhilippines. Once established, there should be no moreimpedimenttocanceltheentryofthebigamousmarriagein

thecivilregistry.III.

InBraza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City,Negros Occidental,thisCourtheldthata“trialcourthasnojurisdictiontonullifymarriages”inaspecialproceedingforcancellation or correction of entry under Rule 108 of theRulesofCourt.81Thus,the“validityofmarriage[]xxxcanbe questioned only in a direct action” to nullify themarriage.82 The RTC relied on Braza in dismissing thepetition for recognitionof foreign judgmentasa collateralattackonthemarriagebetweenMarinayandMaekara.

BrazaisnotapplicablebecauseBrazadoesnotinvolvearecognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamousmarriagewhereoneofthepartiesisacitizenoftheforeigncountry.

Tobesure,apetitionforcorrectionorcancellationofanentryinthecivilregistrycannotsubstituteforanactiontoinvalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary toprevent circumvention of the substantive and proceduralsafeguardsofmarriageundertheFamilyCode,A.M.No.02­11­10­SCandother related laws.Among these safeguardsaretherequirementofprovingthelimitedgroundsforthedissolution of marriage,83 support pendente lite of thespousesandchil­

_______________

80Juliano­Llave v. Republic, supranote33.

81Supranote25.

82Supranote25.

83 See supranote68.

99

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 99

Fujiki vs. Marinay

dren,84 the liquidation, partition and distribution of theproperties of the spouses,85 and the investigation of thepublic prosecutor to determine collusion.86 A direct actionfordecla­

_______________

84FAMILYCODE,Art. 49. During thependencyof theactionand in

theabsenceofadequateprovisionsinawrittenagreementbetweenthe

spouses,theCourtshallprovideforthesupportofthespousesandthe

custody and support of their common children. The Court shall give

paramount consideration to the moral and material welfare of said

childrenandtheirchoiceoftheparentwithwhomtheywishtoremain

asprovidedtoinTitleIX.Itshallalsoprovideforappropriatevisitation

rightsoftheotherparent.

Cf. RULESOFCOURT,Rule61.

85FAMILYCODE,Art. 50. Theeffectsprovidedforbyparagraphs(2),

(3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the

proper cases tomarriageswhich are declaredab initio or annulled by

finaljudgmentunderArticles40and45.

The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation,

partition anddistribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody

and support of the common children, and the delivery of third

presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in

previousjudicialproceedings.

Allcreditorsof thespousesaswellasof theabsolutecommunityor

the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for

liquidation.

In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is

situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of

Articles102and129.

A.M.No.02­11­10­SC,Sec. 19. Decision.―(1)If thecourtrendersa

decisiongrantingthepetition,itshalldeclarethereinthatthedecreeof

absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court

only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code as

implementedundertheRuleonLiquidation,PartitionandDistribution

ofProperties.

xxxx

86FAMILYCODE,Art. 48. Inallcasesofannulmentordeclarationof

absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting

attorneyorfiscalassignedtoittoappearonbehalfoftheStatetotake

steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that

evidenceisnotfabricatedorsuppressed.

100

100 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

rationofnullityorannulmentofmarriageisalsonecessaryto prevent circumvention of the jurisdiction of theFamilyCourtsundertheFamilyCourtsActof1997(RepublicActNo. 8369), as a petition for cancellation or correction ofentries in the civil registry may be filed in the Regional

Trial Court “where the corresponding civil registry islocated.”87Inotherwords,aFilipinocitizencannotdissolvehismarriagebythemereexpedientofchanginghisentryofmarriageinthecivilregistry.

However,thisdoesnotapplyinapetitionforcorrectionor cancellation of a civil registry entry based on therecognition of a foreign judgment annulling a marriagewhereoneofthepartiesisacitizenoftheforeigncountry.There is neither circumvention of the substantive andprocedural safeguards of marriage under Philippine law,nor of the jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No.8369.Arecognitionofaforeignjudgmentisnotanactiontonullify amarriage. It is anaction forPhilippine courts torecognizetheeffectivityofaforeign

_______________

In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment

shallbebaseduponastipulationoffactsorconfessionofjudgment.

A.M. No. 02­11­10­SC, Sec. 9. Investigation report of public

prosecutor.―(1) Within one month after receipt of the court order

mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor

shall submit a report to the court stating whether the parties are in

collusion and serve copies thereof on the parties and their respective

counsels,ifany.

(2) Ifthepublicprosecutorfindsthatcollusionexists,heshallstate

the basis thereof in his report. The parties shall file their respective

commentsonthefindingof collusionwithin tendays fromreceiptofa

copy of the report. The court shall set the report for hearing and if

convincedthatthepartiesareincollusion,itshalldismissthepetition.

(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the

courtshall set the case for pre­trial. It shall be the duty of the public

prosecutortoappearfortheStateatthepre­trial.

87RULESOFCOURT,Rule108,Sec.1.

101

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 101

Fujiki vs. Marinay

judgment, which presupposes a case which wasalready tried and decided under foreign law. Theprocedure in A.M. No. 02­11­10­SC does not apply in apetition to recognize a foreign judgment annulling abigamousmarriagewhereoneoftheparties isacitizenofthe foreign country.Neither canR.A.No. 8369define the

jurisdictionoftheforeigncourt.Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on

Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorcedecree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial todetermine the validity of the dissolution of themarriage.The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Codeprovidesthat“[w]hereamarriagebetweenaFilipinocitizenand a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce isthereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spousecapacitatinghimorhertoremarry,theFilipinospouseshallhavecapacitytoremarryunderPhilippinelaw.”InRepublicv. Orbecido,88thisCourtrecognizedthelegislativeintentofthe second paragraph of Article 26which is “to avoid theabsurdsituationwheretheFilipinospouseremainsmarriedto the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is nolongermarried to theFilipinospouse”89 under the laws ofhisorhercountry.ThesecondparagraphofArticle26oftheFamilyCodeonlyauthorizesPhilippinecourtstoadopttheeffects of a foreign divorce decree precisely because thePhilippinesdoesnotallowdivorce.Philippinecourtscannottrythecaseonthemeritsbecauseitistantamounttotryingacasefordivorce.

The secondparagraphofArticle26 is onlya correctivemeasure to address the anomaly that results from amarriage between a Filipino, whose laws do not allowdivorce,andaforeigncitizen,whoselawsallowdivorce.Theanomaly consists in the Filipino spouse being tied to themarriagewhiletheforeignspouseisfreetomarryunderthelaws of his or her country. The correction is made byextendinginthePhil­

_______________

88509Phil.108;472SCRA114(2005).

89Id.,atp.114;p.121.

102

102 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

ippines the effect of the foreign divorce decree, which isalreadyeffectiveinthecountrywhereitwasrendered.ThesecondparagraphofArticle26oftheFamilyCodeisbasedon this Court’s decision in Van Dorn v. Romillo90 whichdeclared that the Filipino spouse “should not be

discriminated against in her own country if the ends ofjusticearetobeserved.”91

TheprincipleinArticle26oftheFamilyCodeappliesina marriage between a Filipino and a foreign citizen whoobtainsaforeignjudgmentnullifyingthemarriageonthegroundof bigamy.TheFilipino spousemay file apetitionabroad to declare the marriage void on the ground ofbigamy.TheprincipleinthesecondparagraphofArticle26oftheFamilyCodeappliesbecausetheforeignspouse,aftertheforeignjudgmentnullifyingthemarriage,iscapacitatedto remarry under the laws of his or her country. If theforeign judgment isnot recognized in thePhilippines, theFilipinospousewillbediscriminated—theforeignspousecanremarrywhiletheFilipinospousecannotremarry.

UnderthesecondparagraphofArticle26oftheFamilyCode,PhilippinecourtsareempoweredtocorrectasituationwheretheFilipinospouseisstilltiedtothemarriagewhilethe foreign spouse is free to marry. Moreover,notwithstandingArticle26of theFamilyCode,Philippinecourts already have jurisdiction to extend the effect of aforeign judgment inthePhilippinestotheextentthattheforeign judgment does not contravene domestic publicpolicy. A critical difference between the case of a foreigndivorce decree and a foreign judgment nullifying abigamous marriage is that bigamy, as a ground for thenullityofmarriage,isfullyconsistentwithPhilippinepublicpolicyasexpressedinArticle35(4)oftheFamilyCodeandArticle349oftheRevisedPenalCode.TheFilipinospousehas theoption toundergo full trialby filingapetition fordeclarationofnullityofmarriageunderA.M.No.

_______________

90223Phil.357;139SCRA139(1985).

91Id.,atp.363;p.144.

103

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 103

Fujiki vs. Marinay

02­11­10­SC, but this is not the only remedy available tohimorher.Philippinecourtshavejurisdictiontorecognizeaforeignjudgmentnullifyingabigamousmarriage,withoutprejudicetoacriminalprosecutionforbigamy.

Intherecognitionofforeignjudgments,Philippinecourts

areincompetenttosubstitutetheirjudgmentonhowacasewasdecidedunder foreign law.Theycannotdecideonthe“family rights and duties, or on the status, condition andlegal capacity” of the foreign citizenwho isaparty to theforeignjudgment.Thus,Philippinecourtsarelimitedtothequestion of whether to extend the effect of a foreignjudgmentinthePhilippines.Inaforeignjudgmentrelatingtothestatusofamarriageinvolvingacitizenofaforeigncountry,PhilippinecourtsonlydecidewhethertoextenditseffecttotheFilipinoparty,undertheruleoflex nationaliiexpressedinArticle15oftheCivilCode.

For this purpose, Philippine courtswill only determine(1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with anoverridingpublicpolicyinthePhilippines;and(2)whetheranyallegingparty isable toproveanextrinsic ground torepeltheforeignjudgment,i.e.wantofjurisdiction,wantofnoticetotheparty,collusion,fraud,orclearmistakeoflawor fact. If there isneither inconsistencywithpublicpolicynoradequateprooftorepelthejudgment,Philippinecourtsshould,bydefault,recognizetheforeignjudgmentaspartofthecomityofnations.Section48(b),Rule39oftheRulesofCourt states that the foreign judgment is already“presumptiveevidenceofarightbetweentheparties.”Uponrecognition of the foreign judgment, this right becomesconclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for thecorrectionorcancellationofentryinthecivilregistry.Therecognitionof the foreign judgmentnullifyingabigamousmarriage is a subsequent event that establishes a newstatus,rightandfact92thatneedstobereflectedinthecivilregistry.Otherwise,therewillbean

_______________

92See RULESOFCOURT,Rule1,Sec.3(c).

104

104 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Fujiki vs. Marinay

inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity ofthe foreign judgment and the public records in thePhilippines.

However, the recognition of a foreign judgmentnullifying a bigamous marriage is without prejudice toprosecution for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised

Penal Code.93 The recognition of a foreign judgmentnullifying a bigamous marriage is not a ground forextinctionof criminal liabilityunderArticles89and94oftheRevisedPenalCode.Moreover,underArticle91oftheRevisedPenalCode,“[t]hetermofprescription[ofthecrimeofbigamy]shallnotrunwhentheoffender isabsent fromthePhilippinearchipelago.”

_______________

93See RULESOFCOURT,Rule72,Sec. 2. Applicability of rules of civil

actions.—Intheabsenceofspecialprovisions, therulesprovided for in

ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special

proceedings.

RuleIII,Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended.—xxx

Ifthe criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already

beeninstituted,thelattershallbesuspendedinwhateverstageitmay

befoundbeforejudgmentonthemerits.Thesuspensionshalllastuntil

final judgment isrenderedinthecriminalaction.Nevertheless,before

judgmenton themerits is rendered in the civil action, the samemay,

upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal

action in the court trying the criminalaction. In caseof consolidation,

the evidence already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed

automaticallyreproducedinthecriminalactionwithoutprejudicetothe

right of the prosecution to cross­examine the witnesses presented by

the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present

additionalevidence.Theconsolidatedcriminalandcivilactionsshallbe

triedanddecidedjointly.

Duringthependencyofthecriminalaction,therunningoftheperiod

ofprescriptionof thecivilactionwhichcannotbe institutedseparately

orwhoseproceedinghasbeensuspendedshallbetolled.

Theextinctionofthepenalactiondoesnotcarrywithitextinctionof

the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall be

deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in the

criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability

mayarisedidnotexist.

105

VOL.700,JUNE26,2013 105

Fujiki vs. Marinay

SinceA.M.No.02­11­10­SCisinapplicable,theCourtnolongerseestheneedtoaddressthequestionsonvenueandthecontentsandformofthepetitionunderSections4and5,

respectively,ofA.M.No.02­11­10­SC.WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Order

dated31January2011andtheResolutiondated2March2011oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch107,QuezonCity,in Civil Case No. Q­11­68582 areREVERSED andSETASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is ORDERED toREINSTATE the petition for further proceedings inaccordancewiththisDecision.

SO ORDERED.

Brion, Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas­Bernabe, JJ.,concur.

Petition granted, order reversed and set aside.

Notes.—Resorttoforeignjurisprudenceisproperonlyifnolocallaworjurisprudenceexiststosettlethecontroversy.(Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation vs. Stockholdersof Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., 608 SCRA 215[2009])

Thestartingpointinanyrecognitionofaforeigndivorcejudgmentistheacknowledgmentthatourcourtsdonottakejudicialnoticeofforeignjudgmentsandlaws—theforeignjudgment and its authenticity must be proven as factsunder our rules on evidence, together with the alien’sapplicablenational lawtoshowtheeffectof the judgmentonthealienhimselforherself.(Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas,628SCRA266[2010])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.