Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    Rayray v. Chae Kyung Lee

    Uploaded by

    denver41
    Lazaro Rayray sought to annul his marriage to Chae Kyung Lee in Philippine courts. The lower court dismissed the case, finding it did not have jurisdiction over a marriage solemnized in Korea. However, the Supreme Court held that as Rayray was a Filipino domiciled in the Philippines, the local courts had jurisdiction over the case as an annulment is an in rem proceeding concerning the marital status. While the courts had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's finding that Rayray did not provide sufficient evidence to invalidate the marriage, as Lee asserted different relationship standards in Korea and Rayray was not deemed credible. The petition for annulment was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rayray v. Chae Kyung Lee

    Uploaded by

    denver41
    139 views2 pages
    Lazaro Rayray sought to annul his marriage to Chae Kyung Lee in Philippine courts. The lower court dismissed the case, finding it did not have jurisdiction over a marriage solemnized in Korea. However, the Supreme Court held that as Rayray was a Filipino domiciled in the Philippines, the local courts had jurisdiction over the case as an annulment is an in rem proceeding concerning the marital status. While the courts had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's finding that Rayray did not provide sufficient evidence to invalidate the marriage, as Lee asserted different relationship standards in Korea and Rayray was not deemed credible. The petition for annulment was denied.

    Original Description:

    law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lazaro Rayray sought to annul his marriage to Chae Kyung Lee in Philippine courts. The lower court dismissed the case, finding it did not have jurisdiction over a marriage solemnized in Korea. However, the Supreme Court held that as Rayray was a Filipino domiciled in the Philippines, the local courts had jurisdiction over the case as an annulment is an in rem proceeding concerning the marital status. While the courts had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's finding that Rayray did not provide sufficient evidence to invalidate the marriage, as Lee asserted different relationship standards in Korea and Rayray was not deemed credible. The petition for annulment was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    139 views2 pages

    Rayray v. Chae Kyung Lee

    Uploaded by

    denver41
    Lazaro Rayray sought to annul his marriage to Chae Kyung Lee in Philippine courts. The lower court dismissed the case, finding it did not have jurisdiction over a marriage solemnized in Korea. However, the Supreme Court held that as Rayray was a Filipino domiciled in the Philippines, the local courts had jurisdiction over the case as an annulment is an in rem proceeding concerning the marital status. While the courts had jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's finding that Rayray did not provide sufficient evidence to invalidate the marriage, as Lee asserted different relationship standards in Korea and Rayray was not deemed credible. The petition for annulment was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ARTICLE XIV OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE

    LAZARO RAYRAY, plaintiff-appellant, versus CHAE KYUNG LEE, defendantappellee


    G.R. NO. 18176, October 26, 1966
    A court has jurisdiction over the res, in an action for annulment of
    marriage, provided, at least, one of the parties is domiciled in, or a
    national of, the forum.

    FACTS:
    Both were married in Pusan, Korea. Before themarriage,Lee was able to secure a
    marriage license which is a requirement in Korea prior to marrying. They lived
    together until 1955. Rayray however later found out that Lee had previously lived
    with 2 Americans and a Korean. Lee answered by saying that it is not unusual in
    Korea for a woman to have more than one partner and that it is legally permissive
    for them to do so and that there is no legal impediment to her marriage with Rayray.
    Eventually they pursued their separate way. Plaintiff Lazaro Rayray seeks the
    annulment of his marriage to defendant Chae Kyung Lee. Inasmuch as, the latter's
    whereabouts is unknown; summons was served by publication, as provided in the
    Rules of Court. Thereafter, plaintiff moved that defendant be declared in default,
    she not having filed an answer, and that a date be set for the reception of his
    evidence. In due course, thereafter, the lower court decision was rendered
    dismissing plaintiff's complaint, without costs, upon the ground: (1) that the court
    could not nullify a marriage contracted abroad; and(2) that the facts proven do not
    warrant the relief prayed for. A reconsideration of this decision havingbeen denied,
    plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the case to the Supreme
    Court,the jurisdiction of the lower court being in issue in the appeal.The court
    a quo
    found that it had no jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of plaintiff's marriageto the
    defendant, it having been solemnized in Seoul, Korea. Said conclusion is erroneous.
    In order thata given case could be validly decided by a court of justice, it must have
    jurisdiction over (1) the subject-matter of the litigation; (2) the person of the parties
    therein; and (3) in actions in rem or
    quasi-in-rem
    ,the res.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the subject was subject to the jurisdiction before Philippine trial
    courts?
    HELD:

    The prevailing rule is, accordingly, that a court has jurisdiction over the res, in an
    action forannulment of marriage, provided, at least, one of the parties is domiciled
    in, or a national of, the forum.Since plaintiff is a Filipino, domiciled in the Philippines,
    it follows that the lower court had jurisdiction
    over the res, in addition to its jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties. In
    other words, itcould validly inquire into the legality of the marriage between the
    parties herein.The lower court is
    correct in ruling that Rayrays evidence is
    not sufficient to renderhis marriage with Lee null and void. Rayray said that the
    police clearance secured by Lee is meant toallow her tomarryafter her subsequent
    cohabitation/s with the other men

    which are consideredbigamous in Philippine law. The SC ruled that the police
    clearance is wanting for it lacks the signature of the person who prepared it and
    there is no competent document to establish the identity of the same.Also, through
    Rayray himself, Lee averred that it is ok in Korea for a person who
    cohabited
    with othermen before to marry another man. This is an indication that Lee herself is
    aware that if it were aprevious marriage that is concerned then that could be a legal
    impediment to any subsequent marriage.Rayray cannot be given credence in
    claiming that his consent could have been otherwise altered had heknown all these
    facts prior to the marriage because he would lie to every opportunity given him by
    theCourt so as to suit his case.Thus, petition is DENIED with the cost against the
    plaintiff-appellant

    You might also like