G.R. No.

196049 June 26, 2013

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.

FACTS

 January 23, 2004 - Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in
the Philippines
o marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents.
o Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides.
o Eventually, they lost contact with each other
 2008 - Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara)
o Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines
 Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara
 She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki and they were able to reestablish their relationship
 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara
void on the ground of bigamy
 Jan 14, 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of
Marriage) praying:
o the Japanese Family Court judgment be recognized
o marriage between Marinay and Maekara be declared void ab initio (Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code)
o RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese Family Court judgment on the Certificate of
Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar
General in the National Statistics Office (NSO)

RTC Ruling

 RTC dismissed the petition and withdrawing the case from its active civil docket. citing provisions of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC)
o Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. –
 (a) Who may file. – A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or
the wife.
o Sec. 4. Venue. – The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has
been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing, or in the case of a non-resident respondent, where he may be
found in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner.
 RTC took the view that only "the husband or the wife," in this case either Maekara or Marinay, can file the petition to declare their
marriage void, and not Fujiki.
 RTC resolved to deny petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In its Resolution, the RTC stated that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies because
the petitioner, in effect, prays for a decree of absolute nullity of marriage
 RTC considered the petition as a collateral attack on the validity of marriage between Marinay and Maekara. The trial court held that this is
a "jurisdictional ground" to dismiss the petition.

Solicitor General Manifestation and Motion

 The Solicitor General argued that Fujiki, as the spouse of the first marriage, is an injured party who can sue to declare the bigamous
marriage between Marinay and Maekara void
 The Solicitor General contended that the petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding
o The Solicitor General asserted that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is the procedure to record "[a]cts, events and judicial decrees
concerning the civil status of persons" in the civil registry as required by Article 407 of the Civil Code. In other words, "[t]he law
requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences upon a person’s legal capacity and
status x x x.
o The Japanese Family Court judgment directly bears on the civil status of a Filipino citizen and should therefore be proven as a fact
in a Rule 108 proceeding.
 Solicitor General argued that there is no jurisdictional infirmity in assailing a void marriage under Rule 108, citing De Castro v. De Castro
and Niñal v. Bayadog which declared that "[t]he validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked.
ISSUES

1. WON (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable in the case

2. WON a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between
his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
3. WON RTC can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108
of the Rules of Court.

HELD/RATIO

1. NO. (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply. Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage "does not apply if the reason behind the petition is bigamy."
 To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for recognition of foreign judgment would mean that the trial court and
the parties should follow its provisions, including the form and contents of the petition, the service of summons, the investigation
of the public prosecutor, the setting of pre-trial, the trial and the judgment of the trial court
o this Court explained that "[i]f every judgment of a foreign court was reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be
forced back on his/her original cause of action, rendering immaterial the previously concluded litigation."
 A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage void does not require re-litigation under a Philippine court of the
case as if it were a new petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Philippine courts cannot presume to know the foreign laws
under which the foreign judgment was rendered.
o Thus, Philippine courts can only recognize the foreign judgment as a fact according to the rules of evidence.
 Philippines does not have a divorce law, Philippine courts may, however, recognize a foreign divorce decree under the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen to remarry when his or her foreign spouse obtained a
divorce decree abroad.
 Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent with Philippine public policy, as bigamous
marriages are declared void from the beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance with Rule 132,
Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
2. YES. he has the personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay and Maekara in the civil
registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese Family Court.
 Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between
Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay.
 when Section 2(a) states that "[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband
or the wife"—it refers to the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage. Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous
marriages are void from the beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the wife under the
law. The husband or the wife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has the personality to file a petition for declaration
of absolute nullity of void marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
 Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes bigamy. Bigamy is a public crime. Thus, anyone can initiate prosecution for
bigamy because any citizen has an interest in the prosecution and prevention of crimes
 When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated, the spouse is clearly an injured party and is therefore
interested in the judgment of the suit
o Being a real party in interest, the prior spouse is entitled to sue in order to declare a bigamous marriage void. For this
purpose, he can petition a court to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the bigamous marriage and judicially declare
as a fact that such judgment is effective in the Philippines
3. YES.
 In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment on how a case was
decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity" of
the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend
the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of
a foreign country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii
expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code.
 For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding public
policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment.
 If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default,
recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that the
foreign judgment is already "presumptive evidence of a right between the parties."

Since A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is inapplicable, the Court no longer sees the need to address the questions on venue and the contents and form of
the petition under Sections 4 and 5, respectively, of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition