Scribd
Upload
4 views2 pages

Ambrose Vs Ambrose

Uploaded by

Ako Si Badong

case on remedial law

Copyright:

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

Ambrose Vs Ambrose

Uploaded by

Ako Si Badong
4 views2 pages
case on remedial law

Original Title

Ambrose vs ambrose

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

case on remedial law

Copyright:

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

Ambrose Vs Ambrose

Uploaded by

Ako Si Badong
case on remedial law

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2

Title

Ambrose vs. Suque-Ambrose


Case
G.R. No. 206761
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2021
A US citizen petitions for the nullity of his marriage to a Filipino citizen, but is initially
denied due to lack of legal capacity; however, the Supreme Court grants the petition,
affirming the petitioner's right to sue and remanding the case for further proceedings.
nullity of marriage
lack of legal capacity
further proceedings
Show more tags (16)
DigestSummaryTimelineJurisprudenceQ&A
Share
Print / PDF

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206761)

Case Background and Petition for Nullity of Marriage


 The case involves a petition for the nullity of marriage filed by Paul
Ambrose, a US citizen, against his Filipino wife, Louella Suque-Ambrose.
 The petitioner claims that the marriage should be declared null and void due
to the respondent's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines.

RTC's Dismissal of the Petition


 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the petition on the ground
that the petitioner lacks the legal capacity to sue.
 The RTC cited Article 15 of the Civil Code, which states that foreign citizens
are not covered by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, and
legal capacity.
 The RTC also denied the petitioner's notice of appeal for failure to file a
motion for reconsideration.

Supreme Court's Decision to Grant the Petition


 The Supreme Court grants the petition and reverses the RTC's dismissal of
the case.
 The Court rules that the petitioner has both the legal capacity and legal
personality to sue.
 It states that the marriage between the parties, celebrated in the
Philippines, is governed by Philippine laws, including its incidents and
consequences.
 The Court clarifies that the absence of legal capacity to sue refers to the
general disqualification of a plaintiff to institute an action, while the lack of
legal personality to sue refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real
party in interest.
 In this case, the petitioner has both the legal capacity and personality to sue
as he has a substantial interest in the result of the action.

Non-Applicability of the Nationality Principle


 The Court emphasizes that the nationality principle under Article 15 of the
Civil Code does not apply to the petitioner.
 The nationality principle pertains to family rights and duties, status,
condition, and legal capacity of Filipino citizens.
 The Court concludes that the RTC should not have dismissed the case based
on the petitioner's legal capacity to sue.

Remand of the Case to the RTC


 The Supreme Court remands the case to the RTC for further proceedings
and judgment on the merits.
 The RTC is instructed to reconsider the petition and make a decision based
on the merits of the case.

You might also like