Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
196049
MINORU FUJIKI 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
The Facts
Fujiki, a Japanese national married Maria Paz Galela
Marinay, a Filipina. Unfortunately, Fujikis parents did
not approve of the marriage hence he could not bring
his wife to Japan leading to the two to lose contact. In
2008, Marinay met another Japanese and without the
first marriage being dissolve, married Maekara.
Maekara brought her to Japan but she allegedly
suffered physical abuse, whereby she left and started
to contract Fujiki. They were able to obtain a judgment
from a family court in japan declaring the marriage as
void on the ground of bigamy. Fujiki then filed a
petition in the RTC praying among others that the
judgment in the Japanese family courts be recognized
and that the bigamous marriage be declared void ab
initio.
The RTC dismissed the petition 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):
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.
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. x x x
The RTC further justified its motu proprio dismissal of
the petition based on Braza v. The City Civil Registrar
of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental which stated
that "[i]n a special proceeding for correction of entry
under Rule 108, the trial court has no jurisdiction to
nullify marriages." Hence considering the petition as a
collateral attack on the validity of marriage between
marinay and Maekara.
The Issues
(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.
(2) Whether 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) Whether the Regional Trial Court 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.
I.
For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment
relating to the status of a marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner
only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact
under the Rules of Court. Hence a copy of the foreign
judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as
a fact under the Rules of Court. He may do so
through (1) an official publication or (2) a certification
or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the
judgment. If the office which has custody is in a
foreign country such as Japan, the certification may
be made by the proper diplomatic or consular officer
of the Philippine foreign service in Japan and
authenticated by the seal of office.
To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies is absurd
because it will litigate the case anew and hence
defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments,
which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and
issues."
II.
The recognition of a foreign judgment only requires
proof of fact of the judgment, it may be made in a
special proceeding for cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court.
Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that
"[a] special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that "[t]he
recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be
made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of
special proceedings is precisely to establish the
status or right of a party or a particular fact."67
III.
The ruling in Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of
Himamaylan Citydoes not apply because Braza does
not involve a recognition of a foreign judgment
nullifying a bigamous marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of the foreign country.
To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of
an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an
action to invalidate a marriage.However this rule does
not apply in a petition for correction or cancellation of
a civil registry entry based on the recognition of a
foreign judgment annulling a marriage where one of
the parties is a citizen of the foreign country.
A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to
nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts
to recognize the effectivity of a foreign
judgment, which presupposes a case which was
already tried and decided under foreign law.
Note:
The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a
bigamous marriage is without prejudice to prosecution
for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code. The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying
a bigamous marriage is not a ground for extinction of
criminal liability under Articles 89 and 94 of the
Revised Penal Code