Case Title : GERBERT R. CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. DAISYLYN TIROL STO.

TOMAS and The SOLICITOR

GENERAL, respondents.Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Laoag City, Br. 11.
Syllabi Class : Conflict of Laws|Recognition of Foreign Judgments|Civil Registry|Cancellation of Entries
Syllabi:
1. Marriages; Family Code; Husband and Wife; Declaration of Nullity; Divorce; The Family Code
recognizes only two types of defective marriages-
—void and voidable marriages—and in both cases, the basis for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or
annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage; Divorce contemplates the
dissolution of the lawful union for cause arising after the marriage.—The Family Code recognizes only two
types of defective marriages—void and voidable marriages. In both cases, the basis for the judicial
declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage.
Divorce, on the other hand, contemplates the dissolution of the lawful union for cause arising after the
marriage. Our family laws do not recognize absolute divorce between Filipino citizens.
2. Same; Same; Same; Same; The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108
proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is
precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact.-
—We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should not be construed as requiring two separate
proceedings for the registration of a foreign divorce decree in the civil registry—one for recognition of the
foreign decree and another specifically for cancellation of the entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of
special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or
right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate
adversarial proceeding by which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in
terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
3. Same; Same; Same; Cancellation of Entries; The recognition that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) may
extend to a foreign divorce decree does not, by itself, authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil
registry-
—a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding, contemplated under the
Rules of Court, for the cancellation of entries in the civil registry; The Rules of Court supplements Article 412
of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by which entries in the civil
registry may be judicially cancelled or corrected—Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the
jurisdictional and procedural requirements that must be complied with before a judgment, authorizing the
cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry.—Another point we wish to draw attention
to is that the recognition that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) may extend to the Canadian divorce decree
does not, by itself, authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. A petition for recognition of a
foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation
of entries in the civil registry. Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that “no entry in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected, without judicial order.” The Rules of Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code
by specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be
judicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and
procedural requirements that must be complied with before a judgment, authorizing the cancellation or
correction, may be annotated in the civil registry. It also requires, among others, that the verified petition
must be filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located; that the civil
registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must be made parties to the proceedings; and that
the time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. As these basic
jurisdictional requirements have not been met in the present case, we cannot consider the petition Gerbert
filed with the RTC as one filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
4. Same; Same; Civil Registry; While the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry,
the law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s
registration-
—there must first be a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect;
The registration of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite judicial recognition is patently void and
cannot produce any legal effect.—But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil
registry, the law and the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s
registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign
judgment before it can be given res judicata effect. In the context of the present case, no judicial order as
yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree. Thus, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office acted totally out
of turn and without authority of law when it annotated the Canadian divorce decree on Gerbert and
Daisylyn’s marriage certificate, on the strength alone of the foreign decree presented by Gerbert. Evidently,
the Pasig City Civil Registry Office was aware of the requirement of a court recognition, as it cited National
Statistics Office (NSO) Circular No. 4, series of 1982, and Department of Justice Opinion No. 181, series of
1982—both of which required a final order from a competent Philippine court before a foreign judgment,
dissolving a marriage, can be registered in the civil registry, but it, nonetheless, allowed the registration of
the decree. For being contrary to law, the registration of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite
judicial recognition is patently void and cannot produce any legal effect.
5. Same; Same; More than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of reciprocal recognition of
foreign judgments between nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves as the
deeper basis for extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms.-
—More than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of reciprocal recognition of foreign
judgments between nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves as the deeper
basis for extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms. This same
effect, as discussed above, will not obtain for the Filipino spouse were it not for the substantive rule that the
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides.
6. Conflict of Laws; Recognition of Foreign Judgments; In the instant case where the foreigner seeking
recognition of the foreign divorce decree attached to his petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the
required certificates proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the foreign law on divorce, the
Court deems it more appropriate to remand the case to the trial court to determine whether the divorce
decree is consistent with the foreign divorce law, given the Article 26 interests that will be served and the
Filipina wife’s obvious conformity with the petition.-
—In Gerbert’s case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his
or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court comes into play. This Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2)
copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not
kept in the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or
consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept
and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy
of the divorce decree, as well as the required certificates proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy
of the Canadian law on divorce. Under this situation, we can, at this point, simply dismiss the petition for
insufficiency of supporting evidence, unless we deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law. We
deem it more appropriate to take this latter course of action, given the Article 26 interests that will be
served and the Filipina wife’s (Daisylyn’s) obvious conformity with the petition. A remand, at the same time,
will allow other interested parties to oppose the foreign judgment and overcome a petitioner’s presumptive
evidence of a right by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws
before a recognition is made, as the foreign judgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of res judicata
between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
7. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The starting point in any recognition of a
foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
judgments and laws-
—the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together
with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.—
The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do
not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, “no
sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another
country.” This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules
on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien
himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in
another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.
8. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Conflict of Laws; Recognition of Foreign
Judgments; The unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not
necessarily strip such aliens of legal interest to petition the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the recognition of
his foreign divorce decree-
—direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the
requisite interest to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment.—We
qualify our above conclusion—i.e., that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no
rights in favor of aliens—with the complementary statement that this conclusion is not sufficient basis to
dismiss Gerbert’s petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). In other words, the unavailability of the
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal
interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree
itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the alien’s national law have been duly proven according to
our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments. * * * To our mind, direct
involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite
interest to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment. In a divorce
situation, we have declared, no less, that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his or her national law.
9. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Parties; Only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code-
—the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.—Given the rationale and intent behind the
enactment, and the purpose of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the RTC was correct
in limiting the applicability of the provision for the benefit of the Filipino spouse. In other words, only the
Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim
no right under this provision.
10. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; An action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code is not limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce decree-
—if the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can declare that the
Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marriage.—An action based on the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is not limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If
the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can declare that the
Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marriage. No court in this jurisdiction, however,
can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that already established by the decree),
whose status and legal capacity are generally governed by his national law.
11. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her marriage to the alien spouse
considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry.-
—As the RTC correctly stated, the provision was included in the law “to avoid the absurd situation where the
Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to
the Filipino spouse.” The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her
marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree. Essentially, the second paragraph of Article
26 of the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her marriage to the
alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry. Without the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code, the judicial recognition of the foreign decree of divorce, whether in a
proceeding instituted precisely for that purpose or as a related issue in another proceeding, would be of no
significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do not recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital
bond; Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by
judgments promulgated in a foreign country. The inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the
Family Code provides the direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the dissolution of
the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.
12. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Legal Research; Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code, Executive Order No. (EO) 227 effectively incorporated into the law this Court’s holding in
Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 (1985), and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, 174 SCRA 653 (1989).-
—Recognizing the reality that divorce is a possibility in marriages between a Filipino and an alien, President
Corazon C. Aquino, in the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution, enacted
Executive Order No. (EO) 227, amending Article 26 of the Family Code to its present wording, as follows:
“Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country
where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those
prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law.” Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, EO 227 effectively
incorporated into the law this Court’s holding in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 (1985), and Pilapil
v. Ibay-Somera, 174 SCRA 653 (1989). In both cases, the Court refused to acknowledge the alien spouse’s
assertion of marital rights after a foreign court’s divorce decree between the alien and the Filipino. The
Court, thus, recognized that the foreign divorce had already severed the marital bond between the spouses.
Case Title : Testate Estate of Joseph G. Brimo. JUAN MICIANO, administrator, petitioner and appellee, vs.
ANDRE BRIMO, opponent and appellant.
Case Nature : APPEAL from various orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Diaz and Harvey, JJ.

Syllabi Class :FOREIGN LAWS|POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDING|SUCCESSIONS|CONDITIONAL

LEGACY|CONDITION CONTRARY TO LAW
Syllabi:
1. FOREIGN LAWS; PRESUMPTION.-
In the absence of evidence to the contrary foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same
as those of the Philippines. (Lim and Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil., 472.)
2. POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDING; DISCRETION.-
It is discretionary on the part of the court to postpone or not to postpone a particular proceeding in a case,
and when the person applying for it has already been given ample opportunity to present the evidence that
he wishes to introduce, the court commits no abuse of discretion in denying it.
3. SUCCESSIONS; CONDITIONAL LEGACY; CONDITION CONTRARY TO LAW; NULLITY OF.-
If the condition imposed upon the legatee is that he respect the testator's order that his property be
distributed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines and not in accordance with the laws of his nation,
said condition is illegal, because, according to article 10 of the Civil Code, said laws govern his testamentary
disposition, and, being illegal, shall be considered unwritten, thus making the institution unconditional.
Case Title : REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, respondent.Case
Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Regional Trial Court of
Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Br. 23.
Syllabi Class : Family Code|Civil Procedure|Marriages|Divorce|Declaratory Relief
Syllabi:
1. Family Code; Marriages; Divorce; The Supreme Court holds that paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be
interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were
Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce
decree.-
This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a marriage between two Filipino citizens
where one later acquired alien citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried while in the U.S.A. The
interests of the parties are also adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts its duty to protect the
institution of marriage while respondent, a private citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to remarry.
Respondent, praying for relief, has legal interest in the controversy. The issue raised is also ripe for judicial
determination inasmuch as when respondent remarries, litigation ensues and puts into question the validity
of his second marriage. x x x We hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases
involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one
of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should
likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the
marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. Where the interpretation of a
statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear
purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as
necessary the letter of the law. A statute may therefore be extended to cases not within the literal meaning
of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent.
2. Family Code; Marriages; Divorce; The Supreme Court is unanimous in holding that paragraph 2 of
Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to allow a
Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also
to remarry.-
We are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as
amended by E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a
spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.
3. Family Code; Marriages; Divorce; The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time
of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.-
We state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There is a valid
marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2. A valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The reckoning point is not the
citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a
valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. In this case, when
Cipriano’s wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been
celebrated between her and Cipriano. As fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained
a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of
Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the “divorced” Filipino spouse, should be allowed to
remarry.
4. Civil Procedure; Declaratory Relief; Requisites of a Petition for Declaratory Relief.-
The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the
controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) that the party seeking the relief has
a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination.
Case Title : 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.Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of the order
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 107.

Syllabi Class : Criminal Law|Bigamy|Foreign Judgments|Conflict of Law

Syllabi:

1. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Foreign Judgments; Conflict of Law; 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.-

—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. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in evidence
and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules
of Court. Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family Court judgment 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.

2. Criminal Law; Bigamy; Foreign Judgments; Conflict of Law; 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.-

—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. Moreover, under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, “[t]he term of prescription [of the crime
of bigamy] shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine archipelago.”

3. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Conflict of Law; 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, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or
fact.-

—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, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact. 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.” Upon recognition of the foreign judgment, this right
becomes conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the
civil registry. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event
that establishes a new status, right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there
will be an inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment and the public
records in the Philippines.

4. Same; Same; Same; Bigamy, as a ground for the nullity of marriage, is fully consistent with Philippine
public policy as expressed in Article 35(4) of the Family Code and Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.-
—Under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, Philippine courts are empowered to correct a
situation where the Filipino spouse is still tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry.
Moreover, notwithstanding Article 26 of the Family Code, Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to
extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines to the extent that the foreign judgment does not
contravene domestic public policy. A critical difference between the case of a foreign divorce decree and a
foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is that bigamy, as a ground for the nullity of marriage, is
fully consistent with Philippine public policy as expressed in Article 35(4) of the Family Code and Article 349
of the Revised Penal Code. The Filipino spouse has the option to undergo full trial by filing a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, but this is not the only remedy available to
him or her. Philippine courts have jurisdiction to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous
marriage, without prejudice to a criminal prosecution for bigamy.

5. Same; Same; Marriages; Annulment of Marriage; Divorce; Foreign Judgments; The principle in
Article 26 of the Family Code applies in a marriage between a Filipino and a foreign citizen who
obtains a foreign judgment nullifying the marriage on the ground of bigamy; If the foreign
judgment is not recognized in the Philippines, the Filipino spouse will be discriminated-

— the foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry.—The principle in Article 26 of
the Family Code applies in a marriage between a Filipino and a foreign citizen who obtains a foreign
judgment nullifying the marriage on the ground of bigamy. The Filipino spouse may file a petition abroad to
declare the marriage void on the ground of bigamy. The principle in the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code applies because the foreign spouse, after the foreign judgment nullifying the marriage, is
capacitated to remarry under the laws of his or her country. If the foreign judgment is not recognized in the
Philippines, the Filipino spouse will be discriminated — the foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino
spouse cannot remarry.

6. Civil Law; Conflict of Law; Marriages; Annulment of Marriage; Foreign

Judgments; Divorce; Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the
effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of
the dissolution of the marriage.-

—Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign
divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the
marriage. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides that “[w]here a marriage between
a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by
the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law.” In Republic v. Orbecido, 472 SCRA 114 (2005), this Court recognized the legislative intent of
the second paragraph of Article 26 which is “to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse” under
the laws of his or her country. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code only authorizes
Philippine courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not
allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on the merits because it is tantamount to trying a case
for divorce.

7. Remedial Law; Special Proceedings; Correction of Entries; A petition for correction or cancellation
of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is
necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the
Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws.-

—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. A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and
procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws.
Among these safeguards are the requirement of proving the limited grounds for the dissolution of marriage,
support pendente lite of the spouses and children, the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties
of the spouses, and the investigation of the public prosecutor to determine collusion. A direct action for
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage is also necessary to prevent circumvention of the jurisdiction
of the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for
cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry may be filed in the Regional Trial Court “where the
corresponding civil registry is located.” In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the
mere expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry. However, this 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. There is neither
circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under Philippine law, nor of the
jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No. 8369. 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. The procedure in A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous marriage
where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the jurisdiction
of the foreign court.

8. Criminal Law; Bigamy; Parties; 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. If anyone can file a
criminal action which leads to the declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage, there is more reason to
confer personality to sue on the husband or the wife of a subsisting marriage.-

—Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which declares bigamous marriages void from the beginning, is the civil
aspect of 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. If anyone can file a criminal action which leads to the declaration of nullity of a
bigamous marriage, there is more reason to confer personality to sue on the husband or the wife of a
subsisting marriage. The prior spouse does not only share in the public interest of prosecuting and
preventing crimes, he is also personally interested in the purely civil aspect of protecting his marriage.

9. Civil Law; Marriages; Parties; 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; 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.—Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not
preclude a spouse of a subsisting marriage to question the validity of a subsequent marriage on the ground
of bigamy. On the contrary, 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.

10. Same; Same; Same; Same; Since 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.”-

—Since 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.” Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of
a person’s life which are recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are
facts of public consequence such as birth, death or marriage, which the State has an interest in recording.
As noted by the Solicitor General, in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 628 SCRA 266 (2010), 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 (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or
right of a party or a particular fact.”

11. Same; Same; Same; Same; Civil Law; Divorce; While the 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.-

—Since 1922 in Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil. 43 (1922), Philippine courts have recognized foreign
divorce decrees between a Filipino and a foreign citizen if they are successfully proven under the rules of
evidence. Divorce involves the dissolution of a marriage, but the recognition of a foreign divorce decree does
not involve the extended procedure under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the rules of ordinary trial. While the
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.

12. Same; Same; Same; Same; Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a Philippine court, it
can only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e., “want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.”-

—Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a foreign judgment or final order against a
person creates a “presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by
a subsequent title.” Moreover, Section 48 of the Rules of Court states that “the judgment or final order may
be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact.” Thus, Philippine courts exercise limited review on foreign judgments. Courts are not
allowed to delve into the merits of a foreign judgment. Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a
Philippine court, it can only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e., “want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.” The rule on limited review embodies the
policy of efficiency and the protection of party expectations, as well as respecting the jurisdiction of other
states.

13. Same; Same; Same; Same; A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage void does
not require relitigation under a Philippine court of the case as if it were a new petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage.-

—A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage void does not require relitigation 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. They cannot
substitute their judgment on the status, condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is under the
jurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine courts can only recognize the foreign judgment as a fact
according to the rules of evidence.

14. Same; Same; Same; Same; A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects the civil
status, condition and legal capacity of its parties. However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not
automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines, Philippine courts must determine if
the foreign judgment is consistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory laws.-

—A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects the civil status, condition and legal capacity
of its parties. However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign
judgment in the Philippines, Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment is consistent with
domestic public policy and other mandatory laws. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that “[l]aws relating
to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens
of the Philippines, even though living abroad.” This is the rule of lex nationalii in private international law.
Thus, the Philippine State may require, for effectivity in the Philippines, recognition by Philippine courts of a
foreign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom it exercises personal jurisdiction relating to the status,
condition and legal capacity of such citizen.