CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Ibay-
Jann Claudine M. Amago 4 – B
1. Corpus vs. Tirol Sto. Tomas
Facts:
Petitioner Corpuz, a naturalized Canadian citizen married
respondent Sto. Tomas but subsequently filed for divorce in Canada
which was granted by the Court Justice of Windsor, Ontario,
Canada. Two years later, Corpuz fell in love with another Filipina.
He went to Civil Registry Office of Pasig City to register the Canadian
divorce decree on his marriage certificate with Sto. Tomas.
However, despite the registration, an official of National Statistics
Office informed Corpuz that the former marriage still subsists under
the Philippine law until there has been a judicial recognition of the
Canadian divorce decree by a competent judicial court in view of
NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982.
Consequently, he filed a petition for judicial recognition of
foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of marriage with
the RTC. However, the RTC denied the petition reasoning out that
Corpuz cannot institute the action for judicial recognition of the
foreign divorce decree because he is a naturalized Canadian citizen.
It was provided further that Sto. Tomas was the proper party who
can institute an action under the principle of Article 26 of the Family
Code which capacitates a Filipino citizen to remarry in case the alien
spouse obtains a foreign divorce decree. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code grant aliens the right to institute a petition for judicial
recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
Ruling: NO.
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.
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 presentwording, 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.
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.
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 a basis for recognizing the
dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or
her alien spouse.
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.
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.
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
1|Article 26
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
2|Article 26
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.
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.
2. David Noveras vs. Leticia Noveras
Facts:
Noveras are US citizens who own properties in the USA
and in the Philippines. They have 2 children, Jerome and Jena.
Leticia states that sometime in 2003, David abandoned his family to
live with his mistress. Further, she states that David executed an
affidavit where he renounced all his rights and interest in the
conjugal and real properties in the Philippines. After learning of the
extra-marital affair, Leticia filed a petition for divorce before the
Superior Court of California. Upon issuance of the judicial decree
of divorce in June 2005, the US properties were awarded to Leticia.
Leticia then filed a petition for judicial separation of conjugal
property before the RTC of Baler, Aurora. The RTC regarded
the petition for judicial separation of conjugal property as a petition
for liquidation of property since the spouses’ marriage has already
been dissolved. It classified their property relation as absolute
community because they did not execute a marriage settlement
before their marriage ceremony. Then, the trial court ruled that in
accordance with the doctrine of processual presumption, Philippine
law should apply because the court cannot take judicial notice of the
US law since the parties did not submit any proof of their national
law. The court awarded the properties in the Philippines to David,
subject to the payment of the children’s presumptive
legitimes. Upon Leticia’s appeal to the CA, the CA ruled that the
Philippine properties be divided equally between the spouses and
that both should pay their children P520k. David argues that the
Court should have recognized the California judgment that
awarded him the Philippine properties and that allowing Leticia to
share in the PH properties is tantamount to unjust enrichment
considering she already owns all the US properties.
Issues:
a. Whether the marriage between David and Leticia has been
dissolved
b. Whether the filing of the judicial separation of property is
proper
Ruling:
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Foreign
Judgments; Marriages; For Philippine courts to recognize a
foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage, 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.—
The requirements of presenting the foreign divorce decree and the
national law of the foreigner must comply with our Rules of
Evidence. Specifically, for Philippine courts to recognize a foreign
judgment relating to the status of a marriage, 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. Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of
public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved
by: (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody thereof. Such official publication or
copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal
custody thereof. The certificate may be issued by any of the
authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by
the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in substance, that
the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof,
as the case may be, and must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer. Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever
a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is
a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case
may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court
having a seal, under the seal of such court.
Civil Law; Family Law; Divorce; Absent a valid recognition
of the divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still
legally married in the Philippines.—Even if we apply the
doctrine of processual presumption as the lower courts did with
respect to the property regime of the parties, the recognition of
divorce is entirely a different matter because, to begin with, divorce
is not recognized between Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent
a valid recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the parties
are still legally married in the Philippines. The trial court thus erred
in proceeding directly to liquidation.
Same; Same; Marriage Settlements; As a general rule, any
modification in the marriage settlements must be made
3|Article 26
before the celebration of marriage.—As a general rule, any
modification in the marriage settlements must be made before the
celebration of marriage. An exception to this rule is allowed provided
that the modification is judicially approved and refers only to the
instances provided in Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136 of the Family
Code.
Same; Same; Absolute Community Property; Judicial
Separation of Properties; The grant of the judicial
separation of the absolute community property
automatically dissolves the absolute community regime, as
stated in the 4th paragraph of Article 99 of the Family
Code.—Having established that Leticia and David had actually
separated for at least one year, the petition for judicial separation
of absolute community of property should be granted. The grant of
the judicial separation of the absolute community property
automatically dissolves the absolute community regime, as stated
in the 4th paragraph of Article 99 of the Family Code, thus: Art. 99.
The absolute community terminates: (1) Upon the death of either
spouse; (2) When there is a decree of legal separation; (3) When
the marriage is annulled or declared void; or (4) In case of judicial
separation of property during the marriage under Articles 134 to
138.
Same; Same; Same; Procedure Observed in the Liquidation
of Absolute Community Regime.—Under Article 102 of the
same Code, liquidation follows the dissolution of the absolute
community regime and the following procedure should apply: Art.
102. Upon dissolution of the absolute community regime, the
following procedure shall apply: (1) An inventory shall be prepared,
listing separately all the properties of the absolute community and
the exclusive properties of each spouse. (2) The debts and
obligations of the absolute community shall be paid out of its assets.
In case of insufficiency of said assets, the spouses shall be solidarily
liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties in
accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article
94. (3) Whatever remains of the exclusive properties of the spouses
shall thereafter be delivered to each of them. (4) The net remainder
of the properties of the absolute community shall constitute its net
assets, which shall be divided equally between husband and wife,
unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the
marriage settlements, or unless there has been a voluntary waiver
of such share provided in this Code. For purposes of computing the
net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Articles 43, No.
(2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the increase in value
between the market value of the community property at the time of
the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of
its dissolution. (5) The presumptive legitimes of the common
children shall be delivered upon partition, in accordance with Article
51. (6) Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, in the partition
of the properties, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is
situated shall be adjudicated to the spouse with whom the majority
of the common children choose to remain. Children below the age
of seven years are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless the
court has decided otherwise. In case there is no such majority, the
court shall decide, taking into consideration the best interests of
said children.
Same; Same; Conflict of Laws; Lex Situs; Article 16 of the
Civil Code clearly states that real property as well as
personal property is subject to the law of the country where
it is situated.—We agree with the appellate court that the
Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the California
properties of David and Leticia. Indeed, Article 16 of the Civil Code
clearly states that real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is situated. Thus,
liquidation shall only be limited to the Philippine properties. We
affirm the modification made by the Court of Appeals with respect
to the share of the spouses in the absolute community properties in
the Philippines, as well as the payment of their children’s
presumptive legitimes.
3. Vda. De Catalan vs. Catalan
Doctrine:
Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which maybe recognized in the
Philippines, provided they are valid ac-cording to their national law.
Facts:
Orlando B. Catalan, a naturalized American citizen
allegedly obtained a divorce in the United States from his first wife,
Felicitas Amor. He then contracted a second marriage with
petitioner.
When Orlando died intestate in the Philippines, petitioner
filed with the RTC a Petition for the issuance of letters of
administration for her appointment as administratrix of the intestate
estate. While the case was pending, respondent Louella A. Catalan-
Lee, one of the children of Orlando from his first marriage, filed a
similar petition with the RTC. The two cases were consolidated.
Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the petition filed by
the respondent on the ground of litis pendentia. Respondent alleged
that petitioner was not considered an interested person qualified
to file the petition. Respondent further alleged that a criminal
case for bigamy was filed against petitioner by Felicitas Amor
contending that petitioner contracted a second marriage to Orlando
despite having been married to one Eusebio Bristol.
However, the RTC acquitted petitioner of bigamy and
ruled that since the deceased was a divorced American citizen, and
that divorce was not recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, the
marriage between him and petitioner was not valid. The RTC took
note of the action for declaration of nullity then pending filed by
Felicitas Amor against the deceased and petitioner. It considered
the pending action to be a prejudicial question in determining the
guilt of petition-er for the crime of bigamy. The RTC also found that
petitioner had never been married to Bristol.
The RTC subsequently dismissed the Petition for the
issuance of letters of administration filed by petitioner and granted
that of private respondent. Contrary to its findings in Crim. Case No.
2699-A, the RTC held that the marriage between petitioner and
Eusebio Bristol was valid and subsisting when she married Orlando.
The RTC held that petitioner was not an interested party who
may file said petition. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower
court.
Issues:
a. Whether the acquittal of petitioner in the crim. case for
bigamy meant that the marriage with Bristol was still
valid.
b. Whether the divorce obtained abroad by Orlando may be
recognized under Philippine jurisdiction.
Ruling:
Civil Law; Conflict of Laws; Principle of Comity; National
Law; Marriages; Divorce; Under the principles of comity,
our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a
spouse of foreign nationality provided it is valid according
to his/her national law.—It is imperative to note that at the time
the bigamy case in Crim. Case No. 2699-A was dismissed, we had
already ruled that under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction
recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign
nationality. This doctrine was established as early as 1985 in Van
Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 (1985), wherein we said: It is
true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of
the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
4|Article 26
against absolute divorces[,] the same being considered contrary to
our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines,
provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case,
the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the
marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce
dissolves the marriage. xxx
Remedial Law; Evidence; Divorce; Documentary Evidence;
A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree
itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the
judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or
record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign
country.—The fact of divorce must still first be proven as we have
enunciated in Garcia v. Recio, 366 SCRA 437 (2001), to wit:
Respondent is getting ahead of himself. Before a foreign judgment
is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be
presented and admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is
proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a
judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written
act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign
country. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand,
a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record
of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy
thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document.
If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy 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 divorce decree between respondent and
Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an
Australian family court. However, appearance is not sufficient;
compliance with the aforementioned rules on evidence must be
demonstrated. Fortunately for respondent’s cause, when the
divorce decree of May 18, 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel
for petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to the fact
that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry of
Cabanatuan City. The trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject
to petitioner’s qualification. Hence, it was admitted in evidence and
accorded weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioner’s failure to object
properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of
the Family Court of Sydney, Australia. Compliance with the quoted
articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary;
respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after
he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. Naturalization is the legal
act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the political and civil
rights belonging to a citizen. Naturalized citizens, freed from the
protective cloak of their former states, don the attires of their
adoptive countries. By becoming an Australian, respondent severed
his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied
him to Philippine personal laws.
4. Norma A. Del Socorro, For And In Behalf Of Her Minor
Child Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem vs.
Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem
Facts:
Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst
Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland on
September 25, 1990.[2] On January 19, 1994, they were blessed
with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, who at the time of
the filing of the... instant petition was sixteen (16) years of age.
Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on July 19, 1995
by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of
Holland.[4] At that time, their son was only eighteen (18) months
old. Thereafter, petitioner and her son... came home to the
Philippines.
According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to
provide monthly support to their son in the amount of Two Hundred
Fifty (250) Guildene
However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the
Philippines, respondent never gave support to the son, Roderigo.
Not long thereafter, respondent came to the Philippines and
remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then, have been
residing thereat.
To date, all the parties, including their son, Roderigo, are
presently living in Cebu City. On August 28, 2009, petitioner,
through her counsel, sent a letter demanding for support from
respondent. However, respondent refused to receive the letter.
Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner filed a
complaint-affidavit with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu City
Respondent submitted his counter-affidavit.
Upon motion and after notice and hearing, the RTC-Cebu
issued a Hold Departure Order against respondent. Consequently,
respondent was arrested and, subsequently, posted bail.
Petitioner also filed a Motion/Application of Permanent
Protection Order.
Subsequently, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss
On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu issued the herein assailed
Order dismissing the instant criminal case against respondent.
Thereafter, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration
On September 1, 2010, the lower court issued an Order denying
petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Issues: Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to
support his minor child under Philippine law
Ruling:
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Hierarchy of
Courts; Republic v. Sunvar Realty Development
Corporation, 674 SCRA 320 (2012), lays down the
instances when a ruling of the trial court may be brought
on appeal directly to the Supreme Court (SC) without
violating the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.—At the outset,
let it be emphasized that We are taking cognizance of the instant
petition despite the fact that the same was directly lodged with the
Supreme Court, consistent with the ruling in Republic v. Sunvar
Realty Development Corporation, 674 SCRA 320 (2012), which lays
down the instances when a ruling of the trial court may be
brought on appeal directly to the Supreme Court without violating
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Civil Law; Conflict of Law; Nationality Theory; Support;
Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the
Netherlands, the Supreme Court (SC) agrees with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Cebu that he is subject to the
laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he
is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the
consequences of his failure to do so.—We agree with
respondent that petitioner cannot rely on Article 195 of the New
Civil Code in demanding support from respondent, who is a foreign
citizen, since Article 15 of the New Civil Code stresses the principle
of nationality. In other words, insofar as Philippine laws are
concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family Code on support,
the same only applies to Filipino citizens. By analogy, the same
principle applies to foreigners such that they are governed by their
national law with respect to family rights and duties. The obligation
to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights
and duties. Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or the
Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the
laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged
to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure
to do so.
5|Article 26
Conflict of Laws; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Foreign Laws;
International Law; In international law, the party who
wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has
the burden of proving the foreign law.—In international law,
the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or
case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In the present case,
respondent hastily concludes that being a national of the
Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision
of and capacity to support. While respondent pleaded the laws of
the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged to
support his son, he never proved the same. It is incumbent upon
respondent to plead and prove that the national law of the
Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to
support their child (either before, during or after the issuance of a
divorce decree), because Llorente v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA
592 (2000), has already enunciated that: True, foreign laws do not
prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they
must be alleged and proved.
Same; Doctrine of Processual Presumption; Foreign Laws;
If the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and
proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the
same as our local or domestic or internal law.—In view of
respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in
his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern.
Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly
pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is
the same as our local or domestic or internal law. Thus, since the
law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not
been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed
to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of
parents to support their children and penalizing the noncompliance
therewith.
Criminal Law; Violence Against Women and Their Children;
The deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is
considered an act of violence aga inst women and
children.—The deprivation or denial of financial support to the
child is considered an act of violence against women and children.
In addition, considering that respondent is currently living in the
Philippines, we find strength in petitioner’s claim that the
Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation to Article 14 of the
New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, which provides that:
“[p]enal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory,
subject to the principle of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.” On this score, it is indisputable that the alleged
continuing acts of respondent in refusing to support his child with
petitioner is committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties
herein are residents of the Province of Cebu City. As such, our courts
have territorial jurisdiction over the offense charged against
respondent. It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the
respondent was acquired upon his arrest.
Same; Same; Continuing Offenses; The act of denying
support to a child under Section 5(e)(2) and (i) of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9262 is a continuing offense, which started in
1995 but is still ongoing at present.—The act of denying
support to a child under Section 5(e)(2) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 is
a continuing offense, which started in 1995 but is still ongoing at
present. Accordingly, the crime charged in the instant case has
clearly not prescribed. Given, however, that the issue on whether
respondent has provided support to petitioner’s child calls for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, and
the truth and falsehood of facts being admitted, we hereby remand
the determination of this issue to the RTC-Cebu which has
jurisdiction over the case.
5. Fujiki vs. Marinay
Facts:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who
married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the
Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with
petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan
where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara
(Maekara). 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.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to
reestablish their relationship. In 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. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC
entitled: “Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of
Absolute Nullity of Marriage).
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: dismissed the petition for "Judicial Recognition of Foreign
Judgment ·(or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)" based on
improper venue and the lack of personality of petitioner, Minoru
Fujiki, to file the petition.
Issue:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
Ruling:
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.
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
6|Article 26
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
7|Article 26
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Criminal Law; Bigamy; Foreign Judgments; Conflict of Law;
The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous
8|Article 26
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.”

9|Article 26