RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.196049June26,2013
MINORUFUJIKI,PETITIONER,
vs.
MARIAPAZGALELAMARINAY,SHINICHIMAEKARA,LOCALCIVIL
REGISTRAROFQUEZONCITY,ANDTHEADMINISTRATORAND
CIVILREGISTRARGENERALOFTHENATIONALSTATISTICS
OFFICE,RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:
TheCase
ThisisadirectrecoursetothisCourtfromtheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch
107,QuezonCity,throughapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45ofthe
RulesofCourtonapurequestionoflaw.ThepetitionassailstheOrder1dated31
January2011oftheRTCinCivilCaseNo.Q1168582anditsResolutiondated2
March2011denyingpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.TheRTCdismissed
thepetitionfor"JudicialRecognitionofForeignJudgment(orDecreeofAbsolute
NullityofMarriage)"basedonimpropervenueandthelackofpersonalityof
petitioner,MinoruFujiki,tofilethepetition.
TheFacts
PetitionerMinoruFujiki(Fujiki)isaJapanesenationalwhomarriedrespondent
MariaPazGalelaMarinay(Marinay)inthePhilippines2on23January2004.The
marriagedidnotsitwellwithpetitionersparents.Thus,Fujikicouldnotbringhis
wifetoJapanwhereheresides.Eventually,theylostcontactwitheachother.

In2008,MarinaymetanotherJapanese,ShinichiMaekara(Maekara).Withoutthe
firstmarriagebeingdissolved,MarinayandMaekaraweremarriedon15May
2008inQuezonCity,Philippines.MaekarabroughtMarinaytoJapan.However,
MarinayallegedlysufferedphysicalabusefromMaekara.SheleftMaekaraand
startedtocontactFujiki.3
FujikiandMarinaymetinJapanandtheywereabletoreestablishtheir
relationship.In2010,FujikihelpedMarinayobtainajudgmentfromafamilycourt
inJapanwhichdeclaredthemarriagebetweenMarinayandMaekaravoidonthe
groundofbigamy.4On14January2011,FujikifiledapetitionintheRTCentitled:
"JudicialRecognitionofForeignJudgment(orDecreeofAbsoluteNullityof
Marriage)."Fujikiprayedthat(1)theJapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentbe
recognized;(2)thatthebigamousmarriagebetweenMarinayandMaekarabe
declaredvoidabinitiounderArticles35(4)and41oftheFamilyCodeofthe
Philippines;5and(3)fortheRTCtodirecttheLocalCivilRegistrarofQuezonCity
toannotatetheJapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentontheCertificateofMarriage
betweenMarinayandMaekaraandtoendorsesuchannotationtotheOfficeofthe
AdministratorandCivilRegistrarGeneralintheNationalStatisticsOffice(NSO).6
TheRulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt
Afewdaysafterthefilingofthepetition,theRTCimmediatelyissuedanOrder
dismissingthepetitionandwithdrawingthecasefromitsactivecivildocket.7The
RTCcitedthefollowingprovisionsoftheRuleonDeclarationofAbsoluteNullity
ofVoidMarriagesandAnnulmentofVoidableMarriages(A.M.No.021110
SC):
Sec.2.Petitionfordeclarationofabsolutenullityofvoidmarriages.
(a)Whomayfile.Apetitionfordeclarationofabsolutenullityofvoidmarriage
maybefiledsolelybythehusbandorthewife.
xxxx
Sec.4.Venue.ThepetitionshallbefiledintheFamilyCourtoftheprovinceor
citywherethepetitionerortherespondenthasbeenresidingforatleastsixmonths
priortothedateoffiling,orinthecaseofanonresidentrespondent,wherehe
maybefoundinthePhilippines,attheelectionofthepetitioner.xxx

TheRTCruled,withoutfurtherexplanation,thatthepetitionwasin"gross
violation"oftheaboveprovisions.ThetrialcourtbaseditsdismissalonSection
5(4)ofA.M.No.021110SCwhichprovidesthat"[f]ailuretocomplywithany
oftheprecedingrequirementsmaybeagroundforimmediatedismissalofthe
petition."8Apparently,theRTCtooktheviewthatonly"thehusbandorthewife,"
inthiscaseeitherMaekaraorMarinay,canfilethepetitiontodeclaretheir
marriagevoid,andnotFujiki.
FujikimovedthattheOrderbereconsidered.HearguedthatA.M.No.021110
SCcontemplatedordinarycivilactionsfordeclarationofnullityandannulmentof
marriage.Thus,A.M.No.021110SCdoesnotapply.Apetitionforrecognition
offoreignjudgmentisaspecialproceeding,which"seekstoestablishastatus,a
rightoraparticularfact,"9andnotacivilactionwhichis"fortheenforcementor
protectionofaright,orthepreventionorredressofawrong."10Inotherwords,the
petitionintheRTCsoughttoestablish(1)thestatusandconcomitantrightsof
FujikiandMarinayashusbandandwifeand(2)thefactoftherenditionofthe
JapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentdeclaringthemarriagebetweenMarinayand
Maekaraasvoidonthegroundofbigamy.Thepetitionercontendedthatthe
JapanesejudgmentwasconsistentwithArticle35(4)oftheFamilyCodeofthe
Philippines11onbigamyandwasthereforeentitledtorecognitionbyPhilippine
courts.12
Inanycase,itwasalsoFujikisviewthatA.M.No.021110SCappliedonlyto
voidmarriagesunderArticle36oftheFamilyCodeonthegroundof
psychologicalincapacity.13Thus,Section2(a)ofA.M.No.021110SCprovides
that"apetitionfordeclarationofabsolutenullityofvoidmarriagesmaybefiled
solelybythehusbandorthewife."ToapplySection2(a)inbigamywouldbe
absurdbecauseonlytheguiltypartieswouldbepermittedtosue.Inthewordsof
Fujiki,"[i]tisnot,ofcourse,difficulttorealizethatthepartyinterestedinhavinga
bigamousmarriagedeclaredanullitywouldbethehusbandintheprior,pre
existingmarriage."14Fujikihadmaterialinterestandthereforethepersonalityto
nullifyabigamousmarriage.
FujikiarguedthatRule108(CancellationorCorrectionofEntriesintheCivil
Registry)oftheRulesofCourtisapplicable.Rule108isthe"procedural
implementation"oftheCivilRegisterLaw(ActNo.3753)15inrelationtoArticle
413oftheCivilCode.16TheCivilRegisterLawimposesadutyonthe"successful
petitionerfordivorceorannulmentofmarriagetosendacopyofthefinaldecree

ofthecourttothelocalregistrarofthemunicipalitywherethedissolvedor
annulledmarriagewassolemnized."17Section2ofRule108providesthatentries
inthecivilregistryrelatingto"marriages,""judgmentsofannulmentsofmarriage"
and"judgmentsdeclaringmarriagesvoidfromthebeginning"aresubjectto
cancellationorcorrection.18ThepetitionintheRTCsought(amongothers)to
annotatethejudgmentoftheJapaneseFamilyCourtonthecertificateofmarriage
betweenMarinayandMaekara.
FujikismotionforreconsiderationintheRTCalsoassertedthatthetrialcourt
"gravelyerred"when,onitsown,itdismissedthepetitionbasedonimproper
venue.FujikistatedthattheRTCmaybeconfusingtheconceptofvenuewiththe
conceptofjurisdiction,becauseitislackofjurisdictionwhichallowsacourtto
dismissacaseonitsown.FujikicitedDacoycoyv.IntermediateAppellateCourt19
whichheldthatthe"trialcourtcannotpreemptthedefendantsprerogativeto
objecttotheimproperlayingofthevenuebymotupropriodismissingthecase."20
Moreover,petitionerallegedthatthetrialcourtshouldnothave"immediately
dismissed"thepetitionunderSection5ofA.M.No.021110SCbecausehe
substantiallycompliedwiththeprovision.
On2March2011,theRTCresolvedtodenypetitionersmotionfor
reconsideration.InitsResolution,theRTCstatedthatA.M.No.021110SC
appliesbecausethepetitioner,ineffect,praysforadecreeofabsolutenullityof
marriage.21Thetrialcourtreiterateditstwogroundsfordismissal,i.e.lackof
personalitytosueandimpropervenueunderSections2(a)and4ofA.M.No.02
1110SC.TheRTCconsideredFujikiasa"thirdperson"22intheproceeding
becausehe"isnotthehusbandinthedecreeofdivorceissuedbytheJapanese
FamilyCourt,whichhenowseekstobejudiciallyrecognized,xxx."23Onthe
otherhand,theRTCdidnotexplainitsgroundofimproprietyofvenue.Itonly
saidthat"[a]lthoughtheCourtcitedSec.4(Venue)xxxasagroundfordismissal
ofthiscase[,]itshouldbetakentogetherwiththeothergroundcitedbytheCourtx
xxwhichisSec.2(a)xxx."24
TheRTCfurtherjustifieditsmotupropriodismissalofthepetitionbasedonBraza
v.TheCityCivilRegistrarofHimamaylanCity,NegrosOccidental.25TheCourtin
Brazaruledthat"[i]naspecialproceedingforcorrectionofentryunderRule108
(CancellationorCorrectionofEntriesintheOriginalRegistry),thetrialcourthas
nojurisdictiontonullifymarriagesxxx."26Brazaemphasizedthatthe"validityof
marriagesaswellaslegitimacyandfiliationcanbequestionedonlyinadirect

actionseasonablyfiledbytheproperparty,andnotthroughacollateralattacksuch
as[a]petition[forcorrectionofentry]xxx."27
TheRTCconsideredthepetitionasacollateralattackonthevalidityofmarriage
betweenMarinayandMaekara.Thetrialcourtheldthatthisisa"jurisdictional
ground"todismissthepetition.28Moreover,theverificationandcertification
againstforumshoppingofthepetitionwasnotauthenticatedasrequiredunder
Section529ofA.M.No.021110SC.Hence,thisalsowarrantedthe"immediate
dismissal"ofthepetitionunderthesameprovision.
TheManifestationandMotionoftheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralandthe
LettersofMarinayandMaekara
On30May2011,theCourtrequiredrespondentstofiletheircommentonthe
petitionforreview.30Thepublicrespondents,theLocalCivilRegistrarofQuezon
CityandtheAdministratorandCivilRegistrarGeneraloftheNSO,participated
throughtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral.Insteadofacomment,theSolicitor
GeneralfiledaManifestationandMotion.31
TheSolicitorGeneralagreedwiththepetition.HeprayedthattheRTCs
"pronouncementthatthepetitionerfailedtocomplywithxxxA.M.No.021110
SCxxxbesetaside"andthatthecasebereinstatedinthetrialcourtforfurther
proceedings.32TheSolicitorGeneralarguedthatFujiki,asthespouseofthefirst
marriage,isaninjuredpartywhocansuetodeclarethebigamousmarriage
betweenMarinayandMaekaravoid.TheSolicitorGeneralcitedJulianoLlavev.
Republic33whichheldthatSection2(a)ofA.M.No.021110SCdoesnotapplyin
casesofbigamy.InJulianoLlave,thisCourtexplained:
[t]hesubsequentspousemayonlybeexpectedtotakeactionifheorshehadonly
discoveredduringtheconnubialperiodthatthemarriagewasbigamous,and
especiallyiftheconjugalblisshadalreadyvanished.Shouldpartiesina
subsequentmarriagebenefitfromthebigamousmarriage,itwouldnotbeexpected
thattheywouldfileanactiontodeclarethemarriagevoidandthus,insuch
circumstance,the"injuredspouse"whoshouldbegivenalegalremedyistheone
inasubsistingpreviousmarriage.Thelatterisclearlytheaggrievedpartyasthe
bigamousmarriagenotonlythreatensthefinancialandthepropertyownership
aspectofthepriormarriagebutmostofall,itcausesanemotionalburdentothe
priorspouse.Thesubsequentmarriagewillalwaysbeareminderoftheinfidelity

ofthespouseandthedisregardofthepriormarriagewhichsanctityisprotectedby
theConstitution.34
TheSolicitorGeneralcontendedthatthepetitiontorecognizetheJapaneseFamily
CourtjudgmentmaybemadeinaRule108proceeding.35InCorpuzv.Santo
Tomas,36thisCourtheldthat"[t]herecognitionoftheforeigndivorcedecreemay
bemadeinaRule108proceedingitself,astheobjectofspecialproceedings(such
asthatinRule108oftheRulesofCourt)ispreciselytoestablishthestatusorright
ofapartyoraparticularfact."37WhileCorpuzconcernedaforeigndivorcedecree,
inthepresentcasetheJapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentalsoaffectedthecivil
statusoftheparties,especiallyMarinay,whoisaFilipinocitizen.
TheSolicitorGeneralassertedthatRule108oftheRulesofCourtistheprocedure
torecord"[a]cts,eventsandjudicialdecreesconcerningthecivilstatusofpersons"
inthecivilregistryasrequiredbyArticle407oftheCivilCode.Inotherwords,
"[t]helawrequirestheentryinthecivilregistryofjudicialdecreesthatproduce
legalconsequencesuponapersonslegalcapacityandstatusxxx."38TheJapanese
FamilyCourtjudgmentdirectlybearsonthecivilstatusofaFilipinocitizenand
shouldthereforebeprovenasafactinaRule108proceeding.
Moreover,theSolicitorGeneralarguedthatthereisnojurisdictionalinfirmityin
assailingavoidmarriageunderRule108,citingDeCastrov.DeCastro39and
Nialv.Bayadog40whichdeclaredthat"[t]hevalidityofavoidmarriagemaybe
collaterallyattacked."41
MarinayandMaekaraindividuallysentletterstotheCourttocomplywiththe
directiveforthemtocommentonthepetition.42MaekarawrotethatMarinay
concealedfromhimthefactthatshewaspreviouslymarriedtoFujiki.43Maekara
alsodeniedthatheinflictedanyformofviolenceonMarinay.44Ontheotherhand,
Marinaywrotethatshehadnoreasontoopposethepetition.45Shewouldliketo
maintainhersilenceforfearthatanythingshesaymightcausemisunderstanding
betweenherandFujiki.46
TheIssues
Petitionerraisesthefollowinglegalissues:

(1)WhethertheRuleonDeclarationofAbsoluteNullityofVoidMarriages
andAnnulmentofVoidableMarriages(A.M.No.021110SC)is
applicable.
(2)Whetherahusbandorwifeofapriormarriagecanfileapetitionto
recognizeaforeignjudgmentnullifyingthesubsequentmarriagebetween
hisorherspouseandaforeigncitizenonthegroundofbigamy.
(3)WhethertheRegionalTrialCourtcanrecognizetheforeignjudgmentin
aproceedingforcancellationorcorrectionofentriesintheCivilRegistry
underRule108oftheRulesofCourt.
TheRulingoftheCourt
Wegrantthepetition.
TheRuleonDeclarationofAbsoluteNullityofVoidMarriagesandAnnulmentof
VoidableMarriages(A.M.No.021110SC)doesnotapplyinapetitionto
recognizeaforeignjudgmentrelatingtothestatusofamarriagewhereoneofthe
partiesisacitizenofaforeigncountry.Moreover,inJulianoLlavev.Republic,47
thisCourtheldthattheruleinA.M.No.021110SCthatonlythehusbandor
wifecanfileadeclarationofnullityorannulmentofmarriage"doesnotapplyif
thereasonbehindthepetitionisbigamy."48
I.
ForPhilippinecourtstorecognizeaforeignjudgmentrelatingtothestatusofa
marriagewhereoneofthepartiesisacitizenofaforeigncountry,thepetitioner
onlyneedstoprovetheforeignjudgmentasafactundertheRulesofCourt.
Tobemorespecific,acopyoftheforeignjudgmentmaybeadmittedinevidence
andprovenasafactunderRule132,Sections24and25,inrelationtoRule39,
Section48(b)oftheRulesofCourt.49PetitionermayprovetheJapaneseFamily
Courtjudgmentthrough(1)anofficialpublicationor(2)acertificationorcopy
attestedbytheofficerwhohascustodyofthejudgment.Iftheofficewhichhas
custodyisinaforeigncountrysuchasJapan,thecertificationmaybemadebythe
properdiplomaticorconsularofficerofthePhilippineforeignserviceinJapanand
authenticatedbythesealofoffice.50

ToholdthatA.M.No.021110SCappliestoapetitionforrecognitionofforeign
judgmentwouldmeanthatthetrialcourtandthepartiesshouldfollowits
provisions,includingtheformandcontentsofthepetition,51theserviceof
summons,52theinvestigationofthepublicprosecutor,53thesettingofpretrial,54the
trial55andthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.56Thisisabsurdbecauseitwilllitigatethe
caseanew.Itwilldefeatthepurposeofrecognizingforeignjudgments,whichis
"tolimitrepetitivelitigationonclaimsandissues."57TheinterpretationoftheRTC
istantamounttorelitigatingthecaseonthemerits.InMijaresv.Raada,58this
Courtexplainedthat"[i]feveryjudgmentofaforeigncourtwerereviewableonthe
merits,theplaintiffwouldbeforcedbackonhis/heroriginalcauseofaction,
renderingimmaterialthepreviouslyconcludedlitigation."59
Aforeignjudgmentrelatingtothestatusofamarriageaffectsthecivilstatus,
conditionandlegalcapacityofitsparties.However,theeffectofaforeign
judgmentisnotautomatic.Toextendtheeffectofaforeignjudgmentinthe
Philippines,Philippinecourtsmustdetermineiftheforeignjudgmentisconsistent
withdomesticpublicpolicyandothermandatorylaws.60Article15oftheCivil
Codeprovidesthat"[l]awsrelatingtofamilyrightsandduties,ortothestatus,
conditionandlegalcapacityofpersonsarebindinguponcitizensofthe
Philippines,eventhoughlivingabroad."Thisistheruleoflexnationaliiinprivate
internationallaw.Thus,thePhilippineStatemayrequire,foreffectivityinthe
Philippines,recognitionbyPhilippinecourtsofaforeignjudgmentaffectingits
citizen,overwhomitexercisespersonaljurisdictionrelatingtothestatus,
conditionandlegalcapacityofsuchcitizen.
Apetitiontorecognizeaforeignjudgmentdeclaringamarriagevoiddoesnot
requirerelitigationunderaPhilippinecourtofthecaseasifitwereanewpetition
fordeclarationofnullityofmarriage.Philippinecourtscannotpresumetoknow
theforeignlawsunderwhichtheforeignjudgmentwasrendered.Theycannot
substitutetheirjudgmentonthestatus,conditionandlegalcapacityoftheforeign
citizenwhoisunderthejurisdictionofanotherstate.Thus,Philippinecourtscan
onlyrecognizetheforeignjudgmentasafactaccordingtotherulesofevidence.
Section48(b),Rule39oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthataforeignjudgmentor
finalorderagainstapersoncreatesa"presumptiveevidenceofarightasbetween
thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterestbyasubsequenttitle."Moreover,Section
48oftheRulesofCourtstatesthat"thejudgmentorfinalordermayberepelledby
evidenceofawantofjurisdiction,wantofnoticetotheparty,collusion,fraud,or

clearmistakeoflaworfact."Thus,Philippinecourtsexerciselimitedreviewon
foreignjudgments.Courtsarenotallowedtodelveintothemeritsofaforeign
judgment.OnceaforeignjudgmentisadmittedandproveninaPhilippinecourt,it
canonlyberepelledongroundsexternaltoitsmerits,i.e.,"wantofjurisdiction,
wantofnoticetotheparty,collusion,fraud,orclearmistakeoflaworfact."The
ruleonlimitedreviewembodiesthepolicyofefficiencyandtheprotectionofparty
expectations,61aswellasrespectingthejurisdictionofotherstates.62
Since1922inAdongv.CheongSengGee,63Philippinecourtshaverecognized
foreigndivorcedecreesbetweenaFilipinoandaforeigncitizeniftheyare
successfullyprovenundertherulesofevidence.64Divorceinvolvesthedissolution
ofamarriage,buttherecognitionofaforeigndivorcedecreedoesnotinvolvethe
extendedprocedureunderA.M.No.021110SCortherulesofordinarytrial.
WhilethePhilippinesdoesnothaveadivorcelaw,Philippinecourtsmay,
however,recognizeaforeigndivorcedecreeunderthesecondparagraphofArticle
26oftheFamilyCode,tocapacitateaFilipinocitizentoremarrywhenhisorher
foreignspouseobtainedadivorcedecreeabroad.65
ThereisthereforenoreasontodisallowFujikitosimplyproveasafactthe
JapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentnullifyingthemarriagebetweenMarinayand
Maekaraonthegroundofbigamy.WhilethePhilippineshasnodivorcelaw,the
JapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentisfullyconsistentwithPhilippinepublicpolicy,
asbigamousmarriagesaredeclaredvoidfromthebeginningunderArticle35(4)of
theFamilyCode.BigamyisacrimeunderArticle349oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Thus,FujikicanprovetheexistenceoftheJapaneseFamilyCourtjudgmentin
accordancewithRule132,Sections24and25,inrelationtoRule39,Section48(b)
oftheRulesofCourt.
II.
Sincetherecognitionofaforeignjudgmentonlyrequiresproofoffactofthe
judgment,itmaybemadeinaspecialproceedingforcancellationorcorrectionof
entriesinthecivilregistryunderRule108oftheRulesofCourt.Rule1,Section3
oftheRulesofCourtprovidesthat"[a]specialproceedingisaremedybywhicha
partyseekstoestablishastatus,aright,oraparticularfact."Rule108createsa
remedytorectifyfactsofapersonslifewhicharerecordedbytheStatepursuant
totheCivilRegisterLaworActNo.3753.Thesearefactsofpublicconsequence
suchasbirth,deathormarriage,66whichtheStatehasaninterestinrecording.As

notedbytheSolicitorGeneral,inCorpuzv.Sto.TomasthisCourtdeclaredthat
"[t]herecognitionoftheforeigndivorcedecreemaybemadeinaRule108
proceedingitself,astheobjectofspecialproceedings(suchasthatinRule108of
theRulesofCourt)ispreciselytoestablishthestatusorrightofapartyora
particularfact."67
Rule108,Section1oftheRulesofCourtstates:
Sec.1.Whomayfilepetition.Anypersoninterestedinanyact,event,order
ordecreeconcerningthecivilstatusofpersonswhichhasbeenrecordedinthe
civilregister,mayfileaverifiedpetitionforthecancellationorcorrectionofany
entryrelatingthereto,withtheRegionalTrialCourtoftheprovincewherethe
correspondingcivilregistryislocated.(Emphasissupplied)
FujikihasthepersonalitytofileapetitiontorecognizetheJapaneseFamilyCourt
judgmentnullifyingthemarriagebetweenMarinayandMaekaraonthegroundof
bigamybecausethejudgmentconcernshiscivilstatusasmarriedtoMarinay.For
thesamereasonhehasthepersonalitytofileapetitionunderRule108tocancel
theentryofmarriagebetweenMarinayandMaekarainthecivilregistryonthe
basisofthedecreeoftheJapaneseFamilyCourt.
Thereisnodoubtthatthepriorspousehasapersonalandmaterialinterestin
maintainingtheintegrityofthemarriagehecontractedandthepropertyrelations
arisingfromit.Thereisalsonodoubtthatheisinterestedinthecancellationofan
entryofabigamousmarriageinthecivilregistry,whichcompromisesthepublic
recordofhismarriage.Theinterestderivesfromthesubstantiverightofthespouse
notonlytopreserve(ordissolve,inlimitedinstances68)hismostintimatehuman
relation,butalsotoprotecthispropertyintereststhatarisebyoperationoflawthe
momenthecontractsmarriage.69Thesepropertyinterestsinmarriageincludethe
righttobesupported"inkeepingwiththefinancialcapacityofthefamily"70and
preservingthepropertyregimeofthemarriage.71
PropertyrightsarealreadysubstantiverightsprotectedbytheConstitution,72buta
spousesrightinamarriageextendsfurthertorelationalrightsrecognizedunder
TitleIII("RightsandObligationsbetweenHusbandandWife")oftheFamily
Code.73A.M.No.021110SCcannot"diminish,increase,ormodify"the
substantiverightofthespousetomaintaintheintegrityofhismarriage.74Inany
case,Section2(a)ofA.M.No.021110SCpreservesthissubstantiverightby

limitingthepersonalitytosuetothehusbandorthewifeoftheunionrecognized
bylaw.
Section2(a)ofA.M.No.021110SCdoesnotprecludeaspouseofasubsisting
marriagetoquestionthevalidityofasubsequentmarriageonthegroundof
bigamy.Onthecontrary,whenSection2(a)statesthat"[a]petitionfordeclaration
ofabsolutenullityofvoidmarriagemaybefiledsolelybythehusbandorthe
wife"75itreferstothehusbandorthewifeofthesubsistingmarriage.Under
Article35(4)oftheFamilyCode,bigamousmarriagesarevoidfromthe
beginning.Thus,thepartiesinabigamousmarriageareneitherthehusbandnorthe
wifeunderthelaw.Thehusbandorthewifeofthepriorsubsistingmarriageisthe
onewhohasthepersonalitytofileapetitionfordeclarationofabsolutenullityof
voidmarriageunderSection2(a)ofA.M.No.021110SC.
Article35(4)oftheFamilyCode,whichdeclaresbigamousmarriagesvoidfrom
thebeginning,isthecivilaspectofArticle349oftheRevisedPenalCode,76which
penalizesbigamy.Bigamyisapubliccrime.Thus,anyonecaninitiateprosecution
forbigamybecauseanycitizenhasaninterestintheprosecutionandpreventionof
crimes.77Ifanyonecanfileacriminalactionwhichleadstothedeclarationof
nullityofabigamousmarriage,78thereismorereasontoconferpersonalitytosue
onthehusbandorthewifeofasubsistingmarriage.Thepriorspousedoesnotonly
shareinthepublicinterestofprosecutingandpreventingcrimes,heisalso
personallyinterestedinthepurelycivilaspectofprotectinghismarriage.
Whentherightofthespousetoprotecthismarriageisviolated,thespouseis
clearlyaninjuredpartyandisthereforeinterestedinthejudgmentofthesuit.79
JulianoLlaveruledthatthepriorspouse"isclearlytheaggrievedpartyasthe
bigamousmarriagenotonlythreatensthefinancialandthepropertyownership
aspectofthepriormarriagebutmostofall,itcausesanemotionalburdentothe
priorspouse."80Beingarealpartyininterest,thepriorspouseisentitledtosuein
ordertodeclareabigamousmarriagevoid.Forthispurpose,hecanpetitionacourt
torecognizeaforeignjudgmentnullifyingthebigamousmarriageandjudicially
declareasafactthatsuchjudgmentiseffectiveinthePhilippines.Once
established,thereshouldbenomoreimpedimenttocanceltheentryofthe
bigamousmarriageinthecivilregistry.
III.

InBrazav.TheCityCivilRegistrarofHimamaylanCity,NegrosOccidental,this
Courtheldthata"trialcourthasnojurisdictiontonullifymarriages"inaspecial
proceedingforcancellationorcorrectionofentryunderRule108oftheRulesof
Court.81Thus,the"validityofmarriage[]xxxcanbequestionedonlyinadirect
action"tonullifythemarriage.82TheRTCreliedonBrazaindismissingthe
petitionforrecognitionofforeignjudgmentasacollateralattackonthemarriage
betweenMarinayandMaekara.
BrazaisnotapplicablebecauseBrazadoesnotinvolvearecognitionofaforeign
judgmentnullifyingabigamousmarriagewhereoneofthepartiesisacitizenof
theforeigncountry.
Tobesure,apetitionforcorrectionorcancellationofanentryinthecivilregistry
cannotsubstituteforanactiontoinvalidateamarriage.Adirectactionisnecessary
topreventcircumventionofthesubstantiveandproceduralsafeguardsofmarriage
undertheFamilyCode,A.M.No.021110SCandotherrelatedlaws.Among
thesesafeguardsaretherequirementofprovingthelimitedgroundsforthe
dissolutionofmarriage,83supportpendenteliteofthespousesandchildren,84the
liquidation,partitionanddistributionofthepropertiesofthespouses,85andthe
investigationofthepublicprosecutortodeterminecollusion.86Adirectactionfor
declarationofnullityorannulmentofmarriageisalsonecessarytoprevent
circumventionofthejurisdictionoftheFamilyCourtsundertheFamilyCourtsAct
of1997(RepublicActNo.8369),asapetitionforcancellationorcorrectionof
entriesinthecivilregistrymaybefiledintheRegionalTrialCourt"wherethe
correspondingcivilregistryislocated."87Inotherwords,aFilipinocitizencannot
dissolvehismarriagebythemereexpedientofchanginghisentryofmarriagein
thecivilregistry.
However,thisdoesnotapplyinapetitionforcorrectionorcancellationofacivil
registryentrybasedontherecognitionofaforeignjudgmentannullingamarriage
whereoneofthepartiesisacitizenoftheforeigncountry.Thereisneither
circumventionofthesubstantiveandproceduralsafeguardsofmarriageunder
Philippinelaw,norofthejurisdictionofFamilyCourtsunderR.A.No.8369.A
recognitionofaforeignjudgmentisnotanactiontonullifyamarriage.Itisan
actionforPhilippinecourtstorecognizetheeffectivityofaforeignjudgment,
whichpresupposesacasewhichwasalreadytriedanddecidedunderforeign
law.TheprocedureinA.M.No.021110SCdoesnotapplyinapetitionto
recognizeaforeignjudgmentannullingabigamousmarriagewhereoneofthe

partiesisacitizenoftheforeigncountry.NeithercanR.A.No.8369definethe
jurisdictionoftheforeigncourt.
Article26oftheFamilyCodeconfersjurisdictiononPhilippinecourtstoextend
theeffectofaforeigndivorcedecreetoaFilipinospousewithoutundergoingtrial
todeterminethevalidityofthedissolutionofthemarriage.Thesecondparagraph
ofArticle26oftheFamilyCodeprovidesthat"[w]hereamarriagebetweena
Filipinocitizenandaforeignerisvalidlycelebratedandadivorceisthereafter
validlyobtainedabroadbythealienspousecapacitatinghimorhertoremarry,the
FilipinospouseshallhavecapacitytoremarryunderPhilippinelaw."InRepublic
v.Orbecido,88thisCourtrecognizedthelegislativeintentofthesecondparagraph
ofArticle26whichis"toavoidtheabsurdsituationwheretheFilipinospouse
remainsmarriedtothealienspousewho,afterobtainingadivorce,isnolonger
marriedtotheFilipinospouse"89underthelawsofhisorhercountry.Thesecond
paragraphofArticle26oftheFamilyCodeonlyauthorizesPhilippinecourtsto
adopttheeffectsofaforeigndivorcedecreepreciselybecausethePhilippinesdoes
notallowdivorce.Philippinecourtscannottrythecaseonthemeritsbecauseitis
tantamounttotryingacasefordivorce.
ThesecondparagraphofArticle26isonlyacorrectivemeasuretoaddressthe
anomalythatresultsfromamarriagebetweenaFilipino,whoselawsdonotallow
divorce,andaforeigncitizen,whoselawsallowdivorce.Theanomalyconsistsin
theFilipinospousebeingtiedtothemarriagewhiletheforeignspouseisfreeto
marryunderthelawsofhisorhercountry.Thecorrectionismadebyextendingin
thePhilippinestheeffectoftheforeigndivorcedecree,whichisalreadyeffective
inthecountrywhereitwasrendered.ThesecondparagraphofArticle26ofthe
FamilyCodeisbasedonthisCourtsdecisioninVanDornv.Romillo90which
declaredthattheFilipinospouse"shouldnotbediscriminatedagainstinherown
countryiftheendsofjusticearetobeserved."91
TheprincipleinArticle26oftheFamilyCodeappliesinamarriagebetweena
Filipinoandaforeigncitizenwhoobtainsaforeignjudgmentnullifyingthe
marriageonthegroundofbigamy.TheFilipinospousemayfileapetitionabroad
todeclarethemarriagevoidonthegroundofbigamy.Theprincipleinthesecond
paragraphofArticle26oftheFamilyCodeappliesbecausetheforeignspouse,
aftertheforeignjudgmentnullifyingthemarriage,iscapacitatedtoremarryunder
thelawsofhisorhercountry.Iftheforeignjudgmentisnotrecognizedinthe

Philippines,theFilipinospousewillbediscriminatedtheforeignspousecan
remarrywhiletheFilipinospousecannotremarry.
UnderthesecondparagraphofArticle26oftheFamilyCode,Philippinecourtsare
empoweredtocorrectasituationwheretheFilipinospouseisstilltiedtothe
marriagewhiletheforeignspouseisfreetomarry.Moreover,notwithstanding
Article26oftheFamilyCode,Philippinecourtsalreadyhavejurisdictiontoextend
theeffectofaforeignjudgmentinthePhilippinestotheextentthattheforeign
judgmentdoesnotcontravenedomesticpublicpolicy.Acriticaldifference
betweenthecaseofaforeigndivorcedecreeandaforeignjudgmentnullifyinga
bigamousmarriageisthatbigamy,asagroundforthenullityofmarriage,isfully
consistentwithPhilippinepublicpolicyasexpressedinArticle35(4)oftheFamily
CodeandArticle349oftheRevisedPenalCode.TheFilipinospousehasthe
optiontoundergofulltrialbyfilingapetitionfordeclarationofnullityofmarriage
underA.M.No.021110SC,butthisisnottheonlyremedyavailabletohimor
her.Philippinecourtshavejurisdictiontorecognizeaforeignjudgmentnullifying
abigamousmarriage,withoutprejudicetoacriminalprosecutionforbigamy.
Intherecognitionofforeignjudgments,Philippinecourtsareincompetentto
substitutetheirjudgmentonhowacasewasdecidedunderforeignlaw.They
cannotdecideonthe"familyrightsandduties,oronthestatus,conditionandlegal
capacity"oftheforeigncitizenwhoisapartytotheforeignjudgment.Thus,
Philippinecourtsarelimitedtothequestionofwhethertoextendtheeffectofa
foreignjudgmentinthePhilippines.Inaforeignjudgmentrelatingtothestatusof
amarriageinvolvingacitizenofaforeigncountry,Philippinecourtsonlydecide
whethertoextenditseffecttotheFilipinoparty,undertheruleoflexnationalii
expressedinArticle15oftheCivilCode.
Forthispurpose,Philippinecourtswillonlydetermine(1)whethertheforeign
judgmentisinconsistentwithanoverridingpublicpolicyinthePhilippines;and
(2)whetheranyallegingpartyisabletoproveanextrinsicgroundtorepelthe
foreignjudgment,i.e.wantofjurisdiction,wantofnoticetotheparty,collusion,
fraud,orclearmistakeoflaworfact.Ifthereisneitherinconsistencywithpublic
policynoradequateprooftorepelthejudgment,Philippinecourtsshould,by
default,recognizetheforeignjudgmentaspartofthecomityofnations.Section
48(b),Rule39oftheRulesofCourtstatesthattheforeignjudgmentisalready
"presumptiveevidenceofarightbetweentheparties."Uponrecognitionofthe
foreignjudgment,thisrightbecomesconclusiveandthejudgmentservesasthe

basisforthecorrectionorcancellationofentryinthecivilregistry.The
recognitionoftheforeignjudgmentnullifyingabigamousmarriageisasubsequent
eventthatestablishesanewstatus,rightandfact92thatneedstobereflectedinthe
civilregistry.Otherwise,therewillbeaninconsistencybetweentherecognitionof
theeffectivityoftheforeignjudgmentandthepublicrecordsinthe
Philippines.1wphi1
However,therecognitionofaforeignjudgmentnullifyingabigamousmarriageis
withoutprejudicetoprosecutionforbigamyunderArticle349oftheRevised
PenalCode.93Therecognitionofaforeignjudgmentnullifyingabigamous
marriageisnotagroundforextinctionofcriminalliabilityunderArticles89and
94oftheRevisedPenalCode.Moreover,underArticle91oftheRevisedPenal
Code,"[t]hetermofprescription[ofthecrimeofbigamy]shallnotrunwhenthe
offenderisabsentfromthePhilippinearchipelago."
SinceA.M.No.021110SCisinapplicable,theCourtnolongerseestheneedto
addressthequestionsonvenueandthecontentsandformofthepetitionunder
Sections4and5,respectively,ofA.M.No.021110SC.
WHEREFORE,weGRANTthepetition.TheOrderdated31January2011and
theResolutiondated2March2011oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch107,
QuezonCity,inCivilCaseNo.Q1168582areREVERSEDandSETASIDE.
TheRegionalTrialCourtisORDEREDtoREINSTATEthepetitionforfurther
proceedingsinaccordancewiththisDecision.
SOORDERED.
Brion,DelCastillo,Perez,andPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1

PennedbyJudgeJoseL.BautistaJr.

InPasayCity,MetroManila.

Seerollo,p.88;TrialFamilyCourtDecreeNo.15of2009,Decreeof
AbsoluteNullityofMarriagebetweenMariaPazGalelaMarinayand

ShinichiMaekaradated18August2010.TranslatedbyYoshiakiKurisu,
KurisuGyoseishoshiLawyersOffice(seerollo,p.89).
4

Id.

FAMILYCODEOFTHEPHILIPPINES(E.O.No.209asamended):
Art.35.Thefollowingmarriagesshallbevoidfromthebeginning:
xxxx
(4)Thosebigamousorpolygamousmarriagesnotfallingunder
Article41;
xxxx
Art.41.Amarriagecontractedbyanypersonduringsubsistenceofa
previousmarriageshallbenullandvoid,unlessbeforethecelebration
ofthesubsequentmarriage,thepriorspousehadbeenabsentforfour
consecutiveyearsandthespousepresenthasawellfoundedbelief
thattheabsentspousewasalreadydead.Incaseofdisappearance
wherethereisdangerofdeathunderthecircumstancessetforthinthe
provisionsofArticle391oftheCivilCode,anabsenceofonlytwo
yearsshallbesufficient.

Rollo,pp.7980.

Thedispositiveportionstated:

WHEREFORE,theinstantcaseisherebyorderedDISMISSEDand
WITHDRAWNfromtheactivecivildocketofthisCourt.TheRTCOCC,
QuezonCityisdirectedtorefundtothepetitionertheamountofOne
ThousandPesos(P1,000)tobetakenfromtheSheriffsTrustFund.
8

Rollo,pp.4445.Section5oftheRuleonDeclarationofAbsoluteNullity
ofVoidMarriagesandAnnulmentofVoidableMarriages(A.M.No.0211
10SC)provides:
Sec.5.Contentsandformofpetition.(1)Thepetitionshallallege
thecompletefactsconstitutingthecauseofaction.

(2)Itshallstatethenamesandagesofthecommonchildrenofthe
partiesandspecifytheregimegoverningtheirpropertyrelations,as
wellasthepropertiesinvolved.
Ifthereisnoadequateprovisioninawrittenagreementbetweenthe
parties,thepetitionermayapplyforaprovisionalorderforspousal
support,custodyandsupportofcommonchildren,visitationrights,
administrationofcommunityorconjugalproperty,andothermatters
similarlyrequiringurgentaction.
(3)Itmustbeverifiedandaccompaniedbyacertificationagainst
forumshopping.Theverificationandcertificationmustbesigned
personallybythepetitioner.Nopetitionmaybefiledsolelyby
counselorthroughanattorneyinfact.
Ifthepetitionerisinaforeigncountry,theverificationand
certificationagainstforumshoppingshallbeauthenticatedbytheduly
authorizedofficerofthePhilippineembassyorlegation,consul
general,consulorviceconsulorconsularagentinsaidcountry.
(4)Itshallbefiledinsixcopies.Thepetitionershallserveacopyof
thepetitionontheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralandtheOfficeofthe
CityorProvincialProsecutor,withinfivedaysfromthedateofits
filingandsubmittothecourtproofofsuchservicewithinthesame
period.
Failuretocomplywithanyoftheprecedingrequirementsmaybea
groundforimmediatedismissalofthepetition.
9

RULESOFCOURT,Rule1,Sec.3(c).Seerollo,pp.5556(Petitioners
MotionforReconsideration).
10

RULESOFCOURT,Rule1,Sec.3(a).

11

FAMILYCODE(E.O.No.209asamended),Art.35.Thefollowing
marriagesshallbevoidfromthebeginning:
xxxx

(4)Thosebigamousorpolygamousmarriagesnotfallingunder
Article41;
xxxx
12

Rollo,p.56.

13

FAMILYCODE,Art.36.Amarriagecontractedbyanypartywho,atthe
timeofthecelebration,waspsychologicallyincapacitatedtocomplywith
theessentialmaritalobligationsofmarriage,shalllikewisebevoidevenif
suchincapacitybecomesmanifestonlyafteritssolemnization.
14

Rollo,p.68.

15

Enacted26November1930.

16

CIVILCODE,Art.413.Allothermatterspertainingtotheregistrationof
civilstatusshallbegovernedbyspeciallaws.
17

ActNo.3753,Sec.7.Registrationofmarriage.Allcivilofficersand
priestsorministersauthorizedtosolemnizemarriagesshallsendacopyof
eachmarriagecontractsolemnizedbythemtothelocalcivilregistrarwithin
thetimelimitspecifiedintheexistingMarriageLaw.
Incasesofdivorceandannulmentofmarriage,itshallbethedutyof
thesuccessfulpetitionerfordivorceorannulmentofmarriagetosend
acopyofthefinaldecreeofthecourttothelocalcivilregistrarofthe
municipalitywherethedissolvedorannulledmarriagewas
solemnized.
Inthemarriageregisterthereshallbeenteredthefullnameand
addressofeachofthecontractingparties,theirages,theplaceand
dateofthesolemnizationofthemarriage,thenamesandaddressesof
thewitnesses,thefullname,address,andrelationshipoftheminor
contractingpartyorpartiesorthepersonorpersonswhogavetheir
consenttothemarriage,andthefullname,title,andaddressofthe
personwhosolemnizedthemarriage.
Incasesofdivorceorannulmentofmarriages,thereshallberecorded
thenamesofthepartiesdivorcedorwhosemarriagewasannulled,the

dateofthedecreeofthecourt,andsuchotherdetailsasthe
regulationstobeissuedmayrequire.
18

RULESOFCOURT,Rule108,Sec.2.Entriessubjecttocancellationor
correction.Upongoodandvalidgrounds,thefollowingentriesinthe
civilregistermaybecancelledorcorrected:(a)births;(b)marriages;(c)
deaths;(d)legalseparations;(e)judgmentsofannulmentsofmarriage;(f)
judgmentsdeclaringmarriagesvoidfromthebeginning;(g)legitimations;
(h)adoptions;(i)acknowledgmentsofnaturalchildren;(j)naturalization;(k)
election,lossorrecoveryofcitizenship;(1)civilinterdiction;(m)judicial
determinationoffiliation;(n)voluntaryemancipationofaminor;and(o)
changesofname.
19

273Phil.1(1991).

20

Id.at7.Seerollo,pp.65and67.

21

Rollo,p.47.

22

Id.at46.

23

Id.at48.

24

Id.

25

G.R.No.181174,4December2009,607SCRA638.

26

Id.at641.

27

Id.at643.

28

Seerollo,p.49.

29

Section5ofA.M.No.021110SCstatesinpart:
Contentsandformofpetition.xxx
xxxx

(3)Itmustbeverifiedandaccompaniedbyacertificationagainst
forumshopping.Theverificationandcertificationmustbesigned
personallybythepetitioner.Nopetitionmaybefiledsolelyby
counselorthroughanattorneyinfact.
Ifthepetitionerisinaforeigncountry,theverificationand
certificationagainstforumshoppingshallbeauthenticatedbytheduly
authorizedofficerofthePhilippineembassyorlegation,consul
general,consulorviceconsulorconsularagentinsaidcountry.
xxxx
Failuretocomplywithanyoftheprecedingrequirementsmaybea
groundforimmediatedismissalofthepetition.
30

Resolutiondated30May2011.Rollo,p.105.

31

UnderSolicitorGeneralJoseAnselmoI.Cadiz.

32

Rollo,p.137.The"ConclusionandPrayer"ofthe"Manifestationand
Motion(InLieuofComment)"oftheSolicitorGeneralstated:
Infine,thecourtaquospronouncementthatthepetitionerfailedtocomply
withtherequirementsprovidedinA.M.No.021110SCshould
accordinglybesetaside.Itis,thus,respectfullyprayedthatCivilCaseNo.
Q1168582bereinstatedforfurtherproceedings.
Otherreliefs,justandequitableunderthepremisesarelikewiseprayedfor.
33

G.R.No.169766,30March2011,646SCRA637.

34

Id.at656.QuotedintheManifestationandMotionoftheSolicitor
General,pp.89.Seerollo,pp.132133.
35

Rollo,p.133.

36

G.R.No.186571,11August2010,628SCRA266.

37

Id.at287.

38

Rollo,p.133.

39

G.R.No.160172,13February2008,545SCRA162.

40

384Phil.661(2000).

41

DeCastrov.DeCastro,supranote39at169.

42

Supranote30.

43

Seerollo,p.120.

44

Id.

45

Seerollo,p.146.

46

Id.

47

Supranote33.

48

Supranote33at655.

49

RULESOFCOURT,Rule132,Sec.24.Proofofofficialrecord.The
recordofpublicdocumentsreferredtoinparagraph(a)ofSection19,when
admissibleforanypurpose,maybeevidencedbyanofficialpublication
thereoforbyacopyattestedbytheofficerhavingthelegalcustodyofthe
record,orbyhisdeputy,andaccompanied,iftherecordisnotkeptinthe
Philippines,withacertificatethatsuchofficerhasthecustody.Iftheoffice
inwhichtherecordiskeptisinaforeigncountry,thecertificatemaybe
madebyasecretaryoftheembassyorlegation,consulgeneral,consul,vice
consul,orconsularagentorbyanyofficerintheforeignserviceofthe
Philippinesstationedintheforeigncountryinwhichtherecordiskept,and
authenticatedbythesealofhisoffice.
Sec.25.Whatattestationofcopymuststate.Wheneveracopyofa
documentorrecordisattestedforthepurposeofevidence,the
attestationmuststate,insubstance,thatthecopyisacorrectcopyof
theoriginal,oraspecificpartthereof,asthecasemaybe.The
attestationmustbeundertheofficialsealoftheattestingofficer,if

therebeany,orifhebetheclerkofacourthavingaseal,underthe
sealofsuchcourt.
Rule39,Sec.48.Effectofforeignjudgmentsorfinalorders.The
effectofajudgmentorfinalorderofatribunalofaforeigncountry,
havingjurisdictiontorenderthejudgmentorfinalorder,isasfollows:
(a)Incaseofajudgmentorfinalorderuponaspecificthing,the
judgmentorfinalorderisconclusiveuponthetitleofthething;and
(b)Incaseofajudgmentorfinalorderagainstaperson,thejudgment
orfinalorderispresumptiveevidenceofarightasbetweentheparties
andtheirsuccessorsininterestbyasubsequenttitle.
Ineithercase,thejudgmentorfinalordermayberepelledby
evidenceofawantofjurisdiction,wantofnoticetotheparty,
collusion,fraud,orclearmistakeoflaworfact.
50

SeeRULESOFCOURT,Rule132,Sec.2425.SeealsoCorpuzv.Santo
Tomas,supranote36at282.
51

A.M.No.021110SC,Sec.5.

52

Id.,Sec.6.

53

Id.,Sec.9.

54

Id.,Sec.1115.

55

Id.,Sec.1718.

56

Id.,Sec.19and2223.

57

Mijaresv.Raada,495Phil.372,386(2005)citingEugeneScoles&
PeterHay,ConflictofLaws916(2nded.,1982).
58

Id.

59

Id.at386.

60

CivilCode,Art.17.xxx
xxxx
Prohibitivelawsconcerningpersons,theiractsorproperty,andthose
whichhavefortheirobjectpublicorder,publicpolicyandgood
customsshallnotberenderedineffectivebylawsorjudgments
promulgated,orbydeterminationsorconventionsagreeduponina
foreigncountry.

61

Mijaresv.Raada,supranote57at386."Otherwiseknownasthepolicy
ofpreclusion,itseekstoprotectpartyexpectationsresultingfromprevious
litigation,tosafeguardagainsttheharassmentofdefendants,toinsurethat
thetaskofcourtsnotbeincreasedbyneverendinglitigationofthesame
disputes,andinalargersensetopromotewhatLordCokeintheFerrers
Caseof1599statedtobethegoalofalllaw:restandquietness."(Citations
omitted)
62

Mijaresv.Raada,supranote57at382."Therulesofcomity,utilityand
convenienceofnationshaveestablishedausageamongcivilizedstatesby
whichfinaljudgmentsofforeigncourtsofcompetentjurisdictionare
reciprocallyrespectedandrenderedefficaciousundercertainconditionsthat
mayvaryindifferentcountries."(Citationsomitted)
63

43Phil.43(1922).

64

Corpuzv.Sto.Tomas,G.R.No.186571,11August2010,628SCRA266,
280;Garciav.Recio,418Phil.723(2001);Adongv.CheongSengGee,
supra.
65

FAMILYCODE,Art.26.xxx

WhereamarriagebetweenaFilipinocitizenandaforeignerisvalidly
celebratedandadivorceisthereaftervalidlyobtainedabroadbythealien
spousecapacitatinghimorhertoremarry,theFilipinospouseshallhave
capacitytoremarryunderPhilippinelaw.
66

ActNo.3753,Sec.1.CivilRegister.Acivilregisterisestablishedfor
recordingthecivilstatusofpersons,inwhichshallbeentered:(a)births;(b)

deaths;(c)marriages;(d)annulmentsofmarriages;(e)divorces;(f)
legitimations;(g)adoptions;(h)acknowledgmentofnaturalchildren;(i)
naturalization;and(j)changesofname.
Cf.RULESOFCOURT,Rule108,Sec.2.Entriessubjectto
cancellationorcorrection.Upongoodandvalidgrounds,the
followingentriesinthecivilregistermaybecancelledorcorrected:
(a)births;(b)marriages;(c)deaths;(d)legalseparations;(e)
judgmentsofannulmentsofmarriage;(f)judgmentsdeclaring
marriagesvoidfromthebeginning;(g)legitimations;(h)adoptions;
(i)acknowledgmentsofnaturalchildren;(j)naturalization;(k)
election,lossorrecoveryofcitizenship;(1)civilinterdiction;(m)
judicialdeterminationoffiliation;(n)voluntaryemancipationofa
minor;and(o)changesofname.
67

Corpuzv.Sto.Tomas,supranote36at287.

68

FAMILYCODE,Art.3567.

69

FAMILYCODE,Art.74148.

70

FAMILYCODE,Art.195inrelationtoArt.194.

71

Seesupranote69.

72

CONSTITUTION,Art.III,Sec.1:"Nopersonshallbedeprivedoflife,
liberty,orpropertywithoutdueprocessoflawxxx."
73

FAMILYCODE,Art.6873.

74

CONSTITUTION,Art.VIII,Sec.5(5).TheSupremeCourtshallhavethe
followingpowers:
xxxx
(5)Promulgaterulesconcerningtheprotectionandenforcementof
constitutionalrights,pleading,practice,andprocedureinallcourts,
theadmissiontothepracticeoflaw,theintegratedbar,andlegal
assistancetotheunderprivileged.Suchrulesshallprovideasimplified
andinexpensiveprocedureforthespeedydispositionofcases,shall

beuniformforallcourtsofthesamegrade,andshallnotdiminish,
increase,ormodifysubstantiverights.xxx
xxxx(Emphasissupplied)
75

Emphasissupplied.

76

RevisedPenalCode(ActNo.3815,asamended),Art.349.Bigamy.The
penaltyofprisinmayorshallbeimposeduponanypersonwhoshall
contractasecondorsubsequentmarriagebeforetheformermarriagehas
beenlegallydissolved,orbeforetheabsentspousehasbeendeclared
presumptivelydeadbymeansofajudgmentrenderedintheproper
proceedings.
77

SeeIIIRAMONAQUINO,THEREVISEDPENALCODE(1997),518.

78

RULESOFCOURT,Rule111,Sec.1.Institutionofcriminalandcivil
actions.(a)Whenacriminalactionisinstituted,thecivilactionforthe
recoveryofcivilliabilityarisingfromtheoffensechargedshallbedeemed
institutedwiththecriminalactionunlesstheoffendedpartywaivesthecivil
action,reservestherighttoinstituteitseparatelyorinstitutesthecivilaction
priortothecriminalaction.
xxxx
79

Cf.RULESOFCOURT,Rule3,Sec.2.Partiesininterest.Areal
partyininterestisthepartywhostandstobebenefitedorinjuredbythe
judgmentinthesuit,orthepartyentitledtotheavailsofthesuit.Unless
otherwiseauthorizedbylawortheseRules,everyactionmustbeprosecuted
ordefendedinthenameoftherealpartyininterest.
80

JulianoLlavev.Republic,supranote33.

81

Supranote25.

82

Supranote25.

83

Seesupranote68.

84

FAMILYCODE,Art.49.Duringthependencyoftheactionandinthe
absenceofadequateprovisionsinawrittenagreementbetweenthespouses,
theCourtshallprovideforthesupportofthespousesandthecustodyand
supportoftheircommonchildren.TheCourtshallgiveparamount
considerationtothemoralandmaterialwelfareofsaidchildrenandtheir
choiceoftheparentwithwhomtheywishtoremainasprovidedtoinTitle
IX.Itshallalsoprovideforappropriatevisitationrightsoftheotherparent.
Cf.RULESOFCOURT,Rule61.
85

FAMILYCODE,Art.50.Theeffectsprovidedforbyparagraphs(2),(3),
(4)and(5)ofArticle43andbyArticle44shallalsoapplyintheproper
casestomarriageswhicharedeclaredabinitioorannulledbyfinal
judgmentunderArticles40and45.
Thefinaljudgmentinsuchcasesshallprovidefortheliquidation,
partitionanddistributionofthepropertiesofthespouses,thecustody
andsupportofthecommonchildren,andthedeliveryofthird
presumptivelegitimes,unlesssuchmattershadbeenadjudicatedin
previousjudicialproceedings.
Allcreditorsofthespousesaswellasoftheabsolutecommunityor
theconjugalpartnershipshallbenotifiedoftheproceedingsfor
liquidation.
Inthepartition,theconjugaldwellingandthelotonwhichitis
situated,shallbeadjudicatedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof
Articles102and129.
A.M.No.021110SC,Sec.19.Decision.(1)Ifthecourtrendersa
decisiongrantingthepetition,itshalldeclarethereinthatthedecreeof
absolutenullityordecreeofannulmentshallbeissuedbythecourt
onlyaftercompliancewithArticles50and51oftheFamilyCodeas
implementedundertheRuleonLiquidation,PartitionandDistribution
ofProperties.
xxxx

86

FAMILYCODE,Art.48.Inallcasesofannulmentordeclarationof
absolutenullityofmarriage,theCourtshallordertheprosecutingattorneyor
fiscalassignedtoittoappearonbehalfoftheStatetotakestepstoprevent
collusionbetweenthepartiesandtotakecarethatevidenceisnotfabricated
orsuppressed.
Inthecasesreferredtointheprecedingparagraph,nojudgmentshall
bebaseduponastipulationoffactsorconfessionofjudgment.
A.M.No.021110SC,Sec.9.Investigationreportofpublic
prosecutor.(1)Withinonemonthafterreceiptofthecourtorder
mentionedinparagraph(3)ofSection8above,thepublicprosecutor
shallsubmitareporttothecourtstatingwhetherthepartiesarein
collusionandservecopiesthereofonthepartiesandtheirrespective
counsels,ifany.
(2)Ifthepublicprosecutorfindsthatcollusionexists,heshallstate
thebasisthereofinhisreport.Thepartiesshallfiletheirrespective
commentsonthefindingofcollusionwithintendaysfromreceiptofa
copyofthereportThecourtshallsetthereportforhearingandif
convincedthatthepartiesareincollusion,itshalldismissthepetition.
(3)Ifthepublicprosecutorreportsthatnocollusionexists,thecourt
shallsetthecaseforpretrial.Itshallbethedutyofthepublic
prosecutortoappearfortheStateatthepretrial.
87

RULESOFCOURT,Rule108,Sec.1.

88

509Phil.108(2005).

89

Id.at114.

90

223Phil.357(1985).

91

Id.at363.

92

SeeRULESOFCOURT,Rule1,Sec.3(c).

93

SeeRULESOFCOURT,Rule72,Sec.2.Applicabilityofrulesofcivil
actions.Intheabsenceofspecialprovisions,therulesprovidedforin

ordinaryactionsshallbe,asfaraspracticable,applicableinspecial
proceedings.
Rule111,Sec.2.Whenseparatecivilactionissuspended.xxx
Ifthecriminalactionisfiledafterthesaidcivilactionhasalready
beeninstituted,thelattershallbesuspendedinwhateverstageitmay
befoundbeforejudgmentonthemerits.Thesuspensionshalllast
untilfinaljudgmentisrenderedinthecriminalaction.Nevertheless,
beforejudgmentonthemeritsisrenderedinthecivilaction,thesame
may,uponmotionoftheoffendedparty,beconsolidatedwiththe
criminalactioninthecourttryingthecriminalaction.Incaseof
consolidation,theevidencealreadyadducedinthecivilactionshallbe
deemedautomaticallyreproducedinthecriminalactionwithout
prejudicetotherightoftheprosecutiontocrossexaminethe
witnessespresentedbytheoffendedpartyinthecriminalcaseandof
thepartiestopresentadditionalevidence.Theconsolidatedcriminal
andcivilactionsshallbetriedanddecidedjointly.
Duringthependencyofthecriminalaction,therunningoftheperiod
ofprescriptionofthecivilactionwhichcannotbeinstitutedseparately
orwhoseproceedinghasbeensuspendedshallbetolled.
Theextinctionofthepenalactiondoesnotcarrywithitextinctionof
thecivilaction.However,thecivilactionbasedondelictshallbe
deemedextinguishedifthereisafindinginafinaljudgmentinthe
criminalactionthattheactoromissionfromwhichthecivilliability
mayarisedidnotexist.