Fujiki. 3 SECOND DIVISION Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a [G.R. No. 196049. June 26, 2013.] family court in Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. 4 On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed MINORU FUJIKI, petitioner, vs. MARIA PAZ GALELA a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and THE Japanese Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the bigamous ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR marriage between Marinay and Maekara be declared void ab initio under GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS Articles 35 (4) and 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines; 5 and (3) for OFFICE, respondents. the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese Family Court judgment on the Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the National Statistics Office DECISION (NSO). 6 The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court A few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC immediately CARPIO, J p: issued an Order dismissing the petition and withdrawing the case from its active civil docket. 7 The RTC cited the following provisions of the Rule on The Case Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of This is a direct recourse to this Court from the Regional Trial Court Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC): (RTC), Branch 107, Quezon City, through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of theRules of Court on a pure question of law. Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void The petition assails the Order 1 dated 31 January 2011 of the RTC in Civil marriages. — Case No. Q-11-68582 and its Resolution dated 2 March 2011 denying (a) Who may file. — A petition for declaration of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC dismissed the petition for absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity the husband or the wife. of Marriage)" based on improper venue and the lack of personality of petitioner, Minoru Fujiki, to file the petition. xxx xxx xxx The Facts Sec. 4. Venue. — The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married or the respondent has been residing for at least six respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines 2 on 23 months prior to the date of filing, or in the case of a non- January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner's parents. Thus, resident respondent, where he may be found in the Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they Philippines, at the election of the petitioner. . . . lost contact with each other. The RTC ruled, without further explanation, that the petition was in In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara "gross violation" of the above provisions. The trial court based its (Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and dismissal on Section 5 (4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which provides Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. that "[f]ailure to comply with any of the preceding requirements may be Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered a ground for immediate dismissal of the petition." 8 Apparently, the RTC took the view that only "the husband or the wife," in this case Fujiki's motion for reconsideration in the RTC also asserted that the either Maekara or Marinay, can file the petition to declare their trial court "gravely erred" when, on its own, it dismissed the petition based marriage void, and not Fujiki. on improper venue. Fujiki stated that the RTC may be confusing the Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He argued that A.M. concept of venue with the concept of jurisdiction, because it is lack of No. 02-11-10-SC contemplated ordinary civil actions for declaration of jurisdiction which allows a court to dismiss a case on its own. Fujiki nullity and annulment of marriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not cited Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court 19 which held that the "trial apply. A petition for recognition of foreign judgment is a special proceeding, court cannot pre-empt the defendant's prerogative to object to the improper which "seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact," 9 and not a laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case." 20 Moreover, civil action which is "for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the petitioner alleged that the trial court should not have "immediately prevention or redress of a wrong." 10 In other words, the petition in the dismissed" the petition under Section 5 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC because RTC sought to establish (1) the status and concomitant rights of Fujiki and he substantially complied with the provision. Marinay as husband and wife and (2) the fact of the rendition of the On 2 March 2011, the RTC resolved to deny petitioner's motion for Japanese Family Court judgment declaring the marriage between Marinay reconsideration. In its Resolution, the RTC stated that A.M. No. 02-11-10- and Maekara as void on the ground of bigamy. The petitioner contended SC applies because the petitioner, in effect, prays for a decree of absolute that the Japanese judgment was consistent with Article 35 (4) of the Family nullity of marriage. 21 The trial court reiterated its two grounds for Code of the Philippines 11 on bigamy and was therefore entitled to dismissal, i.e., lack of personality to sue and improper venue under recognition by Philippine courts. 12 Sections 2 (a) and 4 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. The RTC considered Fujiki In any case, it was also Fujiki's view that A.M. No. 02-11-10- as a "third person" 22 in the proceeding because he "is not the husband in SC applied only to void marriages under Article 36 of the Family Code on the decree of divorce issued by the Japanese Family Court, which he now the ground of psychological incapacity. 13 Thus, Section 2 (a) of A.M. No. seeks to be judicially recognized, . . . ." 23 On the other hand, the RTC did 02-11-10-SC provides that "a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of not explain its ground of impropriety of venue. It only said that "[a]lthough void marriages may be filed solely by the husband or the wife." To apply the Court cited Sec. 4 (Venue) . . . as a ground for dismissal of this case[,] Section 2 (a) in bigamy would be absurd because only the guilty parties it should be taken together with the other ground cited by the Court . . . would be permitted to sue. In the words of Fujiki, "[i]t is not, of course, which is Sec. 2 (a) . . . ." 24 difficult to realize that the party interested in having a bigamous marriage The RTC further justified its motu proprio dismissal of the petition declared a nullity would be the husband in the prior, pre-existing based on Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros marriage." 14 Fujiki had material interest and therefore the personality to Occidental. 25 The Court inBraza ruled that "[i]n a special proceeding for nullify a bigamous marriage. correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in Fujiki argued that Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court is applicable. Rule 108 is the . . . ." 26 Braza emphasized that the "validity of marriages as well as "procedural implementation" of the Civil Register Law (Act No. 3753) 15 in legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably relation to Article 413 of the Civil Code.16 The Civil Register Law imposes filed by the proper party, and not through a collateral attack such as [a] a duty on the "successful petitioner for divorce or annulment of marriage to petition [for correction of entry] . . . ." 27 send a copy of the final decree of the court to the local registrar of the The RTC considered the petition as a collateral attack on the municipality where the dissolved or annulled marriage was validity of marriage between Marinay and Maekara. The trial court held that solemnized." 17Section 2 of Rule 108 provides that entries in the civil this is a "jurisdictional ground" to dismiss the petition. 28 Moreover, the registry relating to "marriages," "judgments of annulments of marriage" and verification and certification against forum shopping of the petition was not "judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning" are subject to authenticated as required under Section 5 29 ofA.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. cancellation or correction. 18 The petition in the RTC sought (among Hence, this also warranted the "immediate dismissal" of the petition under others) to annotate the judgment of the Japanese Family Court on the the same provision. certificate of marriage between Marinay and Maekara. CaAIES The Manifestation and Motion of the Office of the Solicitor party or a particular fact." 37 While Corpuz concerned a foreign divorce General and decree, in the present case the Japanese Family Court judgment also the Letters of Marinay and Maekara affected the civil status of the parties, especially Marinay, who is a Filipino On 30 May 2011, the Court required respondents to file their citizen. comment on the petition for review. 30 The public respondents, the Local The Solicitor General asserted that Rule 108 of the Rules of Civil Registrar of Quezon City and the Administrator and Civil Registrar Court is the procedure to record "[a]cts, events and judicial decrees General of the NSO, participated through the Office of the Solicitor concerning the civil status of persons" in the civil registry as required by General. Instead of a comment, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation Article 407 of the Civil Code.In other words, "[t]he law requires the entry in and Motion. 31 the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences upon The Solicitor General agreed with the petition. He prayed that the a person's legal capacity and status . . . ." 38 The Japanese Family Court RTC's "pronouncement that the petitioner failed to comply with . . . A.M. judgment directly bears on the civil status of a Filipino citizen and should No. 02-11-10-SC . . . be set aside" and that the case be reinstated in the therefore be proven as a fact in a Rule 108 proceeding. trial court for further proceedings. 32 The Solicitor General argued that Moreover, the Solicitor General argued that there is no Fujiki, as the spouse of the first marriage, is an injured party who can sue jurisdictional infirmity in assailing a void marriage under Rule 108, citing De to declare the bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara void. Castro v. De Castro 39 and Niñal v. Bayadog 40 which declared that "[t]he The Solicitor General cited Juliano-Llave v. Republic 33 which held that validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked." 41 Section 2 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in cases of bigamy. In Juliano-Llave, this Court explained: SCHATc Marinay and Maekara individually sent letters to the Court to comply with the directive for them to comment on the petition. 42 Maekara [t]he subsequent spouse may only be expected to take wrote that Marinay concealed from him the fact that she was previously action if he or she had only discovered during the married to Fujiki. 43 Maekara also denied that he inflicted any form of connubial period that the marriage was bigamous, and violence on Marinay. 44 On the other hand, Marinay wrote that she had no especially if the conjugal bliss had already vanished. reason to oppose the petition. 45 She would like to maintain her silence for Should parties in a subsequent marriage benefit from fear that anything she say might cause misunderstanding between her and the bigamous marriage, it would not be expected that Fujiki. 46 ScTaEA they would file an action to declare the marriage void and thus, in such circumstance, the "injured spouse" The Issues who should be given a legal remedy is the one in a Petitioner raises the following legal issues: subsisting previous marriage. The latter is clearly the aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only (1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void threatens the financial and the property ownership Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) aspect of the prior marriage but most of all, it causes is applicable. an emotional burden to the prior spouse. The (2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition subsequent marriage will always be a reminder of the to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage infidelity of the spouse and the disregard of the prior between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy. marriage which sanctity is protected by the Constitution. 34 (3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil The Solicitor General contended that the petition to recognize the Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Japanese Family Court judgment may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding. 35 In Corpuz v. Santo Tomas, 36 this Court held that "[t]he The Ruling of the Court recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 We grant the petition. 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 The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and This is the rule of lex nationalii in private international law. Thus, the Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply Philippine State may require, for effectivity in the Philippines, recognition in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a by Philippine courts of a foreign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. it exercises personal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition and legal Moreover, in Juliano-Llave v. Republic, 47 this Court held that the rule capacity of such citizen. in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage "does not apply if the reason A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage behind the petition is bigamy." 48 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 I. cannot presume to know the foreign laws under which the foreign judgment For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the was rendered. They cannot substitute their judgment on the status, status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is under the country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact jurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine courts can only recognize the under the Rules of Court. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign foreign judgment as a fact according to the rules of evidence. ECcTaS judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule Section 48 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a foreign 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules judgment or final order against a person creates a "presumptive evidence of Court. 49 Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family Court judgment of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a through (1) an official publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by subsequent title." Moreover, Section 48 of the Rules of Court states that the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the office which has custody "the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of is in a foreign country such as Japan, the certification may be made by the jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of proper diplomatic or consular officer of the Philippine foreign service in law or fact." Thus, Philippine courts exercise limited review on foreign Japan and authenticated by the seal of office. 50 EaISTD judgments. Courts are not allowed to delve into the merits of a foreign To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for judgment. Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a Philippine recognition of foreign judgment would mean that the trial court and the court, it can only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e., "want parties should follow its provisions, including the form and contents of the of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake petition, 51 the service of summons, 52 the investigation of the public of law or fact." The rule on limited review embodies the policy of efficiency prosecutor, 53 the setting of pre-trial, 54 the trial 55 and the judgment of and the protection of party expectations, 61 as well as respecting the the trial court. 56 This is absurd because it will litigate the case anew. It will jurisdiction of other states. 62 defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments, which is "to limit Since 1922 in Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee, 63 Philippine courts repetitive litigation on claims and issues." 57 The interpretation of the RTC have recognized foreign divorce decrees between a Filipino and a foreign is tantamount to relitigating the case on the merits. In Mijares v. citizen if they are successfully proven under the rules of Rañada, 58 this Court explained that "[i]f every judgment of a foreign court evidence. 64 Divorce involves the dissolution of a marriage, but the were reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on his/her recognition of a foreign divorce decree does not involve the extended original cause of action, rendering immaterial the previously concluded procedure under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the rules of ordinary trial. While litigation." 59 the Philippines does not have a divorce law, Philippine courts may, A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects the however, recognize a foreign divorce decree under the second paragraph civil status, condition and legal capacity of its parties. However, the effect of Article 26 of the Family Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen to remarry of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign when his or her foreign spouse obtained a divorce decree abroad. 65 judgment in the Philippines, Philippine courts must determine if the foreign There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a judgment is consistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory fact the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between laws. 60 Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that "[l]aws relating to family Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy. While the Philippines has rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent with are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad." Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning under Article 35 (4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under from the substantive right of the spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the in limited instances) 68 his most intimate human relation, but also to existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance with Rule protect his property interests that arise by operation of law the moment he 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules contracts marriage. 69 These property interests in marriage include the of Court. right to be supported "in keeping with the financial capacity of the family" 70 and preserving the property regime of the marriage. 71 II. Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of Property rights are already substantive rights protected by the fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special proceeding for Constitution, 72 but a spouse's right in a marriage extends further to cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of relational rights recognized under Title III ("Rights and Obligations between the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that Husband and Wife") of the Family Code. 73 A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC cannot "[a] special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a "diminish, increase, or modify" the substantive right of the spouse to status, a right, or a particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify maintain the integrity of his marriage. 74 In any case, Section 2 (a) of A.M. facts of a person's life which are recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil No. 02-11-10-SC preserves this substantive right by limiting the personality Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of public consequence such to sue to the husband or the wife of the union recognized by law. DHSCTI as birth, death or marriage, 66 which the State has an interest in recording. Section 2 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouse As noted by the Solicitor General, inCorpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court of a subsisting marriage to question the validity of a subsequent marriage declared that "[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made on the ground of bigamy. On the contrary, when Section 2 (a) states that in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such "[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status filed solely by the husband or the wife" 75 — it refers to the husband or or right of a party or a particular fact." 67 AIaHES the wife of the subsisting marriage. Under Article 35 (4) of the Family Code, Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states: bigamous marriages are void from the beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the wife under the law. Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any The husband or the wife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who person interested in any act, event, order or has the personality to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void decree concerning the civil status of persons which marriage under Section 2 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any Article 35 (4) of the Family Code, which declares bigamous entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of marriages void from the beginning, is the civil aspect of Article 349 of the province where the corresponding civil registry is the Revised Penal Code, 76 which penalizes bigamy. Bigamy is a public located. (Emphasis supplied) crime. Thus, anyone can initiate prosecution for bigamy because any citizen has an interest in the prosecution and prevention of crimes. 77 If Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese anyone can file a criminal action which leads to the declaration of nullity of Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and a bigamous marriage, 78 there is more reason to confer personality to sue Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his on the husband or the wife of a subsisting marriage. The prior spouse does civil status as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the not only share in the public interest of prosecuting and preventing crimes, personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of he is also personally interested in the purely civil aspect of protecting his marriage between Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on the marriage. basis of the decree of the Japanese Family Court. When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated, the There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material spouse is clearly an injured party and is therefore interested in the interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage he contracted and the judgment of the suit. 79 Juliano-Llave ruled that the prior spouse "is clearly property relations arising from it. There is also no doubt that he is interested the aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only threatens the in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil registry, financial and the property ownership aspect of the prior marriage but most which compromises the public record of his marriage. The interest derives of all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse." 80 Being a real party in interest, the prior spouse is entitled to sue in order to declare a judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine bigamous marriage void. For this purpose, he can petition a court to courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the bigamous marriage and presupposes a case which was already tried and decided under judicially declare as a fact that such judgment is effective in the Philippines. foreign law. The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a Once established, there should be no more impediment to cancel the entry petition to recognize a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous marriage of the bigamous marriage in the civil registry. 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. III. In Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine Occidental, this Court held that a "trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse marriages" in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entry without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. 81 Thus, the "validity of marriage[] . marriage. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides . . can be questioned only in a direct action" to nullify the marriage. 82 The that "[w]here a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly RTC relied on Braza in dismissing the petition for recognition of foreign celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien judgment as a collateral attack on the marriage between Marinay and spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have Maekara. EAcTDH capacity to remarry under Philippine law." In Republic v. Orbecido, 88 this Court recognized the legislative intent of the second paragraph of Article Braza is not applicable because Braza does not involve a 26 which is "to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage where remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country. longer married to the Filipino spouse" 89 under the laws of his or her country. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code only To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in authorizes Philippine courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce decree the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine courts direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and cannot try the case on the merits because it is tantamount to trying a case procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02- for divorce. 11-10-SC and other related laws. Among these safeguards are the requirement of proving the limited grounds for the dissolution of The second paragraph of Article 26 is only a corrective measure to marriage, 83 support pendente lite of the spouses and children, 84 the address the anomaly that results from a marriage between a Filipino, liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the whose laws do not allow divorce, and a foreign citizen, whose laws allow spouses, 85 and the investigation of the public prosecutor to determine divorce. The anomaly consists in the Filipino spouse being tied to the collusion. 86 A direct action for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or marriage is also necessary to prevent circumvention of the jurisdiction of her country. The correction is made by extending in the Philippines the the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. effect of the foreign divorce decree, which is already effective in the country 8369), as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil where it was rendered. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family registry may be filed in the Regional Trial Court "where the corresponding Code is based on this Court's decision in Van Dorn v. Romillo 90 which civil registry is located." 87 In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve declared that the Filipino spouse "should not be discriminated against in his marriage by the mere expedient of changing his entry of marriage in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served." 91 IDETCA the civil registry. The principle in Article 26 of the Family Code applies in a marriage However, this does not apply in a petition for correction or between a Filipino and a foreign citizen who obtains a foreign judgment cancellation of a civil registry entry based on the recognition of a foreign nullifying the marriage on the ground of bigamy. The Filipino spouse may judgment annulling a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the file a petition abroad to declare the marriage void on the ground of bigamy. foreign country. There is neither circumvention of the substantive and The principle in the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family procedural safeguards of marriage under Philippine law, nor of the Code applies because the foreign spouse, after the foreign judgment jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign 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 subsequent event that establishes a new status, right and fact 92 that Filipino spouse will be discriminated — the foreign spouse can remarry needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry. inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment and the public records in the Philippines. Under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, Philippine courts are empowered to correct a situation where the Filipino However, the recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a spouse is still tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry. bigamous marriage is without prejudice to prosecution for bigamy under Moreover, notwithstanding Article 26 of the Family Code, Philippine courts Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. 93 The recognition of a foreign already have jurisdiction to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is not a ground for extinction of Philippines to the extent that the foreign judgment does not contravene criminal liability under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised Penal Code. domestic public policy. A critical difference between the case of a foreign Moreover, under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, "[t]he term of divorce decree and a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is prescription [of the crime of bigamy] shall not run when the offender is that bigamy, as a ground for the nullity of marriage, is fully consistent with absent from the Philippine archipelago." CcHDSA 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 Since A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is inapplicable, the Court no longer the option to undergo full trial by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of sees the need to address the questions on venue and the contents and marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, but this is not the only remedy form of the petition under Sections 4 and 5, respectively, of A.M. No. 02- available to him or her. Philippine courts have jurisdiction to recognize a 11-10-SC. foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage, without prejudice to a WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Order dated 31 criminal prosecution for bigamy. January 2011 and the Resolution dated 2 March 2011 of the Regional Trial In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are Court, Branch 107, Quezon City, in Civil Case No. Q-11-68582 incompetent to substitute their judgment on how a case was decided under are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family rights and duties, or on the is ORDERED to REINSTATE the petition for further proceedings in status, condition and legal capacity" of the foreign citizen who is a party to accordance with this Decision. the foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of SO ORDERED whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of ||| (Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, [June 26, 2013], 712 PHIL 524- a foreign country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect 558) to the Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code. For this purpose, 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 THIRD DIVISION adjacent to the church whereas the venue of the wedding, and the dance only finished at around 2:00 o'clock of same early morning of June 1, 1972; [G.R. No. 187462. June 1, 2016.] 5. Petitioner has never gone to the office of the Local Civil Registrar to apply for marriage license and RAQUEL G. KHO, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE had not seen much less signed any papers or PHILIPPINES and VERONICA B. KHO, respondents. documents in connection with the procurement of a marriage license; 6. Considering the shortness of period from the DECISION time the aforenamed clerk of the treasurer's office was told to obtain the pertinent papers in the afternoon of May 31, 1972 so required for the purpose of the PERALTA, J p: forthcoming marriage up to the moment the actual marriage was celebrated before dawn of June 1, 1972, Challenged in the present petition for review on certiorari are no marriage license therefore could have been validly the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu issued, thereby rendering the marriage solemnized on City dated March 30, 2006 and January 14, 2009, respectively, in CA- even date null and void for want of the most essential G.R. CV No. 69218. The assailed CA Decision reversed and set aside requisite; the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, in Civil Case No. 464, which ruled in petitioner's favor 7. For all intents and purposes, thus, in an action he filed for declaration of nullity of his marriage with private Petitioner's and Respondent's marriage aforestated respondent, while the CA Resolution denied petitioners' motion for was solemnized sans the required marriage license, reconsideration. hence, null and void from the beginning and neither was it performed under circumstances exempting the The present petition arose from a Petition for Declaration of requirement of such marriage license; Nullity of Marriage filed by herein petitioner with the RTC of Oras, Eastern Samar. Pertinent portions of the Petition allege as follows: xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after 3. Sometime in the afternoon of May 31, 1972, due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered: petitioner's parents summoned one Eusebio Colongon, now deceased, then clerk in the office of the municipal 1. Declaring the contract of marriage between treasurer, instructing said clerk to arrange and prepare petitioner and respondent held on June 1, 1972, at whatever necessary papers were required for the Arteche, Eastern Samar, null and void ab initio and of intended marriage between petitioner and respondent no legal effect; supposedly to take place at around midnight of June 1, xxx xxx xxx 4 1972 so as to exclude the public from witnessing the marriage ceremony; Among the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner is a Certification 5 issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, 4. Petitioner and Respondent thereafter Eastern Samar which attested to the fact that the Office of the Local exchanged marital vows in a marriage ceremony which Civil Registrar has neither record nor copy of a marriage license issued actually took place at around 3:00 o'clock before dawn to petitioner and respondent with respect to their marriage celebrated of June 1, 1972, on account that there was a public on June 1, 1972. dance held in the town plaza which is just situated Respondent filed her Answer 6 praying that the petition be is declared valid and subsisting for all intents and outrightly dismissed for lack of cause of action because there is no purposes. evidence to prove petitioner's allegation that their marriage was SO ORDERED. 8 celebrated without the requisite marriage license and that, on the contrary, both petitioner and respondent personally appeared before The CA held that since a marriage was, in fact, solemnized the local civil registrar and secured a marriage license which they between the contending parties, there is a presumption that a marriage presented before their marriage was solemnized. license was issued for that purpose and that petitioner failed to overcome such presumption. The CA also ruled that the absence of Upon petitioner's request, the venue of the action was any indication in the marriage certificate that a marriage license was subsequently transferred to the RTC of Borongan, Eastern Samar, issued is a mere defect in the formal requisites of the law which does Branch 2, where the parties submitted their respective pleadings as not invalidate the parties' marriage. well as affidavits of witnesses. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 9 but the CA On September 25, 2000, the RTC rendered its Decision denied it in its Resolution data January 14, 2009. granting the petition. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: Hence, the instant petition raising the following issues, to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby declares the marriage contracted 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT between Raquel G. Kho and Veronica Borata on June OF APPEALS ERRED IN ASCRIBING A SO-CALLED 1, 1972 null and voidab initio, pursuant to Article 80 of "ETHICAL DIMENSION" TO PETITIONER'S CAUSE, the Civil Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Family Code. ALLUDING TO AN ALLEGED LIAISON WITH The foregoing is without prejudice to the application of ANOTHER WOMAN AS A FACTOR IN REVERSING Articles 50 and 51 of theFamily Code. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WHICH VOIDED HIS MARRIAGE IN QUESTION WITH Let a copy of this decision be furnished the RESPONDENT; Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar for proper registration of this decree of nullity of marriage. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPRECIATING AGAINST SO ORDERED. 7 PETITIONER THE FACT THAT DESPITE THE LAPSE The RTC found that petitioner's evidence sufficiently OF 25 YEARS HE DID NOTHING TO ATTACK, EVEN established the absence of the requisite marriage license when the COLLATERALLY, HIS APPARENTLY VOID marriage between petitioner and respondent was celebrated. As such, MARRIAGE WITH RESPONDENT; the RTC ruled that based on Articles 53 (4), 58 and 80 (3) of the Civil 3. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT Code of the Philippines, the absence of the said marriage license OF APPEALS ERRED IN ALTOGETHER rendered the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and DISREGARDING PETITIONER'S OBVIOUSLY void ab initio. OVERWHELMING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF Respondent then filed an appeal with the CA in Cebu City. On LACK OF MARRIAGE LICENSE AND GIVING March 30, 2006, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision, disposing WEIGHT INSTEAD TO UNSUPPORTED thus: PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT, IN ITS ASSAILED DECISION; and WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated 25 September 2000 of Branch 2 of the 4. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, OF APPEALS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE OR is REVERSED andSET ASIDE. The marriage between REVERSING THE LOWER COURT'S JUDGMENT the petitioner-appellee Raquel Kho and Veronica Kho DECLARING THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT A NULLITY FOR ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE MARRIAGE (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without LICENSE. 10 citation of specific evidence on which they are based; Petitioner's basic contention in the present petition centers on (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the alleged failure of the CA to give due credence to petitioner's the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed evidence which established the absence or lack of marriage license at by the respondents; and the time that petitioner and respondent's marriage was solemnized. (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals Petitioner argues that the CA erred in deciding the case not on the are premised on the supposed absence of evidence basis of law and evidence but rather on the ground of what the and contradicted by the evidence on record. 11 appellate court calls as ethical considerations as well as on the perceived motive of petitioner in seeking the declaration of nullity of his In the present case, the findings of the RTC and the CA, on marriage with respondent. whether or not there was indeed a marriage license obtained by petitioner and respondent, are conflicting. Hence, it is but proper for The Court finds for the petitioner. this Court to review these findings. At the outset, the State, through the Office of the Solicitor The marriage of petitioner and respondent was celebrated on General (OSG), raises a procedural question by arguing that the June 1, 1972, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. 12 Hence, issues presented by petitioner in the present petition are factual in the Civil Code governs their union. Accordingly, Article 53 of the Civil nature and it is not proper for this Court to delve into these issues in a Code spells out the essential requisites of marriage as a contract, to petition for review on certiorari. wit: The Court does not agree. ART. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized The issues in the instant petition involve a determination and unless all these requisites are complied with: application of existing law and prevailing jurisprudence. However, (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; intertwined with these issues is the question of the existence of the subject marriage license, which is a question of fact and one which is (2) Their consent, freely given; not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of (3) Authority of the person performing the the Rules of Court. This rule, nonetheless, is not without marriage; and exceptions, viz.: (4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely exceptional character. 13 on speculation, surmises and conjectures; Article 58 of the Civil Code makes explicit that no marriage (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually of discretion; resides, save marriages of an exceptional character authorized by (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension the Civil Code, but not those under Article 75. 14 Under theCivil Code, of facts; marriages of exceptional character are covered by Chapter 2, Title III, comprising Articles 72 to 79. These marriages are: (1) marriages (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; in articulo mortis or at the point of death during peace or war; (2) (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, marriages in remote places; (3) consular marriages; (4) ratification of went beyond the issues of the case and the same is marital cohabitation; (5) religious ratification of a civil marriage; (6) contrary to the admissions of both appellant and Mohammedan or pagan marriages; and (7) mixed marriages. appellee; Petitioner's and respondent's marriage does not fall under any of these exceptions. (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; Article 80 (3) of the Civil Code also makes it clear that a respondent has been overcome and it becomes the burden of marriage performed without the corresponding marriage license is respondent to prove that their marriage is valid as it is she who alleges void, this being nothing more than the legitimate consequence flowing such validity. As found by the RTC, respondent was not able to from the fact that the license is the essence of the marriage discharge that burden. contract. 15 The rationale for the compulsory character of a marriage It is telling that respondent failed to present their alleged license under the Civil Code is that it is the authority granted by the marriage license or a copy thereof to the court. In addition, the State to the contracting parties, after the proper government official has Certificate of Marriage 22 issued by the officiating priest does not inquired into their capacity to contract marriage. 16 Stated differently, contain any entry regarding the said marriage license, Respondent the requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the State's could have obtained a copy of their marriage contract from the National demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, Archives and Records Section, where information regarding the in the maintenance of which the general public is interested. 17 marriage license, i.e., date of issuance and license number, could be In the instant case, respondent claims that she and petitioner obtained. However, she also failed to do so. The Court also notes, with were able to secure a marriage license which they presented to the approval, the RTC's agreement with petitioner's observation that the solemnizing officer before the marriage was performed. statements of the witnesses for respondent, as well as respondent herself, all attest to the fact that a marriage ceremony was conducted The OSG, on its part, contends that the presumption is always but neither one of them testified that a marriage license was issued in in favor of the validity of marriage and that any doubt should be favor of petitioner and respondent. Indeed, despite respondent's resolved to sustain such validity. Indeed, this Court is mindful of this categorical claim that she and petitioner were able to obtain a marriage principle as well as of the Constitutional policy which protects and license, she failed to present evidence to prove such allegation. It is a strengthens the family as the basic autonomous social institution and settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and marriage as the foundation of the family. mere allegation is not evidence. 23 On the other hand, petitioner insists that the Certification Based on the Certification issued by the Municipal Civil issued by the Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar, coupled with Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar, coupled with respondent's failure the testimony of the former Civil Registrar, is sufficient evidence to to produce a copy of the alleged marriage license or of any evidence prove the absence of the subject marriage license. to show that such license was ever issued, the only conclusion that can The Court agrees with petitioner and finds no doubt to be be reached is that no valid marriage license was, in fact, issued. resolved as the evidence is clearly in his favor. Contrary to the ruling of the CA, it cannot be said that there was a simple defect, not a total absence, in the requirements of the law which Apropos is the case of Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño. 18 There, would not affect the validity of the marriage. The fact remains that it was held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar, that their respondent failed to prove that the subject marriage license was issued office had no record of a marriage license, was adequate to prove the and the law is clear that a marriage which is performed without the non-issuance of said license. 19 It was further held that the presumed corresponding marriage license is null and void. validity of the marriage of the parties had been overcome, and that it became the burden of the party alleging a valid marriage to prove that As to the sufficiency of petitioner's evidence, the OSG further the marriage was valid, and that the required marriage license had argues that, on the basis of this Court's ruling in Sevilla v. been secured. 20 Cardenas, 24 the certification issued by the local civil registrar, which attests to the absence in its records of a marriage license, must As stated above, petitioner was able to present a Certification categorically state that the document does not exist in the said office issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar despite diligent search. attesting that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar "has no record nor copy of any marriage license ever issued in favor of Raquel G. Kho However, in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of [petitioner] and Veronica M. Borata [respondent] whose marriage was Appeals, 25 this Court considered the certification issued by the Local celebrated on June 1, 1972." 21 Thus, on the basis of such Civil Registrar as a certification of due search and inability to find the Certification, the presumed validity of the marriage of petitioner and record or entry sought by the parties despite the absence of a categorical statement that "such document does not exist in their In all the abovementioned cases, there was clear and records despite diligent search." The Court, citing Section 28, 26 Rule unequivocal finding of the absence of the subject marriage license 132 of the Rules of Court, held that the certification of due search and which rendered the marriage void. inability to find a record or entry as to the purported marriage license, From these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void issued by the civil registrar, enjoys probative value, he being the officer on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the issuance of a marriage license. Based on said certification, the Court marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from held that there is absence of a marriage license that would render the the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the marriage void ab initio. parties. 32 Moreover, as discussed in the abovestated case of Nicdao Indeed, all the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding Cariño v. Yee Cariño, 27 this Court considered the marriage of the ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed does petitioner and her deceased husband as void ab initio as the records not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license. 33 As cited reveal that the marriage contract of petitioner and the deceased bears above, Article 80 (3) of the Civil Code clearly provides that a marriage no marriage license number and, as certified by the local civil registrar, solemnized without a license is void from the beginning, except their office has no record of such marriage license. The court held that marriages of exceptional character under Articles 72 to 79 of the same the certification issued by the local civil registrar is adequate to prove Code. As earlier stated, petitioner's and respondent's marriage cannot the non-issuance of the marriage license. Their marriage having been be characterized as among the exceptions. solemnized without the necessary marriage license and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, the As to the motive of petitioner in seeking to annul his marriage marriage of the petitioner and the deceased is undoubtedly void ab to respondent, it may well be that his motives are less than pure — that initio. This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Go- he seeks a way out of his marriage to legitimize his alleged illicit affair Bangayan v. Bangayan, Jr. 28 with another woman. Be that as it may, the same does not make up for the failure of the respondent to prove that they had a valid marriage Furthermore, in the fairly recent case of Abbas v. license, given the weight of evidence presented by petitioner. The law Abbas, 29 this Court echoed the ruling in Republic v. CA 30 that, in must be applied. As the marriage license, an essential requisite under sustaining the finding of the lower court that a marriage license was the Civil Code, is clearly absent, the marriage of petitioner and lacking, this Court relied on the Certification issued by the local civil respondent is void ab initio. registrar, which stated that the alleged marriage license could not be located as the same did not appear in their records. Contrary to WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision petitioner's asseveration, nowhere in the Certification was it and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, dated March 30, categorically stated that the officer involved conducted a diligent 2006 and January 14, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 69218, search. In this respect, this Court held that Section 28, Rule 132 of are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial the Rules of Court does not require a categorical statement to this Court of Borongan, Eastern Samar, Branch 2, dated September 25, effect. Moreover, in the said case, this Court ruled that: 2000, in Civil Case No. 464 is REINSTATED. Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of SO ORDERED. Court, it is a disputable presumption that an official duty ||| (Kho v. Republic, G.R. No. 187462, [June 1, 2016]) has been regularly performed, absent contradiction or other evidence to the contrary. We held, "The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty." No such affirmative evidence was shown that the Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing her duty of checking the records of their office, thus the presumption must stand. . . . 31 SECOND DIVISION That on or about the 10th day of December, 2001 up to the present, in the municipality of Meycauayan, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this [G.R. No. 188775. August 24, 2011.] Honorable Court, the said Cenon R. Teves being previously united in lawful marriage on November 26, CENON R. TEVES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE 1992 with Thelma B. Jaime and without the said marriage PHILIPPINES and DANILO R. having legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, BONGALON, respondents. unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with one Edita T. Calderon, who knowing of the criminal design of accused Cenon R. Teves to marry her and in concurrence thereof, did then and there willfully, DECISION unlawfully and feloniously cooperate in the execution of the offense by marrying Cenon R. Teves, knowing fully well of the existence of the marriage of the latter with PEREZ, J p: Thelma B. Jaime. During the pendency of the criminal case for bigamy, the This Petition for Review seeks the reversal of the 21 January Regional Trial Court, Branch 130, Caloocan City, rendered a 2009 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31125 decision 7 dated 4 May 2006 declaring the marriage of petitioner and affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch Thelma null and void on the ground that Thelma is physically 20, Malolos City in Criminal Case No. 2070-M-2006. The RTC incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations pursuant decision 2 found petitioner Cenon R. Teves guilty beyond reasonable to Article 36 of the Family Code. Said decision became final by virtue doubt of the crime of Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of of a Certification of Finality 8 issued on 27 June 2006. the Revised Penal Code. CSTcEI On 15 August 2007, the trial court rendered its assailed THE FACTS decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: On 26 November 1992, a marriage was solemnized between WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is Cenon Teves (Cenon) and Thelma Jaime-Teves (Thelma) at the hereby rendered finding the accused Cenon R. Teves, Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila. 3 also known as Cenon Avelino R. Teves, guilty beyond After the marriage, Thelma left to work abroad. She would only reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy penalized under come home to the Philippines for vacations. While on a vacation in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as charged in the 2002, she was informed that her husband had contracted marriage with Information dated June 8, 2006. Pursuant to the a certain Edita Calderon (Edita). To verify the information, she went to provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is the National Statistics Office and secured a copy of the Certificate of hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment Marriage 4 indicating that her husband and Edita contracted marriage of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day on 10 December 2001 at the Divine Trust Consulting Services, of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan. one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. 9 HCEcaT On 13 February 2006, Danilo Bongalon, uncle of Thelma, filed Refusing to accept such verdict, petitioner appealed the before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos City, Bulacan decision before the Court of Appeals contending that the court a a complaint 5 accusing petitioner of committing bigamy. quo erred in not ruling that his criminal action or liability had already been extinguished. He also claimed that the trial court erred in finding Petitioner was charged on 8 June 2006 with bigamy defined him guilty of Bigamy despite the defective Information filed by the and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as prosecution. 10 amended, in an Information 6 which reads: On 21 January 2009, the CA promulgated its decision, the 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; dispositive portion of which reads: and WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the 4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the Decision dated August 15, 2007 in Criminal Case No. essential requisites for validity. 16 2070-M-2006 is AFFIRMED in TOTO. 11 The instant case has all the elements of the crime of bigamy. On 11 February 2009, petitioner filed a motion for Thus, the CA was correct in affirming the conviction of petitioner. reconsideration of the decision. 12 This however, was denied by the CA in a resolution issued on 2 July 2009. 13 Petitioner was legally married to Thelma on 26 November 1992 at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City. He contracted a Hence, this petition. second or subsequent marriage with Edita on 10 December 2001 in Petitioner claims that since his previous marriage was declared Meycauayan, Bulacan. At the time of his second marriage with Edita, null and void, "there is in effect no marriage at all, and thus, there is no his marriage with Thelma was legally subsisting. It is noted that the bigamy to speak of." 14 He differentiates a previous valid or voidable finality of the decision declaring the nullity of his first marriage with marriage from a marriage null and void ab initio, and posits that the Thelma was only on 27 June 2006 or about five (5) years after his former requires a judicial dissolution before one can validly contract a second marriage to Edita. Finally, the second or subsequent marriage second marriage but a void marriage, for the same purpose, need not of petitioner with Edita has all the essential requisites for validity. be judicially determined. Petitioner has in fact not disputed the validity of such subsequent marriage. 17 Petitioner further contends that the ruling of the Court in Mercado v. Tan 15 is inapplicable in his case because in It is evident therefore that petitioner has committed the crime the Mercado case the prosecution for bigamy was initiated before the charged. His contention that he cannot be charged with bigamy in view declaration of nullity of marriage was filed. In petitioner's case, the first of the declaration of nullity of his first marriage is bereft of merit. marriage had already been legally dissolved at the time the bigamy The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting case was filed in court. jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a We find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA. There is ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage nothing in the law that would sustain petitioner's contention. is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code states: the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any void. 18 person who shall contract a second or subsequent The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code marriage before the former marriage has been legally Revision Committee which drafted what is now the Family Code of the dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been Philippines took the position that parties to a marriage should not be declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact rendered in the proper proceedings. AHDaET but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage The elements of this crime are as follows: before they can be allowed to marry again. 19 1. That the offender has been legally married; In fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse who, believing that his 2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage, the person who marries spouse could not yet be presumed dead again cannot be charged with bigamy. 20 according to the Civil Code; In numerous cases, 21 this Court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral. If petitioner's contention would be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint against him. We note that in petitioner's case the complaint was filed before the first marriage was declared a nullity. It was only the filing of the Information that was overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his first marriage. Following petitioner's argument, even assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such as in this case, the offender can still escape liability provided that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the filing of the Information in court. Such cannot be allowed. To do so would make the crime of bigamy dependent upon the ability or inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to immediately act on complaints and eventually file Informations in court. Plainly, petitioner's strained reading of the law is against its simple letter. Settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law, and that the time of filing of the criminal complaint (or Information, in proper cases) is material only for determining prescription. 22 The crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner on 10 December 2001 when he contracted a second marriage with Edita. The finality on 27 June 2006 of the judicial declaration of the nullity of his previous marriage to Thelma cannot be made to retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage. HCEcaT WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated 21 January 2009 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. ||| (Teves v. People, G.R. No. 188775, [August 24, 2011], 671 PHIL 825- 833)