Case Digest (G.R. No. 206761)
Facts:
In Paul Ambrose v. Louella Suque-Ambrose, petitioner Paul Ambrose, a United States citizen, and respondent Louella Suque-Ambrose were married on March 13, 2005 in Manila. On April 20, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging respondent’s psychological incapacity. The petition was amended on May 15, 2007. Respondent answered with a counterclaim but failed to appear at trial. After hearing petitioner’s evidence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89, dismissed the petition on February 13, 2013, holding that, under Article 15 of the Civil Code (nationality principle), a foreigner lacks legal capacity to sue on family matters. Petitioner’s notice of appeal (filed April 3, 2013) was denied for failure to file a motion for reconsideration under Section 20(1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Petitioner then filed a petitioCase Digest (G.R. No. 206761)
Facts:
- Parties and Marriage
- Petitioner Paul Ambrose, a U.S. citizen, and respondent Louella Suque-Ambrose, a Filipino citizen, married on March 13, 2005 in Manila.
- On April 20, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 (psychological incapacity) of the Family Code; the petition was amended on May 15, 2007.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- Respondent filed an Answer with Counterclaim but failed to appear at the merits hearing; only petitioner presented evidence.
- On February 13, 2013, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City Branch 89, dismissed the petition for lack of petitioner’s legal capacity to sue, invoking Article 15 of the Civil Code (nationality principle).
- Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on April 3, 2013, but the RTC denied it on April 8, 2013 for failure to file a motion for reconsideration as required by Section 20(1) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, arguing (a) the RTC decision was patently null and void under Article 36 and Section 2(a) of the Rule on Nullity and Annulment, and (b) Section 20(1) should be suspended in the interest of procedural due process.
- Respondent filed a compliance but no substantive comment. The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious.
Issues:
- Does a foreign spouse have the legal capacity and personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in the Philippines?
- Should Philippine courts apply Article 15 of the Civil Code (nationality principle) or the lex loci celebrationis principle to determine the validity and nullity of a marriage celebrated in the Philippines?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)