Case Digest (G.R. No. 196049)
Facts:
Minoru Fujiki v. Maria Paz Galela Marinay, Shinichi Maekara, Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, and the Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. This is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 107, Quezon City, assailing the RTC Order dated 31 January 2011 and Resolution dated 2 March 2011 dismissing Civil Case No. Q-11-68582.Petitioner Minoru Fujiki, a Japanese national, married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (a Filipino) on 23 January 2004 in Pasay City. The spouses later lost contact. In 2008, while the first marriage remained undissolved, Marinay contracted a second marriage with Shinichi Maekara (a Japanese national) on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City and went to Japan with Maekara. After alleged abuse and subsequent separation, Marinay and Fujiki reestablished contact in Japan.
In 2010, a Japanese family court rendered a judgment declaring the Marinay–Maekara marriage void for bigamy. On 14 January 2011 Fujiki filed in the RTC a petition titled "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)" praying (1) recognition of the Japanese judgment; (2) declaration that Marinay–Maekara marriage is void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code; and (3) direction to annotate the Japanese judgment on the civil registry and endorse the annotation to the NSO.
A few days after filing, the RTC motu proprio dismissed and withdrew the case from its active docket, citing A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), particularly Sections 2(a) (personality to sue) and 4 (venue), and Section 5 (contents and form), concluding Fujiki lacked personality to sue and that venue was improper. Fujiki moved for reconsideration arguing that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply because his action was a special proceeding to recognize a foreign judgment (provable as a fact under the Rules of Court) and that Rule 108 (cancellation/correction of civil registry entries) was the proper remedy; he also cited Juliano-Llave to support personality in bigamy cases.
On 2 March 2011 the RTC denied reconsideration, reiterated that the petition was in effect for absolute nullity and described Fujiki as a "third person," and relied on Braza v. City Civil Registrar to hold that a Rule 108 special proceeding cannot be used to nullify marriages. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion before the S...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) apply to a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment affecting the status of a marriage where one party is a foreign national?
- Can the husband or wife of a prior (subsisting) marriage file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy?
- May the Regional Trial Court recognize a foreign judgment annulling or declaring void a marriage in a special proceeding for cancellation or cor...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)