4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In any case, it was also Fujiki’s view that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applied only to void marriages under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.[13] Thus, Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC provides that “a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.” To apply Section 2(a) in bigamy would be absurd because only the guilty parties would be permitted to sue. In the words of Fujiki, “[i]t is not, of course, difficult to realize that the party interested in having a bigamous marriage declared a nullity would be the husband in the prior, pre-existing marriage.”[14] Fujiki had material interest and therefore the personality to nullify a bigamous marriage. Fujiki argued that Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court is applicable. Rule 108 is the “procedural implementation” of the Civil Register Law (Act No. 3753)[15] in relation to Article 413 of the Civil Code.[16] The Civil Register Law imposes a duty on the “successful petitioner for divorce or annulment of marriage to send a copy of the final decree of the court to the local registrar of the municipality where the dissolved or annulled marriage was solemnized.”[17] Section 2 of Rule 108 provides that entries in the civil registry relating to “marriages,” “judgments of annulments of marriage” and “judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning” are subject to cancellation or correction.[18] The petition in the RTC sought (among others) to annotate the judgment of the Japanese Family Court on the certificate of marriage between Marinay and Maekara. Fujiki’s motion for reconsideration in the RTC also asserted that the trial court “gravely erred” when, on its own, it dismissed the petition based on improper venue. Fujiki stated that the RTC may be confusing the concept of venue with the concept of jurisdiction, because it is lack of jurisdiction which allows a court to dismiss a case on its own. Fujiki cited Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Appellate Court[19] which held that the “trial court cannot pre-empt the defendant’s prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the case.”[20] Moreover, petitioner alleged that the trial court should not have “immediately dismissed” the petition under Section 5 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC because he substantially complied with the provision. On 2 March 2011, the RTC resolved to deny petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In its Resolution, the RTC stated that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies because the petitioner, in effect, prays for a decree of absolute nullity of marriage.[21] The trial court reiterated its two grounds for dismissal, i.e. lack of personality to sue and improper venue under Sections 2(a) and 4 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. The RTC considered Fujiki as a “third person”[22] in the proceeding because he “is not the husband in the decree of divorce issued by the Japanese Family Court, which he now seeks to be judicially recognized, x x x.”[23] On the other hand, the RTC did not explain its ground of impropriety of venue. It only said that “[a]lthough the Court cited Sec. 4 (Venue) x x x as a ground for dismissal of this case[,] it should be taken together with the other ground cited by the Court x x x which is Sec. 2(a) x x x.”[24] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55916 3/22