4/29/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
the Family Code of the Philippines;[5] and (3) for the RTC
Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese Family
Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to
to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General
to direct the Local Civil
Court judgment on the
endorse such annotation
in the National Statistics
Office (NSO).[6]
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
A few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC immediately 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 Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC):
Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. –
(a) Who may file. – A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.
xxxx
Sec. 4. Venue. – The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the
province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for
at least six months prior to the date of filing, or in the case of a non-resident
respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the
petitioner. x x x
The RTC ruled, without further explanation, that the petition was in “gross violation” of
the above provisions. The trial court based its dismissal on Section 5(4) of A.M. No. 0211-10-SC which provides that “[f]ailure to comply with any of the preceding
requirements may be 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 either Maekara
or Marinay, can file the petition to declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki.
Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He argued that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
contemplated ordinary civil actions for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage.
Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply. A petition for recognition of foreign
judgment is a special proceeding, which “seeks to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact,”[9] and not a civil action which is “for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.”[10] In other words, the petition in the
RTC sought to establish (1) the status and concomitant rights of Fujiki and Marinay as
husband and wife and (2) the fact of the rendition of the Japanese Family Court
judgment declaring the marriage between Marinay and Maekara as void on the ground
of bigamy. The petitioner contended that the Japanese judgment was consistent with
Article 35(4) of the Family Code of the Philippines[11] on bigamy and was therefore
entitled to recognition by Philippine courts.[12]
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55916
2/22