Ambrose vs. Suque-Ambrose

A foreign national who is married in the Philippines has the legal capacity and personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of that marriage before a Philippine court. The governing principle is lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place of the ceremony), not the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code; thus, Philippine law applies to the incidents and consequences of a marriage celebrated in the Philippines, irrespective of the contracting parties' citizenship.

The petitioner, a citizen of the United States, married the respondent, a citizen of the Philippines, in Manila. Two years later, the petitioner sought to have their marriage declared void on the ground of the respondent's psychological incapacity under Philippine law. The dispute arose when the trial court dismissed his petition not on its merits, but on the purely legal question of whether he, as a foreigner, had the standing to file such a case in a Philippine court.

• Petitioner Paul Ambrose, a citizen of the United States, married respondent Louella Suque-Ambrose, a Filipina, on March 13, 2005, in Manila, Philippines.
• On April 20, 2007, the petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against the respondent in the RTC of Quezon City, alleging psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
• During the trial, only the petitioner presented evidence, as the respondent failed to appear or participate in the hearings on the merits.
• The RTC rendered a decision dismissing the petition, not based on the evidence presented, but on the ground that the petitioner, being an American citizen, lacked the legal capacity to sue, invoking the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code.
• The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, but the RTC denied it due course for his failure to first file a Motion for Reconsideration as required by Section 20(1) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
• This prompted the petitioner to file a direct recourse to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• The RTC committed a grave error by ruling that a foreigner has no legal personality to file a petition for nullity of marriage, which contradicts Article 36 of the Family Code and procedural rules that do not distinguish between foreign and Filipino spouses.
• The legal capacity to marry and the consequences thereof, including nullification, are governed by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated (lex loci celebrationis), not by the nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code.
• The Supreme Court should suspend the procedural requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before an appeal in the interest of procedural due process and substantial justice, especially since the RTC decision was patently null and void.

• The respondent filed a compliance with the Supreme Court, manifesting that she would no longer be filing any comment in response to the Petition.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Supreme Court should relax the procedural rule under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which requires a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite for appealing a decision in a nullity case.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a foreign national has the legal capacity and personality to file a petition to declare the nullity of his marriage celebrated in the Philippines with a Filipino citizen.

• Procedural:
  • Yes, the Court resolved to disregard the procedural lapse. In the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the Court noted that the notice of appeal was filed within the 15-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration and that the dismissal was based solely on a question of law (lack of legal capacity) rather than the merits. Relaxing the rule was deemed necessary to fully ventilate the claims and ascertain the merits of the case.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the petitioner has both legal capacity and personality to sue. The Court held that the RTC erred in applying the nationality principle from Article 15 of the Civil Code. The correct principle is lex loci celebrationis, as codified in Article 26 of the Family Code. Since the marriage was celebrated in the Philippines, Philippine law governs its validity and all its incidents, including an action for its nullification. Furthermore, Section 2 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC allows a petition for nullity to be filed by "the husband or the wife" without distinguishing as to citizenship. Therefore, the petitioner, as a party to the marriage, is a real party in interest with the legal capacity to file the petition. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings and a judgment on the merits.

• Lex loci celebrationis — This Latin term, meaning "the law of the place of the ceremony," dictates that the validity of a contract, including marriage, is governed by the law of the place where it was executed. The Court applied this principle to rule that since the marriage was celebrated in the Philippines, Philippine law governs all matters relating to its validity and its incidents, including its nullification, regardless of the petitioner's foreign citizenship.
• Nationality Principle — This principle, found in Article 15 of the Civil Code, states that Philippine laws relating to family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity are binding on Filipino citizens, even when they are abroad. The Court held that the RTC misapplied this principle, as it governs Filipino citizens, not foreigners like the petitioner, and does not operate to divest a foreigner of the right to sue in Philippine courts regarding a marriage contracted here.
• Legal Capacity to Sue vs. Legal Personality to Sue — The Court distinguished these two concepts. Legal capacity refers to a plaintiff's general ability to come to court (e.g., not being a minor or incompetent), while legal personality refers to being the real party in interest. The Court found the petitioner had legal capacity as the rules do not disqualify foreigners, and legal personality because his own civil status is directly affected by the outcome of the case.
• Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos — A Latin maxim meaning "where the law does not distinguish, we must not distinguish." The Court invoked this maxim to interpret Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which states that a petition for nullity may be filed by "the husband or the wife." Since the rule makes no distinction between Filipino and foreign spouses, the courts should not impose one.
• Equity Jurisdiction — The Court invoked its inherent power to suspend procedural rules when their strict application would frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. This was the basis for overlooking the petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration before appealing to the Supreme Court.

• "It is a basic rule in statutory construction that where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. No distinction should be made in the application of the law where none has been indicated. Courts can only interpret the law; it cannot read into the law what is not written therein."

• Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera — Cited in the concurring opinion to differentiate the present case. In Pilapil, the foreign spouse was found to lack standing to file an adultery case because he had already obtained a valid divorce decree in his home country, thereby severing the marital bond. In contrast, Ambrose's marriage is presumed valid, giving him standing.
• Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr. — Referenced in the concurring opinion (via Pilapil) to illustrate that a foreign divorce is binding on the foreign spouse, who consequently loses legal standing in the Philippines to act as the husband in matters concerning conjugal property.

• Article 15, Civil Code — The nationality principle. The Court clarified that this article applies to Filipino citizens and was incorrectly used by the RTC to deny the petitioner's legal capacity to sue.
• Article 26, Family Code — This article embodies the principle of lex loci celebrationis for marriages solemnized outside the Philippines. The Court applied the underlying principle to the marriage celebrated within the Philippines, making Philippine law the governing law.
• Article 36, Family Code — The substantive basis for the petitioner's petition for declaration of nullity, which is psychological incapacity.
• A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Section 2(a) — This procedural rule states that a petition for nullity may be filed "solely by the husband or the wife." The Court cited it to show that the rule does not discriminate based on citizenship.
• A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Section 20(1) — The procedural rule requiring a motion for reconsideration before an appeal in nullity cases, which the Court decided to relax in this instance.
• Rule 3, Sections 1 & 2, Rules of Civil Procedure — These sections define who may be parties in a civil action and what constitutes a "real party in interest." The Court used these to affirm that the petitioner had both legal capacity and legal personality to sue.

• Justice Caguioa — He concurred with the ponencia, emphasizing that the petitioner has locus standi precisely because he is a spouse, and the relevant procedural rule (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not distinguish between foreign and Filipino spouses. He reiterated that Article 15 of the Civil Code is irrelevant to the petitioner, a foreigner. He further clarified that the correct doctrine is lex loci celebrationis, meaning Philippine law on marriage nullity applies because the marriage was celebrated in the Philippines.