De Munari vs. Asprec

A foreign national has standing to seek a judicial declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage contracted abroad with a Filipino citizen, and Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the action because the intrinsic validity of the marriage is governed by Philippine law under the nationality principle, a bigamous marriage being void ab initio as an express exception to the lex loci celebrationis rule under Article 26 of the Family Code.

Gianni De Munari, an Italian citizen residing in the Philippines, married Thelma Asprec, a Filipino citizen, in Italy on December 10, 2011. The marriage was registered at the Philippine Consulate General in Milan. After the wedding, Gianni discovered that Thelma had two prior subsisting marriages: one with Menandro Centeno in 1979 in Bulacan, and another with Marco Picotto in 1991 in Makati City, both men reportedly still alive. No judicial proceeding had nullified either prior marriage at the time Gianni filed his complaint.

• Nature of the Action: Gianni De Munari, an Italian citizen, filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his Filipina wife Thelma Asprec, praying that their marriage be declared void ab initio on the ground of bigamy or, alternatively, that its registration with the Philippine Statistics Authority be cancelled.
• The Marriage Abroad: The parties were married on December 10, 2011 in Italy. Thelma caused the marriage to be registered at the Consulate General of the Philippines in Milan, Italy on December 29, 2011.
• Thelma’s Prior Marriages: Unknown to Gianni at the time of the wedding, Thelma had previously contracted two marriages: (1) to Menandro Centeno on September 2, 1979 in Calumpit, Bulacan, solemnized by Rev. Fr. Francisco Sta Ana; and (2) to Marco Picotto on August 12, 1991 in Makati City before Rev. Dante Cortina. Both prior husbands were alleged to be still alive, and neither of the prior marriages had been judicially declared void.
• RTC’s Dismissal: The RTC dismissed the complaint motu proprio on the ground that the marriage was celebrated in Italy and, under Article 17 of the Civil Code, Philippine courts lacked jurisdiction. The trial court further held that any cancellation of the PSA record should be pursued under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, not through a petition for declaration of nullity. On reconsideration, the RTC added that the outcome might differ had the Filipina spouse been the petitioner.

• Jurisdiction Over Marriage Celebrated Abroad: Petitioner argued that the RTC gravely erred in ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the nullity suit solely because the marriage was contracted in Italy, and in applying Article 17 of the Civil Code, which governs only the form and solemnities of contracts, not the intrinsic validity of marriages.
• Standing of a Foreign Spouse: Petitioner maintained that the RTC further erred in drawing a distinction between the standing of the foreign national husband and the Filipina wife, asserting that the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages allows “the husband or the wife” to file the petition without differentiation as to nationality.

• N/A — The decision does not reflect any responsive pleading or counter-argument filed by Thelma Asprec or the Civil Registrar General. The RTC’s dismissal was issued motu proprio, and no answer had been required before the case was terminated.

• Jurisdiction: Whether a Philippine court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage celebrated abroad between a foreign national and a Filipino citizen.
• Standing of a Foreign Spouse: Whether a foreign national has the legal standing to petition for the declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage contracted abroad with a Filipino spouse.

• Jurisdiction: The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous. Jurisdiction over complaints for declaration of nullity of marriage is conferred by Republic Act No. 8369 (the Family Courts Act), Sections 3, 5, and 17, which grant exclusive original jurisdiction to Family Courts—or, in their absence, to the Regional Trial Court—without qualification as to the place of celebration. Article 17 of the Civil Code embodies the principle of lex loci celebrationis and pertains solely to extrinsic validity (forms and solemnities); it does not govern the court’s jurisdiction. The intrinsic validity of the marriage, specifically the prohibition against bigamy, is governed by Philippine law under the nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code, which binds Filipino citizens to family rights and duties even when living abroad. Article 26 of the Family Code, while recognizing the validity of marriages solemnized abroad in accordance with foreign law, expressly excepts marriages void under Article 35, including bigamous marriages under Article 35(4). Thus, a bigamous marriage involving a Filipino citizen is void ab initio in the Philippines irrespective of its validity where celebrated, and Philippine courts retain jurisdiction to declare such nullity.
• Standing of a Foreign Spouse: A foreign national married to a Filipino citizen possesses both legal capacity and legal personality to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage. Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) permits the petition to be filed solely by “the husband or the wife” without distinguishing between Filipino citizens and foreigners. The foreign spouse is a real party in interest whose civil status, condition, and legal capacity are directly affected by the void marriage. The rule is supported by the public policy against bigamous marriages; if even a non-party has standing to challenge a bigamous marriage, as held in Fujiki v. Marinay, there is no reason to deny standing to the husband or wife of a subsisting marriage. Denying standing would leave the deceived foreign spouse without remedy and would affront principles of justice and fairness.

• Lex loci celebrationis (Article 17, Civil Code and Article 26, Family Code): The principle that the forms and solemnities of a marriage are governed by the law of the country where the marriage is celebrated. It applies only to the extrinsic validity of the marriage. Under Article 26, marriages solemnized abroad are valid in the Philippines if valid under the foreign law, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5), and (6), 36, 37, and 38 of the Family Code. Bigamy, as a vice of intrinsic validity, is an express exception to the rule.
• Nationality principle (Article 15, Civil Code): Laws relating to family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity are binding upon Filipino citizens even when living abroad. A Filipino citizen’s capacity to enter a valid marriage is governed by Philippine law, and a bigamous marriage is void ab initio under Philippine law regardless of where it was contracted.
• Standing of a spouse in nullity suits (Section 2[a], A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and Ambrose v. Suque-Ambrose): The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages allows only the husband or the wife to file the petition. The provision makes no distinction between Filipino citizens and foreigners; where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. A foreign spouse whose marriage is alleged to be bigamous is a real party in interest with both legal capacity and legal personality to sue because the action directly affects his civil status and legal capacity.
• Judicial declaration required for prior void marriage (Article 40, Family Code; Niñal v. Badayog): While a void marriage produces no legal effects, a subsequent marriage cannot be contracted without a final judgment declaring the nullity of the prior void marriage. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage must be based on a judicial decree to that effect.

• “When the marriage is celebrated elsewhere, its validity does not depend fully on foreign law. While accepted in the jurisdiction in which it is celebrated, it may be held invalid in the Philippines when it falls under the instances mentioned in par. 1, Article 26 of the Family Code such as incestuous or bigamous marriages. As well, irrespective of the place of solemnization of marriage, Philippine laws bind the contracting Filipino citizen with respect to ‘family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity’; any controversy arising therefrom would then have to be determined in accordance with the same law.” — The excerpt encapsulates the interplay between lex loci celebrationis and the nationality principle, anchoring the jurisdiction of Philippine courts over intrinsically void marriages involving Filipino citizens.
• “Section 2 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC … is clear in that either of the contracting parties may file a petition to declare the marriage void. 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.” — This passage underscores the rule that standing in nullity suits is not dependent on the nationality of the plaintiff.
• “If a person not party to the marriage can challenge a bigamous marriage, there is no reason to foreclose Gianni's action to nullify his alleged bigamous marriage with Thelma. His legal standing is further justified as the present action pertains to his civil status, condition, and legal capacity.” — This statement applies the reasoning of Fujiki v. Marinay to affirm a foreign spouse’s standing in a direct nullity action.

• Ambrose v. Suque-Ambrose, 905 Phil. 149 (2021) — Followed. The case affirmed that a foreigner has both legal capacity and personality to sue for nullity of marriage under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity and that Philippine law on intrinsic validity applies to Filipino citizens wherever they marry.
• Niñal v. Badayog, 384 Phil. 661 (2000) — Followed. The ruling reiterated that a void marriage produces no legal effects, and its invalidity may be asserted in any proceeding where the fact of marriage is material, but a judicial decree is required under Article 40 of the Family Code.
• Juliano-Llave v. Republic, 662 Phil. 203 (2011) — Followed. Recognized that the rule confining petitions to the husband or wife does not bar the prior spouse from suing when the ground is a bigamous subsequent marriage because the prior spouse is the aggrieved party.
• Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524 (2013) — Followed. The Court’s holding that a foreign national had standing to seek recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage and that the public policy against bigamy grants standing to persons not party to the marriage was extended to a direct action for nullity by a foreign spouse.

• Article 17, Civil Code — The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the law of the country in which they are executed. Here, misapplied by the RTC as a jurisdictional bar; the provision governs only extrinsic validity, not jurisdiction.
• Article 15, Civil Code — Laws relating to family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad. Applied to subject the Filipino spouse’s capacity to the prohibition against bigamy under Philippine law.
• Article 26, Family Code — All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the law of the place of celebration and valid there shall also be valid in the Philippines, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5), and (6), 36, 37, and 38. The bigamy exception deprived the Italian-celebrated marriage of validity in the Philippines.
• Article 35(4), Family Code — Marriages that are bigamous are void from the beginning. Served as the substantive basis for the nullity action.
• Section 5(d) and Section 17, Republic Act No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) — Family Courts possess exclusive original jurisdiction over complaints for declaration of nullity of marriage; where no Family Court exists, the RTC exercises jurisdiction. Conferred jurisdiction on the RTC to entertain the complaint.
• Section 2(a), A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) — A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Applied to recognize the foreign husband’s standing.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred. Inting, J., was on official business.

• N/A — The decision was unanimous among the participating justices; no dissenting opinion was registered.