Fujiki vs. Marinay

A petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to marital status does not require a re-litigation of the case but only proof of the judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court; it is a special proceeding, not a civil action for declaration of nullity governed by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and the spouse of the prior subsisting marriage has the legal personality to file such a petition.

Petitioner Minoru Fujiki, a Japanese national, married respondent Maria Paz Marinay, a Filipino, in the Philippines in 2004. Due to family objections, they lived separately and eventually lost contact. In 2008, Marinay, without dissolving her first marriage, married another Japanese national, Shinichi Maekara, in Quezon City. After allegedly suffering abuse from Maekara, Marinay reconnected with Fujiki in Japan. In 2010, with Fujiki's help, Marinay obtained a judgment from a Japanese family court declaring her marriage to Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. Fujiki then sought to have this foreign judgment recognized in the Philippines to nullify the bigamous marriage under Philippine law and to correct the civil registry.

• Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Japanese) and respondent Maria Paz Marinay (Filipino) were married in the Philippines on January 23, 2004.
• Fujiki could not bring Marinay to Japan, and they eventually lost contact.
• On May 15, 2008, Marinay married another Japanese national, Shinichi Maekara, in Quezon City, without her first marriage to Fujiki being dissolved.
• Marinay later reconnected with Fujiki in Japan after allegedly suffering physical abuse from Maekara.
• In 2010, Fujiki assisted Marinay in obtaining a judgment from a Japanese family court which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void due to bigamy.
• On January 14, 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC of Quezon City for the "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)."
• The RTC summarily dismissed the petition, ruling that under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, only the husband or wife of the marriage sought to be nullified (i.e., Marinay or Maekara) could file the petition, and that venue was improperly laid.

• The petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is a special proceeding, not a civil action for declaration of nullity, and thus A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is inapplicable.
• As the husband of the prior, subsisting marriage, he is the interested party with legal personality to have the subsequent bigamous marriage declared void to protect his own marital status and rights.
• Applying Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC to bigamy cases is absurd because it would only permit the guilty parties to file the suit.
• The proper procedural vehicle is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which allows any interested person to file a petition for the correction of entries in the civil registry, such as the annotation of a foreign judgment.
• The RTC erred in dismissing the case motu proprio on the ground of improper venue, as venue can be waived and is not a basis for dismissal without a motion from the defendant.

• The public respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), agreed with the petitioner, arguing that Fujiki is an injured party who can sue to declare the bigamous marriage void and that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to bigamy cases.
• The OSG contended that the petition to recognize the foreign judgment could be filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
• Respondent Maria Paz Marinay submitted a letter stating she had no reason to oppose the petition.
• Respondent Shinichi Maekara submitted a letter claiming Marinay had concealed her prior marriage from him and denied inflicting any violence on her.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable to a petition for judicial recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a marriage.
  • Whether a foreign judgment nullifying a marriage can be recognized in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the husband of a prior marriage has legal standing (personality to sue) to file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment that nullified the subsequent bigamous marriage of his spouse to another person.

• Procedural:
  • No, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not applicable. A petition to recognize a foreign judgment is a special proceeding that seeks to establish the foreign judgment as a fact. It does not re-litigate the merits of the marriage's nullity. Applying the rule would defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments, which is to limit repetitive litigation.
  • Yes, the foreign judgment can be recognized in a proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 108 is the remedy to rectify facts recorded in the civil registry, and the recognition of a foreign judgment that affects a person's civil status is a fact that must be recorded.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, Fujiki has the legal personality to file the petition. As the husband in the prior subsisting marriage, he is a real party in interest whose marital status, rights, and property interests are directly affected by the subsequent bigamous marriage. The Court clarified that the term "husband or the wife" in Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, in the context of a bigamy case, refers to the spouses of the valid, pre-existing marriage, as the parties to the bigamous union are not legally husband and wife.

• Recognition of Foreign Judgment — This principle requires that for a foreign judgment to be given effect in the Philippines, it must be proven as a fact before a Philippine court. The court's review is limited; it does not re-examine the merits but only checks for want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. The Court ruled that Fujiki's petition was precisely for this purpose and not to re-litigate the nullity of the second marriage.
• Lex Nationalii (Nationality Principle) — Embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, this doctrine states that laws relating to family rights, duties, status, and legal capacity are binding on Filipino citizens, even when they are abroad. The Court invoked this to explain why a foreign judgment affecting the civil status of a Filipino citizen (Marinay) must be recognized by a Philippine court to be effective in the Philippines.
• Real Party in Interest — This doctrine, under Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, requires that an action must be prosecuted in the name of the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment. The Court applied this to establish Fujiki's standing, identifying him as the "injured spouse" from the prior marriage whose rights are violated by the bigamous second marriage.
• Comity of Nations — This refers to the practice by which courts in one jurisdiction will apply the laws and judicial decisions of another. The Court cited this as the basis for recognizing foreign judgments by default, provided they do not contravene overriding public policy and are not tainted by extrinsic grounds for being repelled.

• "The latter is clearly the aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only threatens the financial and the property ownership aspect of the prior marriage but most of all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse. The subsequent marriage will always be a reminder of the infidelity of the spouse and the disregard of the prior marriage which sanctity is protected by the Constitution."

• Juliano-Llave v. Republic — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (limiting who may file for nullity) does not apply in cases of bigamy, and that the "injured spouse" from the prior marriage has the standing to sue.
• Corpuz v. Santo Tomas — Referenced to support the conclusion that recognition of a foreign judgment affecting marital status (in that case, divorce) may be done through a special proceeding under Rule 108 for correction of entries in the civil registry.
• Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City — Distinguished by the Court. The RTC relied on this case to rule that a Rule 108 proceeding cannot nullify a marriage. The Supreme Court clarified that Braza is inapplicable because it did not involve the recognition of a pre-existing foreign judgment but was an improper attempt to use Rule 108 as a direct action for nullity.
• Republic v. Orbecido — Cited to illustrate the principle of avoiding the absurd situation where a Filipino spouse remains married to a foreign spouse who is no longer married to them under foreign law. The Court applied this principle by analogy to the nullity of a bigamous marriage.
• Mijares v. Rañada — Referenced to explain the policy of limited review for foreign judgments, which is to prevent re-litigation on the merits and to promote efficiency and finality.

• A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages) — The Court ruled this was inapplicable to a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment.
• Rule 108, Rules of Court (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) — Identified as the proper special proceeding for seeking the annotation of a recognized foreign judgment on the civil register.
• Rule 39, Section 48, Rules of Court (Effect of foreign judgments or final orders) — This rule was the basis for the Court's explanation that a foreign judgment is considered presumptive evidence of a right and can only be repelled on specific extrinsic grounds.
• Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, Rules of Court (Proof of official record) — Cited as the procedural mechanism for proving the foreign judgment as a fact in a Philippine court.
• Article 15, Civil Code (Lex Nationalii) — Invoked to establish the Philippine state's interest and jurisdiction over the status of its citizen, Marinay.
• Article 35(4), Family Code — Cited as the substantive basis for declaring bigamous marriages void ab initio, demonstrating that the Japanese judgment is consistent with Philippine public policy.