View full case

MINORU FUJIKI v. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment filed by petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki), a Japanese national, against respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay), his wife. Fujiki and Marinay were married in the Philippines in 2004 but lost contact with each other. Marinay then married another Japanese national, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara), in 2008 without dissolving her first marriage. Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara and reconnected with Fujiki. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan declaring her marriage with Maekara void due to bigamy. Fujiki filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking recognition of the Japanese judgment and the declaration of the bigamous marriage as void.

However, the RTC dismissed the petition on the grounds of improper venue and lack of personality of Fujiki to file the petition. Fujiki sought reconsideration, arguing that the RTC erred in applying A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which only applies to ordinary civil actions for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage and not to special proceedings like a petition for recognition of foreign judgment. Fujiki also argued that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to cases of bigamy as it only allows the husband or wife to file the petition, which would be absurd. Fujiki further argued that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which pertains to the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, is applicable to his case.

The case involves a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment of divorce and the correction of entries in the certificate of marriage. Petitioner Ferdinand Fujiki, a Japanese national, married respondent Rosalind Marina Marinay, a Filipino citizen, in Japan. Subsequently, Fujiki obtained a judgment of divorce from a Japanese Family Court. Fujiki filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to have the divorce decree recognized and to correct the entries in the certificate of marriage. However, the RTC dismissed the petition based on lack of personality to sue and improper venue. The RTC considered Fujiki as a "third person" and deemed the petition as a collateral attack on the validity of Marinay's marriage. The RTC also cited Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, which held that a trial court in a special proceeding for correction of entry has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages. Fujiki filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion in support of Fujiki's petition, arguing that Fujiki, as the injured party, has the standing to sue for the declaration of the bigamous marriage. The Solicitor General also contended that the recognition of the foreign judgment may be done in a Rule 108 proceeding.

The case involves a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a subsequent marriage. The petitioner seeks to have the Japanese Family Court judgment recognized in the Philippines and to cancel the entry of the subsequent marriage in the civil registry. The petitioner argues that the foreign judgment directly affects the civil status of a Filipino citizen and should be proven as a fact in a Rule 108 proceeding. The Solicitor General also argues that there is no jurisdictional infirmity in challenging a void marriage under Rule 108, citing previous cases. The petitioner and the respondent were directed to comment on the petition. The respondent stated that the petitioner concealed her previous marriage and denied any violence towards her. The petitioner, on the other hand, had no reason to oppose the petition and preferred to maintain silence to avoid misunderstandings with her former spouse.

The legal issues raised include the applicability of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, whether a prior spouse can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a subsequent marriage, and whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a Rule 108 proceeding. The Court grants the petition ruling that the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to the petition for recognition of a foreign judgment. The Court explains that the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court, and that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply if the reason behind the petition is bigamy. The Court further explains the process for proving the foreign judgment. Holding that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to the petition for recognition of foreign judgment would require relitigating the case on the merits, defeating the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments. The Court cites a previous case to support this interpretation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.

  2. Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.

  3. Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

RULING:

  1. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country.

  2. A husband or wife of a prior marriage has the personality to file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.

  3. The Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as recognizing a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Recognition of Foreign Judgments Philippine courts can recognize foreign judgments related to the status of a marriage where one party is a foreign citizen, without relitigating the case on the merits.

  • Proof of Foreign Judgment Foreign judgments may be proven as facts under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.

  • Rule on Limited Review A foreign judgment may be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

  • Right to File Petitions A prior spouse has the personality to file petitions to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage and to cancel the entry of such a marriage in the civil registry.

  • Bigamous Marriages Bigamous marriages are void from the beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code and criminalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • Special Proceedings Recognition of foreign judgments can be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

  • Non-Applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC The procedural rules for declarations of nullity of marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC are not applicable in proceedings for the recognition of foreign judgments.

  • Comity of Nations Recognition of foreign judgments as part of the comity of nations, provided they do not violate domestic public policy.

  • Criminal Liability Recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a marriage is without prejudice to criminal prosecution for bigamy.