You are on page 1of 2

1.

Does a foreigner husband of a prior and subsisting marriage have a personality


to seek recognition in the Philippine court of a Japanese courts judgment
declaring the nullity of his wifes bigamous second marriage? (Fujiki case)

Yes. In bigamy, anyone can file a case to declare the nullity of the marriage. A fortiori,
the injured husband of the prior and subsisting marriage has a right to file the case.
Therefore, he has personality to sue in the Philippines for the protection of his right.
After all, bigamy is also against public policy in the Philippines.

Supreme Court also elucidated that Philippine courts cannot substitute its judgment for
the foreign judgement. Philipine court can only rule on whether to enforce such foreign
judgment based on external grounds (collusion, lack of notice, etc). However, the
foreign judgement must be proven as a fact under Rule 132 in relation to Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court. Hence, Supreme Court grants the petition. The RTC is ordered to
reinstate the petition for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

2. whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens
the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign
divorce decree. (corpus case)

No. Only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision. But the foreign
divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the party with legal
interest to petition for its recognition in this jurisdiction. Now, Corpuz attached the
Canadian divorce decree, but he failed to attach a copy of the Canadian divorce law.
Instead of dismissing the case, the Supreme Court chose to remand the case to the
RTC, to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce
law. The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108
(cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry) proceeding itself, as the object
of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to
establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by which the
applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of
jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of
law or fact.

3. Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating
him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine
law? (Obrecido case)

Yes. He is covered by the spirit of the statute. However, Orbecido failed to attach a copy
of the divorce decree and a copy of the American divorce law. He who alleges must
prove his allegations, more so in this case, considering that Philippine courts do not
take judicial notice of foreign laws. Foreign laws have to be proven as a fact here.
Having failed to do so, Petitioner Republics petition is granted, and the RTC decision is
set aside.

4. Renvoi Doctrine. Decedents national law provides that he law of the domicile
shall apply. (Aznar case)

Phil. law shall apply. There are two rules in California on the matter, the internal law
which will apply to Californian citizens domiciled in California and the conflicts rule
which will apply to Californian citizens domiciled in other states which states that If
there is no law to the contrary in the placed where personal property is situated, it is
deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the law of his domicile.

As the domicile of the deceased who was citizen of California was the Phil., the validity
of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child of the latters
legacy should be governed by the Phil. law. Therefore Helens legacy shall be
increased.

5. Renvoi Doctrine not applicable. (Bellis case)

Renvoi doctrineis not applicable because the decedent is a resident and citizen of Texas
at the time of his death. Renvoi can be applied only if the decedent is a citizen of one
country but a resident in another at the time of his death. So that even if Texas has a
conflict rule regarding successional right the same would not result in a reference back
to Phil. law but would still refer to Texas Law.