TUASON VS. CA G.R NO. 116607; APRIL 10, 1996 FUJIKI VS. MARINAY G.R NO.
FUJIKI VS. MARINAY G.R NO. 196049; JUNE 26, 2013
DOCTRINE: A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy; it is allowed only in
exceptional cases where there is no other available remedy. When a party has another remedy
available to him and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
from filing such motion, he cannot avail himself of this petition.
Also, the role of the prosecuting attorney in annulment of marriage and legal separation
proceedings is to determine whether collusion exists between the parties and to take care that the
evidence is not suppressed or fabricated. Petitioner’s opposition to the annulment proceedings
negates the conclusion that collusion existed between the parties.
FACTS: In 1972 respondent Victoria Tuazon married petitioner Emilio Tuazon. Due to physical
abuse, use of prohibited drugs, cohabitating with three women, leaving the conjugal home, and
giving minimal child support, respondent filed a petition for annulment of marriage in 1989 on the
ground of psychological incapacity.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: After respondent filed for annulment, petitioner filed his Opposition in
1990 and was scheduled to present his evidence. However, petitioner failed to appear. The trial
court rendered judgment declaring the nullity of marriage and awarding the custody of common
children to respondent. No appeal was taken. Thereafter, respondent filed Motion for Dissolution of
Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Adjudication to Plaintiff of the Conjugal Properties, which was
opposed by petitioner. Petitioner filed a Petitioner from Relief of Judgment on the held decision. The
trial court denied the petition which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether or not in the absence of petitioner in the hearing, the court should have ordered a
prosecuting officer to intervene.
RULING: A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy; it is allowed only in exceptional
cases where there is no other available remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him
and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such
motion, he cannot avail himself of this petition. Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who
seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his
own negligence.
Petitioner also insists that he has a valid and meritorious defense, citing Family Code provisions
which provides that in actions for annulment of marriage or legal separation, the prosecuting officer
should intervene for the state. He contends that when he failed to appear at the scheduled
hearings, the trial court should have ordered the prosecuting officer to intervene for the state and
inquire as to the reason for his non-appearance.
The facts in the case at bar do not call for the strict application of the Family Code. For one,
petitioner was not declared in default by the trial court for failure to answer. Petitioner filed his
answer to the complaint and contested the cause of action alleged by private respondent. He
actively participated in the proceedings below by filing several pleadings and cross-examining the
witnesses of private respondent. It is clear that every stage of the litigation was characterized by a
no-holds barred contest and not by collusion.
The role of the prosecuting attorney in annulment of marriage and legal separation proceedings is
to determine whether collusion exists between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not
suppressed or fabricated. Petitioner’s opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the
conclusion that collusion existed between the parties. There is no allegation by the petitioner that
evidence was suppressed or fabricated by any of the parties. Under these circumstances, SC is
convinced that the non-intervention of a prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between
the contending parties is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial court.
FACTS: Petitioner Minoru Fujiki is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela
Marinay in the Philippines in 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents; thus, Fujiki
could not bring his wife to Japan. Eventually, they lost contact with each other. In 2008, Marinay
met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara. Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and
Maekara were married in 2008 at Quezon City. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan; however,
Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact
Fujiki. They met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in
Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. In
2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: “Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or
Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).” RTC dismissed the petition for improper venue and the
lack of personality of petitioner, Fujiki, to file the petition. Fujiki filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the RTC denied upon consideration that Fujiki as a "third person” in the proceeding because
he "is not the husband in the decree of divorce issued by the Japanese Family Court, which he now
seeks to be judicially recognized. The OSG agreed with the petitioner that the RTC’s decision be
set aside.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not 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 or not 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 or not the RTC 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. No. 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. YES. The prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the
marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it. Fujiki has the personality to file a
petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay
and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to
Marinay.
3. YES. The Philippine court can recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes
a case which was already tried and decided under foreign law. Philippine courts already have
jurisdiction to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines to the extent that the foreign
judgment does not contravene domestic public policy. However, the Philippine courts have
jurisdiction to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage, without prejudice to a
criminal prosecution for bigamy.
In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their
judgment on how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family rights
and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity" of the foreign citizen who is a party to the
foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect
of a foreign judgment in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage
involving a citizen of a foreign country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to
the Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code
A.M. 02-11-11-SC; OCA Circular 96-03; Rule 34, Sec. 1; Rule 108; Family Code, Articles 55 to
67