CONFLICT OF LAWS

In relation to:
Marriage and Divorce
Submitted to:
Dean Ulpiano Sarmiento III

Submitted by:
GROUP 2
Leonado, Karla
Golez, Samantha
Dela Cruz, Reina Del
Caponpon, Allyza
Pastolero, Venice
Salvador, Patricia
Garado, Donn
Kubaron, Ken
 Marriage Conflict of Laws

Q: When do conflicts of laws arise in marriage cases?

A: It usually arises due to the presence of a foreign element. This foreign element may
appear in a situation where the marriage is celebrated abroad and this marriage is
sought to be recognized in another jurisdiction. It may also appear in situations where
the parties to the marriage are citizens or nationals of different states such that their
capacity to contract marriages is governed by their national laws.

Full Faith and Credit

Q: Are marriages celebrated outside the Philippines valid and binding?

A: Yes, they are. It is only when they violate public policy or contravene our prohibitive
laws that they are void. The Philippines gives full faith and credit to marriages
celebrated abroad as a matter of comity with other nations

Q: How do we determine if a foreign marriage is valid?

A: Courts usually look to the compliance by the parties of the requirements of foreign
laws. If a marriage is valid in the place of celebration, it must be valid in the Philippines.
Validity is adjudged according to the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated.
The reason for this rule is the predictability and the interstate order arising from society's
interest in marriage.

US v. Jarvison

Q: Andy and Luis, both Filipino citizens, got married in Las Vegas and the
minister was Bee, their common friend who set them up together. Bee was
ordained to officiate weddings online through BecomeAMinisterToday.org which
was allowed in Las Vegas. The couple followed all the essential and formal
requisites of marriage. After a year their marriage turned sour. Now, Andy
contends that the said marriage was not valid under the Philippine law since the
minister has no authority. Is her contention correct?
No, her contention is incorrect. According to Article 26 of the Family Code of the
Philippines, a marriage celebrated abroad is valid in the Philippines provided that the
same is also valid in the place where it was celebrated. Also, in the case of US vs.
Jarvison, the court first examined what law would apply to the question of a marriage
between two. In this case, both the essential and formal requisites of marriage were
followed. Hence, the marriage between Andy and Luis is valid.

Cook v. Cook

Q:Jojo and Gigi are first cousins. They got married in Virginia where marriage
between first cousins is allowed. Is the said marriage valid in the Philippines?

A: No, the marriage will not be recognized in the Philippines. In the case of Cook vs.
Cook, the court made a conflict-of-law analysis, the authorities considered the
legislature's express statutory enactments as to whether a particular out-of-state
marriage is valid or void in Arizona.Section 1, Article 38 of the Family Code prohibits
marriage of relatives up to the fourth civil degree. Even if the laws in Virginia allow the
same, it will not be valid in the Philippines. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that
Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Hence,
such marriage is not valid in the Philippines.

Validity of Marriage Consulates | In Re: Marriage of Antonia R. Medina 2019 WL

72112282 (No. Mariana 2019)

Q: Gabbie and Frankie, both Filipino, were wed in a marriage ceremony officiated
by Consul Zac Francis on May 20, 2015 at the Philippine Consulate in Rome, Italy.
Gabbie returned home to the Philippines while Frankie stayed in Rome. 2 years
later, Frank married Taylor, an American woman, in San Francisco. In 2020,
Frankie unfortunately died due to COVID. Taylor was then informed of the
marriage of Frankie to Gabbie as the latter was claiming the body of Frankie since
she wanted him to be buried in the Philippines. Gabbie then filed a petition for
declaratory judgment before the court of Rome. Is the marriage ceremony
performed in a foreign consulate, which is not in compliance with local law, valid
and enforceable?

A: No, it is not. According to the case of In Re: Marriage of Antonia R. Medina, the court
held that the validity of marriages performed by foreign consuls depends on local laws.
A marriage that does not conform to the laws of the country or state in which it was
performed generally is voidable and may be declared void by appropriate authority,
usually a court in the jurisdiction where the marriage occurred.

Marriages not Subject of Recognition | Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584

(2015)

Q: Aya and Yannie are both Filipinas who became US Citizens residing in the
state of Nebraska. Even though they became US citizens, they were able to retain
their Filipino citizenship. They then got married in California, however, their home
state Nebraska refused to recognize their marriage. The couple then filed a
lawsuit against the state of Nebraska to have their out-of-state marriage be
recognized, invoking the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Obergefell v.
Hodges that requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and
to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.

a. Is the contention of Aya and Yannie to have their marriage be recognized

by the State of Nebraska correct?
b. Suppose the couple decided to come home to the Philippines, will the
country recognize their marriage abroad?

A:
a. Yes, the contention of Aya and Yannie is correct. The Supreme Court ruled in the
case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to
same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In this case, Aya and
Yannie’s marriage should be recognized by their home state Nebraska because
the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges requires all fifty states of the United States to
perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms
and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples and Nebraska is part of
the fifty states. Hence, the contention of Aya and Yannie to have their marriage
be recognized by the State of Nebraska is correct.

b. No, Aya and Yannie’s marriage will not be recognized. The Philippines give full
faith and credit to conventions and contracts performed abroad, however, the
same is true only when the acts and contracts do not violate public policy or
prohibitive laws. One of the exceptions to the general rule of validity to marriages
celebrated abroad is same-sex marriages. In this case, Aya and Yannie’s
marriage falls under the same-sex marriages which shall not be recognized in the
Philippine jurisdiction for reasons that the Philippines is still sticking to the
 time-honored definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Hence, Aya and Yannie’s marriage will not be recognized in the Philippines.

Civil Unions | Langan v. St. Vincent’s Hosp. of N.Y., 802 N.Y. App. Div. 2005

Q. Neil Conrad Spicehandler and John Langan were a same-sex couple who
entered into a civil union in November 2000 in Vermont. Conrad met an accident
in New York and was brought to St. Vicent’s Hospital of New York where he
subsequently died. John sued the hospital for wrongful death. The defendant
hospital moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff had no standing as a
surviving spouse to institute the present action. The Supreme Court denied the
motion and the plaintiff appealed. Does the plaintiff have standing as a surviving
spouse to sue the defendant hospital for wrongful death?

A. No, the plaintiff is not a surviving spouse and cannot sue the defendant hospital for
wrongful death. The Estates Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) 5-4.1 provides that “The
personal representative, duly appointed in this state or any other jurisdiction, of a
decedent who is survived by distributees may maintain an action to recover damages
for a wrongful act, neglect of default which caused the decedent’s death”. EPTL. 4-1.1
provides that distrubutees includes surviving spouse.

In the Matter of Cooper, it held that the “surviving spouse” did not include same-sex life
partners. It was concluded that homosexual marriages do not give rise to any rights…
pursuant to… EPTL 5-1.1 and that no constitutional rights have been abrogated or
violated in so holding.

Moreover, in the case of Baker v. State, the Vermont Legislature expressly declined to
place civil unions and marriage on an identical basis. Even with the U.S. Supreme Court
upholding the validity of same-sex marriages, it may not affect the validity of the ruling in
this case, since Langan involved a same-sex union and not same-sex marriage. Hence,
the relationship of the parties in same-sex unions is still governed by the law creating
their union, which does not grant the parties the same relationship as husband and wife.

Divorce and Public Policy | Tenchavez v. Escano., 15 SCRA 355 (1965) G.R. No.
L-19671, November 29, 1965

Q. Plaintiff Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escano were married on February 24,
1948 in Cebu City. Their relationship subsequently became strained. Vicenta went
to the United States and filed a complaint for divorce on August 22, 1950 before a
court in the State of Nevada. The complaint was granted and an absolute decree
of divorce was issued on October 21, 1950. Vicenta subsequently married an
American, Russell Leo Moran, and acquired American citizenship on August 8,
1958.

Tenchavez filed a complaint for legal separation and damages against Vicenta,
her parents, and the Catholic Church before the CFI. In her defense, Vicenta
presented the decree of divorce issued by the Nevada court. The CFI decided to
deny Tenchavez’s plea for legal separation so he appealed to the Supreme Court.
Whether the divorce issued by a Nevada court can be recognized in our
jurisdiction?

No, the divorce issued by a Nevada court cannot be recognized in our jurisdiction. It is
clear from the record that the valid marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta
Escaño remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippines law, notwithstanding the
decree of absolute divorce that the wife sought and obtained on 21 October 1950 from
the Second Judicial District Court of Washoe Country, State of Nevada, on grounds of
“extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character.”

At the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta, like her husband, was still a Filipino
citizen. She was then subject to Philippine law, and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, already in force at the time which provides that “Laws relating to family
rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.” Here, at the time the
divorce decree was issued, Vicenta, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. She
was then still subject to Philippine law, which does not admit absolute divorce.

Divorce and Public Policy

Q: Is a foreign decree of divorce obtained abroad valid in the Philippines?

A: No, it is not. According to the Civil Code, courts are mandated not to recognize
judgments issued by foreign courts nor to laws and conventions promulgated in foreign
countries when to do so would violate the public policy of our government. Since divorce
law is not present in the Philippines, the foreign decree would not be valid here
 Limited Recognition of Divorce | Van Dorn v. Romillo, 139 SCRA 139 (1985)

Q: Yor and Loid were married in Hong Kong in 1972 and were divorced in Nevada,
United States, in 1982. Following the divorce, Loid remarried in the United States,
while Yor remained in the Philippines. Loid filed suit against Yor before the RTC
of Pasay City for accounting of Yor's business, the Coco Shop, alleging the same
to be conjugal property. Yor moved to dismiss on the basis of the bar by previous
judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court where Loid
acknowledged that they had no conjugal property. Is Yor’s contention correct?

A: Yes. Yor’s contention is correct. According to the decision in Van Dorn v. Romillo,
owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine
nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being
considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are
valid according to their national law. In the case at the bar, the divorce in Nevada
released Loid from the marriage according to American law, which states that divorce
dissolves the marriage. Thus, Loid would have no standing to sue Yor to exercise
control over conjugal assets. He was bound by the decision of his own country’s Court,
which validly exercised jurisdiction over him. Hence, Yor is correct that Loid's claim is
already barred.

Limited Recognition of Divorce | San Luis v. San Luis, 514 SCRA 294 (2007)

Q: Benjamin San Luis was the former governor of the Province of Rizal. He
contracted three marriages. His first was with Megan Santos on March 17, 1942,
out of which were born six children, but Megan died in 1963. On May 1, 1968, He
married Vicky Lee for Divorce in the State of Hawaii which issued a Decree
Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody on December 14, 1973.
On June 20, 1974, He married Mina Salcedo and they had no children, but they
lived together for 18 years until his death on December 18, 1992. Mina filed a
letter of administration with RTC Makati to seek the dissolution of their conjugal
partnership assets and the settlement of Benjamin's estate. Rodolfo (Benjamin’s
son from his first wife) filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper venue
and failure to state a cause of action. Further claimed that Mina has no legal
personality to file the petition because she was only a mistress of his father
because, at the time of death, he was still married to his second wife. Mina
presented the evidence that prove the marriage of Benjamin to Vicky had already
been dissolved. And she claimed that Benjamin had the capacity to marry her by
virtue of par. 2 Article 26 of the Family Code. Was the divorce obtained by Vikcy in
Hawaii could be recognized in our jurisdiction?

A: Yes, the divorce obtained by Vicky in Hawaii is recognized in our jurisdiction. As

decided in the case of San Luis v. San Luis, paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to
the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. The Court held therein that a divorce decree
validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the
Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. In the case at bar, the
divorce decree allegedly obtained by Vikcy which explicitly authorized Benjamin to
remarry, would have given Mina the legal standing to file the present case as
Benjamin's surviving spouse. Hence, Vikcy's divorce from Hawaii is recognized in our
jurisdiction.

Limited Recognition of Divorce |Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116

Q: Ann Salazar (Salazar), a Filipino Citizen, and Frank Schmidt (Schmidt), a

German Citizen married in Germany on Jan 10, 2010. While their marriage had a
great start, marital discord would set in leading to separation, and eventually,
Salazar would file for divorce after 3 years of marriage on Jan 1, 2013. The
divorce decree was promulgated 14 days later on the round of failure of the
marriage of the spouses. Schmidt, on the other hand, filed two complaints for
adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila on July 27, 2013, alleging that, Salazar
had affairs with two different men while the marriage was still ongoing. Can
Schmidt, file a case of adultery against Salazar, despite their divorce being final?

A: No. Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery, as well as
four other crimes against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written
complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long since been established, with
unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely
a formal, requirement. Schmidt, being no longer the husband of Salazar , had no legal
standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended
spouse at the time he filed suit.

Limited Recognition of Divorce |(Roehr vs. Rodriguez,G.R. No. 142820 )

Q; Lucas Meyer (Meyer), a German citizen and Anna Sanchez (Sanchez), a
Filipino, married in Germany in 1980. By 1996, Sanchez filed a petition for a
declaration of nullity of marriage in the RTC and in response, Meyer filed a motion
to dismiss but was denied. He successfully obtained a divorce decree from the
Court of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese in 1997. Afterward, Meyer filed a
Second Motion to Dismiss on 1999 on the ground that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or suit as a decree of divorce
had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and
private respondent. It was granted by the Trial Court.
Sanchez filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer that the case
proceed for the purpose of determining the issues of custody of children and the
distribution of the properties between petitioner and private respondent. Can a
trial court reopen a case for the purpose of tackling the issues of property
relations of the spouses as well as support and custody of their children, despite
the obtainment of a divorce decree from the German Court?

A: Yes. As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are
recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and
support of the children, must still be determined by our courts. Before our courts can
give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to
petitioner by the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the
judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule
39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court.

In the present case, it cannot be said that Sanchez was given the opportunity to
challenge the judgment of the German court so that there is basis for declaring that
judgment as res judicata with regard to the rights of Meyer to have parental custody of
their two children. The proceedings in the German court were summary. The divorce
judgment was issued by virtue of the German Civil Code provision to the effect that
when a couple lived separately for three years, the marriage is deemed irrefutably
dissolved. The decree did not touch on the issue as to who the offending spouse was.
Absent any finding that Sanchez is unfit to obtain custody of the children, the trial court
was correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine the issue of parental custody,
care, support and education mindful of the best interests of the children.

Right to Remarry after Divorce

Q: Can citizens of the PH whose foreign spouses obtained a divorce abroad
remarry under our laws?

A: Yes, they can. The courts give implicit recognition to the divorce as a way of
equalizing the rights of the Filipino spouse to the foreign spouse who is now freed from
the marital bonds by virtue of the divorce. If this were not the case, the Filipino spouse
will forever be held hostage by the marriage which no longer exists

Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Correction of Entry | Republic vs. Orbecido

(G.R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005)

Q: In 1981, Tanjiro married Lady Muzan in Ozamis City. In 1986, Lady Muzan left
for the United States. A few years later, Tanjiro discovered that his Lady Muzan
had been naturalized as an American citizen and that she obtained a divorce
decree and then married a certain Yorichi. Tanjiro thereafter filed with the court a
petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family
Code. Should Tanjiro be allowed to remarry under Philippine jurisdiction?

A: Yes. In the case of Republic vs. Orbecido, the Court looked at the legal intent of the
provision and found out that the Civil Code Revision Committee’s intent in including
Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation wherein the Filipino spouse is deemed to
remain married to the foreigner when, after obtaining the divorce, the foreigner is no
longer married to the Filipino.

The Court then set the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2, Article 26 as
follows: 1) There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner; and2) A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry.

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of
the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad. Hence,
since Lady Muzan was already an American citizen at the time she obtained the divorce
abroad, Article 26 may be applied to the case.

Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Correction of Entry | Corpuz vs. Sto, Tomas
(G.R. No. 186571 August 11, 2010)

Q: Eren was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through
naturalization. He married, Historia, a Filipina however later filed a petition for
divorce for his first wife since he discovered that she was having an affair. Two
years after the divorce, Eren found another Filipina to love named Mikasa and
desired to marry her so he registered the Canadian divorce decree in the Civil
Registry Office. However, he was informed that despite the registration of the
divorce decree the marriage between him and his first wife still subsists under
Philippine law and for the divorce decree to be enforceable, it must first be
judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court.

Eren then filed for judicial recognition of foreign divorce however it was denied
by the RTC. Decide whether the court erred in ruling that only the Filipino spouse
can avail of the remedy under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code.

A: No, The court correctly applied the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code. The provision was included in the law to avoid the absurd situation where the
Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no
longer married to the Filipino spouse. The legislative intent is for the benefit of the
Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the
divorce decree. Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code
provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her marriage to the alien
spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry.

Without the second paragraph of Article 26 the judicial recognition of the foreign decree
of divorce would be of no significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do not
recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond. The inclusion of the second
paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code provides the direct exception to this rule and
serves as basis for recognizing the dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino
spouse and his or her alien spouse.

Continuing Liberalization of Divorce |Republic vs. Manalo (G.R. No. 221029

(2018))

Q: Marelyn was married to a Japanese national. She later filed for divorce against
her husband, and a divorce decree was issued by a Japanese court.

In the later year, she sought the cancellation of the entry of marriage in the Civil
Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila by virtue of the said divorce decree. She later
amended her petition for the judicial recognition of the divorce decree. RTC
denied Marelyn's petition, arguing that the divorce obtained by Marelyn in Japan
should not be recognized. The RTC held that based on Article 15 of the New Civil
Code, the Philippine law "does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce
whether they are in the country or living abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or
to foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or in another
country" and that unless Filipinos "are naturalized as citizens of another country,
Philippine laws shall have control over issues related to Filipinos' family rights
and duties, together with the determination of their condition and legal capacity
to enter into contracts and civil relations, inclusing marriages."

Upon appeal, the CA overturned RTC's ruling. CA held that Article 26 of the
Family Code of the Philippines (Family Code) is applicable even if it was Manalo
who filed for divorce against her Japanese husband because the decree may
obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former, capacitating him to
remarry. As such, it would be height of injustice to consider Manelyn as still
married to the Japanese national, who, in turn, is no longer married to her and
can legally have another wife. DECIDE.

A: A Filipino citizen has the capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating a
divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or her alien
spouse who is capacitated to remarry pursuant to the ruling of Republic vs Manalo. As
held by the court, paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code speaks of "a divorce x x
x validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry." Based
on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce
validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse
should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted.
It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in
the foreign divorce proceeding.

The purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the
Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree
that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino
spouse.

A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like
circumstances as a Filipino who is at the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding.
Therefore, the subject provision should not make a distinction. In both instance, it is
extended as a means to recognize the residual effect of the foreign divorce decree on a
Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by operations of their
alien spouses are severed by operation on the latter's national law.

In fact, there is no real and substantial difference between a Filipino who initiated a
foreign divorce proceedings and a Filipino who obtained a divorce decree upon the
instance of his or her alien spouse. In the eyes of the Philippine and foreign laws, both
are considered as Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations in a alien land.
The circumstances surrounding them are alike.

Finally, a prohibitive view of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would do more harm than good. If
We disallow a Filipino citizen who initiated and obtained a foreign divorce from the
coverage of Paragraph 2 Article 26 and still require him or her to first avail of the
existing "mechanisms" under the Family Code, any subsequent relationship that he or
she would enter in the meantime shall be considered as illicit in the eyes of the
Philippine law.

Worse, any child born out such "extra-marital" affair has to suffer the stigma of being
branded as illegitimate. Surely, these are just but a few of the adverse consequences,
not only to the parent but also to the child, if We are to hold a restrictive interpretation of
the subject provision. The irony is that the principle of inviolability of marriage under
Section 2, Article XV of the Constitution is meant to be tilted in favor of marriage and
against unions not formalized by marriage, but without denying State protection and
assistance to live-in arrangements or to families formed according to indigenous
customs.

Although the SC held that a Filipino may initiate divorce against a foreign spouse,
Marelyn's case was still remanded to the RTC to allow Marelyn to present evidence as
proof of the relevant Japanese law on divorce.

Continuing Liberalization of Divorce |Fujiki vs. Marina (G.R. No. 196049

June 26, 2013)

Q: Minoru is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria in the

Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with the petitioner's
parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides.
Eventually, they lost contact with each other.

In 2008, Maria met another Japanese person named Maekara. Without the first
marriage being dissolved, Maria and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in
Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Maria to Japan. However, Maria
allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to
contact Fujiki.

Fujiki and Maria met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship.
In 2010, Fujiki helped Maria obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which
declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of
bigamy.

On 14 January 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 "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment ·(or
Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)" based on improper venue and the lack of
personality of petitioner, Minoru 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. Is RTC’s dismissal proper? Why or why not?

A: NO, 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.