Facts:
Gianni, an Italian national, married Thelma, in Italy. Several years later, he filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage against Thelma, alleging that prior to their marriage, Thelma had contracted two prior marriages with Menando and Marco, both of which marriages were still subsisting at the time of the celebration of their marriage.
The RCT dismissed the case, ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint as their marriage was celebrated in Italy. It based its decision on Article 17 of the Civil Code, which provides that the forms and solemnities of the contract will be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. On motion for reconsideration, the RTC ruled that Gianni’s national law governs his marriage with Thelma, and denied his motion.
Gianni thus filed a direct resort to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 to assail the rulings of the RTC.
Issue:
- Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction in petitions for declaration of nullity of void marriages of marriages celebrated abroad involving Filipino nationals.
- Whether or not the foreign spouse has personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage involving a Filipino spouse.
Ruling:
Petition granted.
The RTC has jurisdiction to rule on complaints over declaration of nullity of marriages, pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369, which mandated the establishment of Family Courts, and which included, among its jurisdiction, complaints for annulment of marriage, etc.
Article 17 of the Civil Code as regards marriages pertain to the extrinsic validity of the marriage, meaning the formalities and solemnities required by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. As long as these requirements are met, the marriage is likewise considered valid in the Philippines.
The intrinsic validity or legality of the marriage is a different matter. Article 26 of the Family Code in the last phrase explicitly outlines exceptions to the principle of lex loci celebrationes, including bigamous marriages. Article 35(4) of the Family Code explicitly declares that bigamous marriages are void from the beginning.
Gianni’s action concerns the validity of his marriage with Thelma, a Filipino citizen, which was celebrated in Italy. He seeks to have the marriage declared as void for being bigamous. Thelma being a Filipino citizen, is bound by the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code, which mandates that Philippine laws govern the family rights and duties are binding upon Philippne citizens; thus Philippine courts have jurisdiction to annul a bigamous marriage even if the marriage was celebrated abroad. This aligns with the principle that the intrinsic validity of a marriage, including its legality, must adhere to Philippine law when one r both of parties are Filipino citizens. This approach prevents individuals from circumventing Philippine laws by marrying abroad, and additionally ensures that the family rights and duties of Filipino citizens are consistently applied.
A foreign national has personality to file a declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage with a Filipino spouse. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages provides that a petition for declaration of nullity of a void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. This provision clearly states that only either the husband or the wife may file a petition to declare the marriage void. It is important to note that there is no distinction between Filipino and foreigners regarding who may institute an action for nullity of marriage.
In Fujiki v. Marinay, the Court recognized the legal standing of a Japanese national to file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a subsequent bigamous marriage of his Filipino spouse to another Japanese national.. If a person not a party to the marriage can challenge the bigamous marriage, there is no reason to foreclose Gianni’s action to nullify his alleged bigamous marriage with Thelma, as his legal standing is further justified as the present action pertains to his civil status, condition, and legal capacity. Is he is indeed the unsuspecting victim of a bigamous marriage, he must be given an opportunity to seek redress and have the marriage declared null and void, thereby restoring his legal capacity to enter into a valid marriage in the future. Moreover, recognizing Gianni’s right to file the Complaint upholds the principle of justice and fairness. It ensures that individuals are not left without recourse when they are deceived into entering a marriage that is fundamentally flawed and legally untenable.
Considering that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, however, the case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.