MINORU FUJIKI vs MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA,

LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR

AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS
OFFICE
G.R. No. 196049

June 26, 2013

The Case
This is a direct recourse to this Court from the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 107, Quezon City, through a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court on a pure question of law.
The Facts
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent
Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004.
The marriage did not sit well with petitioners parents. Thus, Fujiki could not
bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with
each other.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without
the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15
May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan.
However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left
Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their
relationship. 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. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in
the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of
Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the Japanese Family
Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage between
Marinay and Maekara be declared void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41
of the Family Code of the Philippines; and (3) for the RTC to direct the Local
Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese Family Court
judgment on the Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and
to endorse such annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil
Registrar General in the National Statistics Office (NSO).
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
A few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC immediately issued an
Order dismissing the petition and withdrawing the case from its active civil
docket. The RTC cited the following provisions of the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC):

Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

(a) Who may file. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.
xxxx
Sec. 4. Venue. The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province
or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least
six months prior to the date of filing, or in the case of a non-resident
respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the
petitioner. x x x
The RTC ruled, without further explanation, that the petition was in "gross
violation" of the above provisions. The trial court based its dismissal on
Section 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which provides that "[f]ailure to comply
with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate
dismissal of the petition." Apparently, the RTC took the view that only "the
husband or the wife," in this case either Maekara or Marinay, can file the
petition to declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki.
Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He argued that A.M. No. 02-1110-SC contemplated ordinary civil actions for declaration of nullity and
annulment of marriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply. A petition
for recognition of foreign judgment is a special proceeding, which "seeks to
establish a status, a right or a particular fact," and not a civil action which is
"for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of
a wrong." In other words, the petition in the RTC sought to establish (1) the
status and concomitant rights of Fujiki and Marinay as husband and wife and
(2) the fact of the rendition of the Japanese Family Court judgment declaring
the marriage between Marinay and Maekara as void on the ground of
bigamy. The petitioner contended that the Japanese judgment was consistent
with Article 35(4) of the Family Code of the Philippines on bigamy and was
therefore entitled to recognition by Philippine courts.
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following legal 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.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition was granted.
I.
For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of
a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the
petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules
of Court. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign judgment may be
admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and
25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court. Petitioner may
prove the Japanese Family Court judgment through (1) an official publication
or (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the
judgment. If the office which has custody is in a foreign country such as
Japan, the certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consular
officer of the Philippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated by the
seal of office.
There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the
Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay
and Maekara on the ground of bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce
law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent with Philippine
public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning
under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349
of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of the
Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24
and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
II.
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. For the same reason he has the personality to file a petition
under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay and
Maekara in the civil registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese Family
Court.
There is no doubt that 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. There is also no doubt that he is interested in the
cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil registry, which
compromises the public record of his marriage. The interest derives from the
substantive right of the spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, in limited

instances) his most intimate human relation, but also to protect his property
interests that arise by operation of law the moment he contracts marriage.
III.
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.
For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign
judgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the Philippines;
and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to
repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither
inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment,
Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part
of the comity of nations.

VALERIO E. KALAW vs. ELENA FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. 166357

September 19, 2011

FACTS

Tyrone Kalaw and respondent Malyn Fernandez met in 1973 and

eventually married in Hong Kong in 1976. They have 4 children. Tyron had an
affair with Jocelyn Quejano, who gave birth to a son in 1983. In 1985, Malyn
left the conjugal home and her 4 children with Tyrone. Then Tyrone started
living with Jocelyn, who bore him 4more children. Nine years since the de
facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage based on Article 36. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Gates,
and a Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Healy, to testify on Malyns psychological
incapacity. Dr. Gates explained on the stand that the factual allegations
regarding Malyns behavior her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing,
and her frequent nights-out with friends may reflect a narcissistic
personality disorder (NPD). Malyns NPD is manifest in her utter neglect of
her duties as a mother. Dr. Gates based her diagnosis on the facts revealed
by her interviews with Tyrone, Trinidad Kalaw (Tyrones sister-in-law), and
their son. Fr. Healy characterized Malyns psychological incapacity as grave
and incurable. He based his opinion on his interview with Tyrone, the trial
transcripts, as well as the report of Dr. Dayan, Malyns expert witness. He
clarified that he did not verify the truthfulness of the factual allegations
regarding Malyns habits because he believed it is the courts duty to do
so.
ISSUE
Whether or not the marriage was void on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
HELD
NO. The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party, based on his or her
actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that completely
disables him or her from understanding and discharging the essential
obligations of the marital state. The psychological problem must be grave,
must have existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.
Petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from
psychological incapacity. He presented the testimonies of two supposed
expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the

alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently

proven. Petitioners experts heavily relied on petitioners allegations of
respondents constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going
out with friends, adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioners experts
opined that respondents alleged habits, when performed constantly to the
detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother
and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of NPD.
But petitioners allegations, which served as the bases or underlying
premises of the conclusions of his experts, were not actually proven. In fact,
respondent presented contrary evidence refuting these allegations of the
petitioner. What transpired between the parties is acrimony and, perhaps,
infidelity, which may have constrained them from dedicating the best of
themselves to each other and to their children. There may be grounds for
legal separation, but certainly not psychological incapacity that voids a
marriage.
G.R. No. 166357

January 14, 2015

Petitioner, on the ruling of the Supreme Court on the above case,

subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. Hence, the reversal of the
previous ruling of the Supreme Court:
The Court in granting the Motion for Reconsideration held that
Fernandez was indeed psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the
previously set forth guidelines with regard to this case.
The Court held that the guidelines set in the case of Republic v. CA
have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance
practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of
certain rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly
and too literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the drafters
to adopt its enacted version of less specificity obviously to enable some
resiliency in its application. In the task of ascertaining the presence of
psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts,
which are concededly not endowed with expertise in the field of psychology,
must of necessity rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform
themselves on the matter, and thus enable themselves to arrive at an
intelligent and judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for the malady of
being grave, antecedent and incurable demand the in-depth diagnosis by
experts.
The Court also held that the courts must accord weight to expert
testimony on the psychological and mental state of the parties in cases for
the declaration of the nullity of marriages, for by the very nature of Article 36
of the Family Code the courts, despite having the primary task and burden
of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as

decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental

temperaments of the parties.
The fact that the respondent brought her children with her to her
mahjong sessions did not only point to her neglect of parental duties, but
also manifested her tendency to expose them to a culture of gambling. Her
willfully exposing her children to the culture of gambling on every occasion of
her mahjong sessions was a very grave and serious act of subordinating their
needs for parenting to the gratification of her own personal and escapist
desires. The respondent revealed her wanton disregard for her childrens
moral and mental development. This disregard violated her duty as a parent
to safeguard and protect her children.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL

OLAVIANO MOLINA,
G.R. No. 108763

February 13, 1997

FACTS

Roridel and Reynaldo got married in 1985 in Manila. During the early
years of their marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility, observed from his tendency to spend time with his friends
and squandered money with them, his dependency from his parents for
financial aid and dishonesty in matters involving finances. Roridel became
the sole breadwinner of the family. She then resigned her job in Manila and
went to Baguio. Reynaldo left her and their child a week later. The couple is
separated in fact for more than 3 years.
Roridel filed a petition to have their marriage void under Article 36,
citing Reynaldo's psychological incapacity. She presented evidence consisted
of her own testimony, of her two friends, a social worker and a psychiatrist.
Reynaldo did not present any evidence and appeared only during the pretrial. The RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage void. Solicitor
General appealed to the CA. CA denied the appeals and ruled in favor of the
trial court.

ISSUE
Whether or not opposing or conflicting personalities constitute psychological
incapacity.
RULING
No. There is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect
spoken of is an incapacity; but appears to be more of a difficulty, if not
outright refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital
obligations. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting
personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.
The Court, in this case, promulgated guidelines in the interpretation
and application of Article 36 of the Family Code: 1) The burden of proof to
show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff; 2) the root cause of PI
must be (a) medically or clinically identified (b) alleged in the complaint (c)
sufficiently proven by experts (d) clearly explained in the decision; 3) it must
be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage; 4) it must be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable; 5) it must be grave enough to
bring about the disability of the party to assume the marital obligations of
marriage; 6) the marital obligations must be embraced by Articles 68 to 71,
and Articles 220, 221 and 225 in regard of parents and their children; 7)
interpretation by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of Catholic of
Church of the Philippines, although not binding, should be given great

respect; and 8) the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General
must appear as counsel for the State.