G.R. No.

196049 June 26, 2013

MINORU FUJIKI, PETITIONER,

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, RESPONDENTS.

Facts:

Fujiki married Marina in the Philippines but due to Fujiki’s parents’ disapproval, can’t bring her to Japan.
So Marina married another Japanese Maekara, who brought her to Japan. But Marina allegedly suffered
abuse from Maekara so she left Maekara and made contact with Fujiki in Japan. Marina annulled her
marriage with Maekara in Japan. Now, Fujiki goes to RTC in the Philippines wishing to have the Japanese
judgement annulling Marina-Maekara’s bigamous marriage recognized in the Philippines. The RTC
dismissed his petition, stating that based on Philippine laws, only the husband or the wife of the
annulled marriage could bring the action, so Fujiki, being only a third person has no personality to sue.
Fujiki, in his motion for reconsideration, alleged that the rule cited by the RTC applies only to ordinary
civil actions for annulment of marriage based on Art 36 of the Family Code, but that allegedly it doesn’t
apply to special proceedings for the recognition of a status, to wit: recognition of a foreign judgment
annulling a bigamous marriage. Fujiki also alleges that the RTC cannot just immediately dismiss a case
based on improper venue as this is not a jurisdictional issue. The RTC dismissed Fujiki’s motion for
reconsideration, reiterating its previous ruling that Fujiki has no personality to sue. In addition, RTC
asserts that the validity of a marriage can only be attacked in a direct proceeding, not in a collateral
proceeding as in this case. More so, it appears that Fujiki’s certificate of non-forum shopping is not
authenticated.

Petitioner elevated case to the SC via Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court [on pure
question of law]). SC required Local Civil Registrar and Civil Registrar General of NSO to comment. They
commented thru the Solicitor General. Sol-Gen moves that the petition should be granted, arguing that
the rule which requires “only the husband or the wife” to attack the validity of the marriage does not
apply to a case of bigamy.

Issue: Does a foreigner husband (Fujiki) of a prior and subsisting marriage have a personality to seek
recognition in the Philippine court of a Japanese court’s judgment declaring the nullity of his wife’s
bigamous second marriage?

Ruling: Yes.

In bigamy, anyone can file a case to declare the nullity of the marriage. A fortiori, the injured husband
Fujiki 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.

SC also elucidated that Philippine courts cannot substitute its judgment for the foreign judgement. Phil
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.