Will a foreign judgment obtained by a foreign citizen annulling a marriage on the ground of bigamy be

recognized here? This is the issue raised in this case of Marinay.

Marinay was among the many Filipinas who dreamt of working in Japan. The opportunity came when he
met Fujiki a Japanese tourist !isiting the "hilippines. #fter a whirlwind courtship Marinay and Fujiki got
married in "asay $ity. %nfortunately the marriage did not sit well with Fujiki&s parents. Thus Fujiki could
not bring Marinay to Japan when he returned. '!entually they lost contact with each other.
#fter four years Marinay met Maekara another Japanese citizen touring the "hilippines. The two fell in
lo!e with each other and decided to get married. (o without the first marriage being dissol!ed Marinay
and Maekara were married in )uezon $ity. Then Fukuoka brought Marinay to Japan. %nfortunately their
relationship did not last as Marinay left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
Marinay and Fujiki thus met again in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship after Fujiki
took pity on Marinay who told him about the alleged physical abuses inflicted on her by Maekara. #fter
two years of li!ing together again Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan
which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara !oid on the ground of bigamy.
Then when the couple returned to the "hilippines Fujiki filed a petition in the *egional Trial $ourt +*T$,
for Judicial *ecognition of the -ecree of #bsolute .ullity of the Marriage issued by the Japanese Family
$ourt. /e also asked the *T$ to declare the bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara !oid
under #rticles 01 +2, and 23 of the Family $ode +F$, and to direct the )$ $i!il *egistrar to annotate the
foreign judgment on the $ertificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and endorse the same to
the .ational (tatistics 4ffice +.(4,. $an the *T$ grant the petition?
5es. "hilippine courts already ha!e jurisdiction to e6tend the effect of a foreign judgment in the
"hilippines to the e6tent that the foreign judgment does not contra!ene domestic public policy. 7n fact
under #rticle 89 of the F$ a foreign di!orce decree obtained by a foreigner married to a Filipino citizen
is already recognized in this jurisdiction to enable the Filipino to remarry here. #nd there is e!en a critical
difference between the case of a foreign di!orce decree and a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous
marriage because bigamy as a ground for the nullity of marriage is fully consistent with "hilippine public
policy as e6pressed in #rticle 01+2, of the F$ and #rticle 02: of the *e!ised "enal $ode.
This petition can be filed only by the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage and not of the
bigamous marriage. (o it is indeed Fujiki who can file it because the parties in a bigamous marriage
+Maekara and;or Marinay, in this case are neither the <husband= nor the <wife= under the law. The prior
spouse +Fujiki, is clearly the aggrie!ed party as the bigamous marriage not only threatens the financial
and the property ownership aspect of the prior marriage but most of all it causes an emotional burden to
said spouse +Fujiki !s. Marinay et.al. >.*. 3:9?2: June 89 8?30 @?? ($*# 9:,.