REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, – versus – MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, Respondent.

G.R. NO. 221029

24 April 2018

Facts:

On January 20, 2012, respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for cancellation of
entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment of divorce
rendered by a Japanese court. The petition was later amended and captioned as a petition for
recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.

The petition alleged, among others, that:

Petitioner is previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese national named YOSHIDO MINORO;

Recently, a case for divorce was filed by petitioner in Japan and after due proceeding, a divorce decree
was rendered by the Japanese Court;

The trial court (RTC) denied the petition for lack of merit. In ruling that the divorce obtained by Manalo
in Japan should not be recognized, it opined that, based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code, the
Philippine law “does not afford Filipinos the right to file 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 Filipino family rights and duties,
together with determination of their condition and legal capacity to enter into contracts and civil
relations, including marriages”.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) overturned the RTC decision. It 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 they obtained makes the latter no longer married to the
former, capacitating him to remarry. Conformably with Navarro, et al. v. Exec. Secretary, et al. [663 Phil.
546 (2011)] ruling that the meaning of the law should be based on the intent of the lawmakers and in
view of the legislative intent behind Article 26, it would be the height of injustice to consider Manalo as
still married to the Japanese national, who, in turn, is no longer married to her. For the appellate court,
the fact that it was Manalo who filed the divorce case is inconsequential.

Issue:

Whether a Filipino citizen, who initiated a divorce proceeding abroad and obtained a favorable
judgment against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry, has the capacity to remarry
pursuant to Article 26 (2) of the Family Code.

Ruling:

Yes.

Paragraph 2 of Article 26 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 is rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective measure to
address the anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to
remarry under the laws of his or her country. Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce
proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien
spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a husband or
a wife. A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place and in like circumstance
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 Filipinos whose marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by
operation of the latter’s national law.

There is no real and substantial difference between a Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding
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 Filipinos who have the same rights and obligations
in an alien land. The circumstances surrounding them are alike. Were it not for Paragraph 2 of Article 26,
both are still married to their foreigner spouses who are no longer their wives/husbands. Hence, to
make a distinction between them are based merely on superficial difference of whether they initiated
the divorce proceedings or not is utterly unfair. Indeed, the treatment gives undue favor to one and
unjustly discriminate against the other.

Thus, a Filipino citizen, who initiated a divorce proceeding abroad and obtained a favorable judgment
against his or her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry, has the capacity to remarry pursuant to
Article 26 (2) of the Family Code.

Article 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

1. Those contracted by any party below 18 years of age even w/ consent of parents or guardians
2. Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such
marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the
solemnizing officer had the legal authority so
3. Those solemnized without a license, except those covered by preceding Chapter
4. Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41
5. Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other and
6. Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53

Void Marriages

 That which is not valid from its inception

 Only marriages declared void by legislature should be treated as such
o No other void marriages outside those specifically provided by law
  Petition for declaration of nullity w/o incidental prayers like support deals w/ one cause of
action which is invalidity of marriage from beginning
o Many grounds, only one cause of action (nullity of marriage)

Void and Voidable Marriage

 Void is different from voidable or annullable marriage

 Marriage that is annulled
o Subsists but ceases to have legal effect
 Terminated through court action
 Nullifying a marriage
o Court declares status or condition which already exists from beginning
 Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay
o Voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in direct proceeding while void
marriage can be attacked collaterally
o Void marriages can be question even after death of either party but voidable marriages
can be assailed only during lifetime of parties
 Void marriages can never be ratified or cured by any act of any of contracting parties
o Mallion v. Alcantara
 Petitioner denied nullity of marriage via petition based on psychological
incapacity, filed petition based on absence of marriage license
 Violated rule on splitting-a-cause of action
 Res judicata (Same parties, same subject matter (marriage), same cause
of action (nullity))
 Different grounds is not different cause of action
 Gave more weight to procedure rather than substantial law
 Void marriage invalid from beginning
 SC gave valid effect to an invalid marriage
 Null and void marriage cannot be validated directly and indirectly

Bad Faith or Good Faith in Void Marriages

 Good faith and bad faith are immaterial in determining whether marriage is null and void
o Woman believing in good faith that she married man not related to her will not cure
infirmity
 Can still nullify marriage (incestuous)
o Person marriages w/o license or spurious and does not fall under exceptions
 Marriage void regardless of good or bad faith
o Person knowing he marries his cousin and conceals it
 Marriage is void and can be nullified by cousin or even the one that concealed it
 Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA
o Ground of psychological incapacity to nullify
o Spouses did not engage in sexual intercourse and no finding who of the two refused
 Immaterial because any of parties can file action to declare marriage void
 Equitable doctrine of unclean hands not a rule as applied in nullity action
o Court can grant relief to wrongdoer
  Merely judge-made and no statutory basis
o No injured party in null and void marriages
o Party who knew he or she was entering a void marriage may be held liable for damages
 Two exceptions
o Article 35(2): good faith believing solemnizing officer has authority
o Article 41: spouse that disappeared for 4 or 2 years if he or she: 1) well-founded belief
that spouse is dead; 2) procures judicial declaration of presumptive death; 3) time of
subsequent marriage, good faith together w/ subsequent spouse otherwise subsequent
marriage considered void w/ Art. 44
o Good faith: valid; Bad faith: void

Bad Faith as Affecting Property Disposition

 Good and bad faith at time of marriage ceremony are material

 General rule: in a void marriage, proper regime is one of co-ownership
o Whether one of parties is in bad faith is basic consideration
o Share of party in bad faith in co-ownership forfeited in favor of common children
 In case of default (no child), or waiver by any or all common children or
descendants, to respective surviving descendant
o Shall take place upon termination of cohabitation
 Applies to all void marriage except to subsequent void marriage due to failure of party to get
prior judicial declaration of nullity of previous void marriage
o If subsequent marriage void -> Forfeited in favor of common children -> Children of
guilty spouse by previous marriage -> Innocent spouse

Collateral and Direct Attack

 General rule: void marriage can be collaterally attack

o Nullity of marriage asserted even if not main or principal issue of case
 Inheritance case
o Certain children should get less inheritance because they are illegitimate due to void
marriage of decedent w/ their mother, proof to show nullity of marriage can be
presented
o No need for judicial declaration of nullity
 Not mandatory to show that there was a civil case mainly for purpose of
judicially declaring marriage void
 De Castro v. Assidao-De Castro
o Petitioner filed complaint for support against husband to compel latter to support child
o Husband claimed they were not married
o SC ruled that while case was one of support, lower court can make a declaration
marriage was void to determine rights of child to be supported
 Rejected contention that separate case for judicial declaration of nullity must be
filed
 Three cases were direct attack must be first undertaken on nullity of marriage
o Article 40: Absolute nullity of previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of
remarriage on basis solely of a final judgement declaring such marriage void
  If person has void marriage and wants to remarry, must first file civil case to
obtain judicial declaration of nullity of first marriage
 Only acceptable proof to show voidness is judicial declaration
o Ninal v. Bayadog
 When the validity of marriage is essential to disposition of case, court has to
rule on its validity
o Donor desire to revoke donation propter nuptias (in consideration of marriage) given to
one or both of married couple on ground that marriage is void
 Judicial declaration of nullity of marriage must be obtained

Below 18 years of Age

 Individual below 18 years of age declared by law as not possessing legal capacity to contract
marriage
 Consent of parents immaterial
o Neither can subsequent parental consent can ratify
 14 years male, 12 years female (Spanish Civil Code) -> Puberty; 16 years male, 14 years female
(1950 Civil Code) ->Support family/Level of maturity
o Has been abandoned -> No significant difference as to maturity of male and female of
same age

Non-Authority of Solemnizer

 Enumerated under Art. 7

Good Faith Marriage

 Good faith that solemnizer has authority -> valid

 Putative marriage: marriage solemnized in due form and good faith, but due to legal infirmity is
either void or voidable

No Marriage License

 Marriage license is formal requisite and absence of which makes a marriage void
 Exceptions: Art. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 of Family Code

Bigamous or Polygamous Marriage

 Law prohibits married man or woman from contracting another bond of union while consort is
alive and is therefore bigamous and void
 Exceptions: Art. 41 of Family Code
 First marriage must have been valid.
o If 1st marriage is void and subsequent marriage is contracted w/ prior judicial declaration
of nullity of marriage, subsequent marriage is also void
o Judicial declaration of nullity must be obtained first and recorded w/ LCR

Mistake in Identity

 Mistake in identity is an instance of fraud which makes marriage annullable (Civil Code)
  Under new Family Code, mistake in identity is a ground for nullity of marriage
o Ground goes into very essentials of valid marriage where there is complete absence of
consent, thereby rendering marriage void ab initio
 Only includes situations where there is mistake on part of party seeking nullification as to actual
physical identity
o Does not include mistake in name, character of person, attributes, age, religion, social
standing, pedigree, pecuniary means, temperaments, acquirements, condition in life, or
previous habits

Void under Article 53

 For person whose marriages were annulled or declared null and void, to be able to validly marry
again
o Liquidation, partition and distribution of their properties
o In proper cases, delivery of children’s presumptive legitimes
o Recorded in appropriate civil registry and registries of property
o Non-compliance will render subsequent marriage void

Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party, who at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even
if such incapacity becomes manifested only after its solemnization.

Psychological Incapacity

 Determination is left solely w/ courts on case-to-case basis

o Not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own
facts
 Absence of definition was intentional because situations contemplated by law vary from one
case to another
 Psychological incapacity “to comply with essential marital obligations”
o Not equated to insanity or mental inability to function
 Must be psychological illness afflicting party even before celebration of marriage
o Involves senseless, protracted, and constant refusal to comply w/ essential marital
obligations although physically capable
o Can be very efficient in profession and still be considered as irresponsible person vis-à-
vis married life (not minding family)
 Fact that person loves spouse very much does not matter
o Absolutely indifferent w/ respect to his duties as father
o Wrong to feel affection and love yet totally inhibited to foster the marriage
 Mental disposition
 Refers to “lack of appreciation of one’s marital obligations”
 Insanity can be a good indicator of psychological incapacity, but is not a pre-requisite
 Must be present at time of marriage ceremony but can manifest later on
o Ground to nullify marriage
o Cannot be cured by cohabitations considering that it is void (cannot be ratified)
 Santos v. CA and Bedia-Santos
 o Leouel held rank of 1st Lieutenant of Phil. Army met Julia
 Exchanged vows in MTC of Iloilo
o Love did not last long
 Interference of Julia’s parents
 Quarrel over small things
o Julia left for US on May 18, 1988 to work as nurse
 Promised to return home upon expiration of contract
 Never did return and Leouel can’t find her
o Leouel filed w/ RTC of Negros Oriental “Voiding for Marriage Under Article 36 of Family
Code)
 Julia claims it was petitioner who had been irresponsible and incompetent
 No possible collusion
o Leouel: failure of Julia to return or communicate for more than 5 years can be
considered psychological incapacity
o Question by Judge Diy: Since “insanity” is also a psychological incapacity or mental
incapacity, why is “insanity” only a ground for annulment and not declaration of nullity
 Justice Caguioa: insanity, there is appearance of consent
o There are two interpretations of phrase psychologically or mentally incapacitated
 1st one: vitiation of consent because one does not know consequences of
marriage and if he does know, might not have consented to marriage
o “Canons and Commentaries on Marriage”, incapacity consists of ff.:
 True inability to commit oneself to essentials of marriage
 Inability to render what is due by the contract
 Inability to commit oneself must refer to essential obligations of marriage
 Conjugal act, community of life and love, rendering of mutual help,
procreation, education of offspring
 Inability must be tantamount to psychological abnormality
o Dr. Gerardo Veloso, psychological incapacity must be characterized by
 Gravity
 Juridical antecedence
 Incurability
o Petition denied

Proving Psychological Incapacity

 Psychosomatic and deals w/ state of mind and can only be proven by indicators or external
manifestation
o Manifestations must be clearly alleged in complaint filed in court
 See if husband or wife observe his or her duty as such towards his or her spouse
o Procreation is an essential obligation
o Fear of wife, who is afraid of children, to engage in sexual intercourse is indicator of
psychological incapacity
 Unreasonable attachment to family or barkada such that importance given to spouse is
subordinated is good indicator of psychological incapacity
o Separation or abandonment alone not conclusive proof
 o Sexual infidelity or living adulterous life does not automatically prove psychological
incapacity
 Must be attributed to psychological illness and not physical illness
 Cannot be mere refusal or neglect to comply w/ obligations
o Downright incapacity to perform
o Must be proof of natal or supervening disabling factor
 Mere incompatibility and irreconcilable difference are not enough
 Alleged person to be psychologically incapacitated is a foreigner does not negate existence
of such incapacity
o Formulated on bases of studies of human behavior in general
o Regardless of nationality, norms should apply
 Te v. Te
o Dependent personality disorder, narcissistic and anti-social disorder
 Consistent w/ psychological incapacity
o Expert opinion is decisive evidence and must not be discounted
 Data before and after ceremony and asked to give professional opinion on
party’s mental capacity at time of wedding
o Ability to grasp and assume real obligations of mature, lifelong commitment are
considered necessary prerequisite to valid matrimonial consent
o Ff. elements crucial to marital commitment
 Permanent and faithful commitment to marriage partner
 Openness to children and partner
 Stability
 Emotional maturity
 Financial responsibility
 Ability to cope w/ ordinary stresses and strain of marriage
o Ff. psychic factors that might lead to failure of marriage
 Lack of loyalty to persons or sense of moral values (anti-social personality)
 Hyperesthesia (no freedom of sexual choice)
 Personal responses consistently fall short of reasonable expectations
o Causes of Personality Disorders
 Freudian
 Genetic factors
 Neurobiologic
 Brain Wave Activity
o Types of Disorders
 Cluster A
 Eccentric habits and traits
 Cluster B
 Overly emotional, erratic, and dramatic
 Cluster C
 Anxious or fearful
Expert Testimony

 “personal medical or psychological examination of respondents is not a requirement for

declaration of psychological incapacity”
o Not “a condition sine qua non for such declaration”
 Court may or may not accept testimony of psychologist or psychiatrist because decision must be
based on totality of evidence
o Testimony of expert witness must be given great weight when credible and consistent
w/ totality of evidence

Lifted From Canon Law

 Learned opinion of Canon Law are greatly helpful in understanding Article 36

Jurisprudential Guidelines

 Burden of proof to show nullity of marriage belongs to plaintiff

o Doubt should be resolved in favor of continuation of marriage
 Root cause of psychological incapacity must be:
o Medically or clinically identified
o Alleged in the complaint
o Sufficiently proven by experts
o Clearly explained in the decision
 Incapacity must be proven to be existing at time of celebration of marriage
 Such incapacity must be also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable
 Such illness must be grave enough to bring about disability of party to assume essential
obligations of marriage
 Essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68-71 of Family Code as
regards to husband and wife as well as Art. 220, 221, and 225 of same Code in regard to parents
and their children
 Interpretations given by National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by courts
 Trial court must order prosecuting attorney or fiscal and SolGen to appear as counsel for state

Article 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether the
relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:

1. Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and

2. Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood

Reasons for Prohibition of Incestuous Marriage

 Universally condemned as grossly indecent

 Confusion of rights and duties incident to family relations
 Result in deficient and degenerate offsprings
Article 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:

1. Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the 4th civil degree
2. Between step-parents and step children
3. Between parents-in-law and children-in-law
4. Between adopting parent and adopted child
5. Between surviving spouse of the adopting parents and adopted child
6. Between surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter
7. Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter
8. Between the adopted children of the same adopter
9. Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s
spouse or his or her own spouse

Reasons for Prohibition of Void Marriages

 Provides marriages described therein are against public policy

Collateral Blood Relatives by Consanguinity

 Up to 4th civil degree may disturb policy of the state and may result in dangers and confusion
attendant in incestuous marriage
 Can marry 5th civil degree and above
 Cannot marry if in direct ascending line even if 5th civil degree and above

Collateral Half-Blood Relatives by Consanguinity

 Under Family Code, prohibition extends to collateral blood relatives up to 4th civil degree
 Full-blood relationships, but does not provide for half-blood

Relationship by Affinity

 Step-parents and step-children; parents-in-law and children-in-law are related by affinity

o Only ones prohibited by Family Code

Effect of Termination of Marriage on the Affinity Prohibition

 Annulled or nullified, affinity is terminated

Adoptive Relationship

 Relationship created in adoption is merely limited to one of parent and child

 Void mentioned in Art. 37(4), (5), (6), (7), and (8)
 Adopted cannot marry any of the following: Adopter, surviving spouse of adopter, legitimate
child of adopter, other adopted children of adopter
 Adopted can marry any of the following: illegitimate child, and other relatives, whether by
consanguinity or affinity, of adopter
 Adopter can marry: legitimate, illegitimate or adopted child, natural parent,, and other relatives,
whether by consanguinity or affinity, of the adopted
 Law seeks to duplicate structure of natural family to ensure “artificial family” will mirror a
natural one
  Article 38 qualifies spouse of either adopted or adopter as surviving spouse, marriage between
surviving spouse of either adopted or adopter has been terminated by death
o If marriage of adopter and his or her spouse is nullified and annulled, adopted can
validly marry previous spouse of adopter because such spouse is not “surviving spouse”,
but a “former spouse” who, after finality of nullity or annulment decree, became
complete stranger to adopter

Intentional Killing of Spouse

 Emphasized that in killing his or her spouse, guilty party must be animated by an intention to
marry another person
o Mere preponderance of evidence is required to prove the killing and needs no prior
criminal conviction
 Same goes for killing the spouse of another to marry the latter

Article 39. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not
prescribe. (Amended by E.O. 227, dated July 17, 1987 and amended by R.A. No. 8533 dated, Feb. 23,
1988)

Prescriptive Period

 Time within which to file action for declaration of nullity or invoke such nullity as defense (direct
or collateral) does not prescribe
 Judicial decree merely declares or confirms voidness
 Void marriage is considered as having never to have taken place and treated as non-existent by
courts
 Heirs cannot file case for nullity of marriage of their parents or of their parent w/ their step-
parent

Parties

 Only husband or wife can file court case declaring marriage void
 Prior to SC Resolution which took effect on March 15, 2003, interested party, such as father or
step-children, can file direct case for nullity of marriage (not anymore accepted)
 Void marriage can be collaterally attacked by any interested party where determination of
validity of marriage is necessary to give rise to certain rights or negate certain rights

Article 40. Absolute nullity of previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
basis solely of a final judgement declaring such previous marriage void.

Judicial Declaration of Nullity

 If marriage is void ab initio, cannot subsequent valid marriage w/o previous judicial declaration
of nullity of marriage
 If obtained, but not registered w/ LCR, and liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties
were not recorded in proper registry of property, subsequent marriage is void ab initio
Historical Background of the Need for a Judicial Declaration of Nullity

 Feb. 28, 1957: No need for judicial declaration

 June 30, 1970 and Jan. 30, 1971: Need for judicial declaration
 June 2, 1977 and May 30, 1983: No need for judicial declaration
 August 19, 1986: Need for judicial declaration
 October 28, 1986: No need for judicial declaration
 August 3, 1988 (Family Code): NEED FOR JUDICIAL DECLARATION for purposes of remarriage
 Status of subsequent marriage depends upon time of solemnization of said subsequent
marriage

Article 40 and Criminal Bigamy

 Crime of bigamy contemplates situation where 1st marriage is valid or at least annullable and not
void from beginning
 If 2nd marriage is void because of legal grounds other than bigamy, there is no crime of bigamy
 Mercado v. Mercado: Crime of bigamy is committed when subsequent marriage is contracted by
person w/o obtaining judicial declaration of nullity of his/her 1st marriage pursuant to Art. 40 of
Family Code
o Criminal bigamy determined not by fact the 1st marriage is legally void but by fact that
no judicial declaration of nullity of 1st marriage was obtained prior to subsequent
marriage
 Constitutive of said crime are following essential ingredients
o Offender has legally married
o Marriage has not been legally dissolved or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse has not yet been presumed dead according to Civil Code
o Offender contracts a 2nd marriage
o 2nd marriage has all essential requisites for validity

Article 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be
null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been
absent for 4 consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent
spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the
circumstances set forth in provisions of Article 391 of Civil Code, an absence of only 2 years shall be
sufficient.

For the purposes of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided for in this Code for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent
spouse.

Article 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically
terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless there is a
judgement annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio.

A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil
registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested
person, w/ due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and w/o prejudice to the fact of
reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed.

Bigamous Marriage

 General rule: marriage contracted during lifetime of 1st spouse is null and void
 If previous marriage is void and there is subsequent marriage w/o judicial declaration of nullity
of 1st void marriage, subsequent marriage is also void (does not comply w/ Art. 40, 52, and 53)

Bigamy and Petition for Recognition of Foreign Judgement

 Petitioner may prove Japanese Family Court judgement through

o Official publication
o Certification or copy attested by officer who has custody of judgement
 No need for relitigation of merits
o Phil. Courts will only determine
 Whether foreign judgement is inconsistent w/ overriding public policy in Phil.
 Whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel foreign
judgement

Exception

 “bigamous” marriage may be considered valid if, prior to subsequent marriage and w/o
prejudice to the effect of reappearance of other spouse, present spouse may obtain judicial
declaration of presumptive death via a summary proceeding in court of competent jurisdiction
o Show prior spouse absent for 4 consecutive years and present spouse has well-founded
belief absent spouse is dead
o Shortened to 2 years in case of disappearance where there is danger of death under
circumstances set forth by Article 391
 Lost during sea voyage
 Missing airplane
 Armed forces
 Etc.
 Only prima facie and can be overthrown by evidence

Termination of Subsequent Marriage

 Automatic termination obtained by recording of affidavit of reappearance of absent spouse in

civil registry of residence of parties to subsequent marriage to Article 42
o Only case where marriage is terminated extra-judicially
 If spouse reappeared and he or she or any interested party does not file affidavit or sworn
statement w/ civil register of fact of reappearance
o There will be two valid marriages

Liquidation of Properties of 1st Marriage

 After issuance of judicial declaration, 1st marriage should be liquidated

o If marriage to be liquidated is valid
  If there is no liquidation and present spouse immediately remarries, property regime will apply
in subsequent marriage will be complete separation of property
o If there is liquidation, parties may agree to settlement as to what type of property
regime or absence of such marriage settlement or when latter is void, spouses shall be
governed by absolute community of property regime
 If marriage is void, rules of co-ownership will apply

Well-Founded Belief of Death

 Under Art. 41, time required for presumption to arise has been shortened to 4 years w/ need for
judicial declaration of presumptive death for remarriage
 Family Code prescribes a well-founded belief while Civil Code merely required that either there
be no news that such absentee was still alive or absentee was generally considered to be dead
and believed to be so by spouse present
 Well-founded belief
o Proper and honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain whereabouts of absent
spouse and whether absent spouse is still alive or is already dead

Judicial Declaration of Presumptive Death

 Civil Code
o Absence of 7 years, it being unknown whether absentee still lives, he shall be presumed
dead for all purposes except for those in succession (10 years of absence)
o Shortened to 5 years if disappeared after age of 75
o If happened under circumstances described in Art. 391 -> 4 years
 Family Code
o Shortened to normal period of 4 consecutive years and 2 consecutive years if
disappearance occurred under circumstances described in Art. 391 of Civil Code where
danger of death is high

Sworn Statement of Reappearance

 Affidavit of reappearance in civil registry of residence of parties to subsequent marriage

 Any interested party may file this sworn statement
 Mere fact of reappearance renders w/o effect judicial declaration of presumptive death creating
a valid bigamous marriage prior to filing of sworn statement of reappearance
 If reappearing spouse or any interested party does not file any sworn statement of
reappearance, subsequent marriage remains validly subsisting while 1st marriage, not having
been judicially nullified or annulled, is considered subsisting
o Law or state shall continue to protect second marriage rather than the first
 Reappearing spouse may not enter into contract of marriage w/ another person if no sworn
statement of reappearance is filed
o File a nullity or annulment case against present spouse if he or she wants to get married

Criminal Liability

 Article 349 of RPC

 o Prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract 2nd marriage

Article 43. The termination of subsequent marriage referred in preceding Article shall produce the
following effects

1. The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered
legitimate and their custody and support in case of dispute shall be decided by court in proper
proceeding;
2. The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be
dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contract said marriage in bad faith, his or her
share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be
forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty
spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse
3. Donations by such reason of marriage shall remain valid, except if donee contracted the
marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law
4. The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith
as a beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable;
and
5. The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to
inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession

Article 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be void
ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor
of the other are revoked by operation of law.

Status of Children