Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Rayray vs.

Chae Kyung Lee

LAZARO B. RAYRAY
vs.
CHAE KYUNG LEE

October 26, 1966

Jaime R. Nuevas for plaintiff and appellee.


Rafael Jose for defendant and appellant.

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Facts:

● Rayray (Plaintiff) seeks for annulment of his marriage to Chae Kyung Lee
(Defendant)
● Defendant is a former resident of Pusan, Korea, but her whereabouts are unknown
● As to the Rules of Court, summons were sent to the respondent, but she filed no
answer
● Plaintiff motioned for the default of the defendant, and that he be given the date for
the reception of his evidence
● Lower court referred the case to the City Fiscal of Manila, pursuant to Art. 88 and 101
of the New Civil Code
● The findings of the City Fiscal of Manila stated that there was no collusion between
the parties of the plaintiff and respondent, the case was heard on the merits
● Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed by the lower court on the following grounds:
1. The court could not nullify a marriage contracted abroad
2. Facts proven do not warrant the relief prayed for
● Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, then the case was certified to the Supreme
Court

Issue:

● Whether or not the grounds to which the lower court based their decision to dismiss
the plaintiff’s petition were substantial?

Ruling:
● Yes.
● Although the first reason of the lower court to dismiss the petition is an erroneous
conclusion
● The res is the relation between said parties or marriage tie
● Jurisdiction depends upon the nationality of the parties, not the place of celebration
of marriage
● Plaintiff is a Filipino, residing in the Philippines, and the complaint was filed within the
country
● Lower Court has jurisdiction over the case despite the defendant being a non-
resident alien
● As for the second reason for the dismissal, the Plaintiff presented the following
evidence:
1. He met defendant sometime in 1952
2. They lived together from November 1952 to April 1955
3. They were married in Pusan, Korea on March 15, 1953 as attested on their
marriage certificate
4. Defendant secured a “Police Clearance” (written in Korean) in Pusan, Korea
on February 16, 1953, which is necessary for her to contract marriage with
the Plaintiff
5. He left the defendant in Korea on June 30, 1953, and went to India.
Defendant later joined him in India on October 1953
6. Afterwards, on February 16, 1958 the plaintiff noticed on the translated
(English) “Police Clearance” of the defendant that she was married to
someone else prior to March 15, 1953
7. The defendant confided to him that she was with three other men before they
met, but she was never married to any of them
8. Later on , they separated ways and he doesn’t know the defendant’s
whereabouts
● The lower court dismissed the evidence of the “Police Clearance” as insufficient. The
document was not signd, bearing only the seal of the Chief of Pusan National Police;
there is lack of knowledge as to who prepared it, nor did the Plaintiff have personal
knowledge on the truth of the entry concerning the status of the defendant on
Febuary 15, 1953
● The presumption is that the foreign law is identical to the lex fori, or, in the case at bar,
the Philippine Law. Korea does not permit polygamy or bigamy. If the defendant was
married already, why was her marriage to the plaintiff granted?
● Their marriage certificate does not indicate that any of the parties have marriages prior to
the one they have, whether the prior marriage had been dissolved by a decree of divorce;
and, if there had been such decree, the date thereof
● Plaintiff also lied regarding his status prior to his marriage to respondent. He was married
to one Adelaida Melancio, some time in 1940

Вам также может понравиться