G.R. No. 262831 , April 07, 2025
GIANNI DE MUNARI, PETITIONER, vs. THELMA GAGUI ASPREC ALSO KNOWN AS THELMA DE MUNARI, THELMA PICOTTO AND THELMA CENTENO AND THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Gianni de Munari, an Italian citizen residing in the Philippines, filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City against his Filipino spouse, Thelma Asprec. Gianni alleged that their marriage was celebrated in Italy on December 10, 2011, and subsequently registered with the Philippine Consulate. He further claimed that Thelma had two prior subsisting marriages—one with Menandro Centeno in 1979 and another with Marco Picotto in 1991—rendering his marriage to her bigamous and void.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Citing Article 17 of the Civil Code, which states that the forms and solemnities of contracts are governed by the laws of the country where they are executed, the trial court ruled that Italian law, as the place of celebration, governed the marriage. It held that jurisdiction would only be proper if Thelma, the Filipino spouse, were the petitioner. The RTC also noted that Gianni’s alternative prayer for cancellation of the marriage record with the Philippine Statistics Authority was a proper subject for a Rule 108 petition, not a declaration of nullity.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint for declaration of nullity of a marriage celebrated abroad, filed by a foreigner against a Filipino spouse, due to lack of jurisdiction; and (2) whether a foreigner has the legal standing to file such an action before Philippine courts.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the RTC and held that it has jurisdiction over the complaint. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. Under Republic Act No. 8369 , the Family Courts Act of 1997, Family Courts (and RTCs acting as such) have exclusive original jurisdiction over complaints for declaration of nullity of marriage. This jurisdictional grant is not qualified by the nationality of the parties or the place of celebration. The Court clarified that the applicable law for determining the validity of a marriage involving a Filipino is governed by the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code, not Article 17 cited by the RTC. Since Thelma is a Filipino, her capacity to marry is governed by Philippine law, specifically the Family Code, which prohibits bigamy.
On the issue of legal standing, the Court ruled that Gianni, as an alleged victim of a bigamous marriage, possesses the requisite standing to file the action. A declaration of nullity based on bigamy involves a matter of public interest, as bigamy is a public crime. Following precedents, any concerned person, including a subsequent spouse, can initiate an action to declare a bigamous marriage void from the beginning to protect the institution of marriage and his own civil status. Gianni has a direct and personal interest in having his marital status clarified to restore his legal capacity to contract a valid marriage. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings on the merits.