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

Petitioner Minoru Fujiki, a Japanese national, married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay in the Philippines on January 23, 2004. They lost contact. In 2008, without dissolving her first marriage, Marinay married another Japanese national, Shinichi Maekara, in Quezon City. Marinay later left Maekara due to alleged abuse and reconnected with Fujiki in Japan. In 2010, with Fujiki’s assistance, Marinay obtained a judgment from a Japanese Family Court declaring her marriage to Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On January 14, 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for “Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).” He prayed for: (1) recognition of the Japanese judgment; (2) a declaration that the marriage between Marinay and Maekara was void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code; and (3) an order directing the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese judgment on the marriage certificate and endorse it to the NSO. The RTC dismissed the petition motu proprio based on improper venue and Fujiki’s lack of personality to sue, citing Sections 2(a) and 4 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC), which states that only the husband or wife may file such a petition and specifies venue requirements. Fujiki’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The RTC also held the petition was a collateral attack on the marriage and that the verification lacked authentication.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage on the grounds of improper venue and the petitioner’s lack of personality to sue.

RULING

Yes, the RTC erred. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the RTC’s orders and remanded the case for further proceedings.
1. On the Nature of the Petition and Applicable Procedure: The petition is a special proceeding for the recognition of a foreign judgment, not an ordinary action for declaration of nullity of marriage. Therefore, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which governs ordinary nullity and annulment suits, does not apply. The applicable procedure is Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, read in conjunction with the provisions of the Civil Code on recognition of foreign judgments. A petition under Rule 108 seeks to establish the fact of the foreign judgment and have it annotated in the civil registry.
2. On Personality to Sue (Locus Standi): Fujiki, as the spouse of the prior marriage, has a personal and material interest in having the subsequent bigamous marriage declared void. He is an “interested party” entitled to file the petition under Rule 108. The restriction in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that “only the husband or the wife” may file does not apply to a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment of nullity based on bigamy. In bigamy cases, the spouse of the first marriage is the proper party to seek a declaration of nullity of the second marriage.
3. On Venue: Venue is not jurisdictional. The RTC erred in dismissing the petition motu proprio on grounds of improper venue. An objection to improper venue must be raised by the party concerned in a motion to dismiss or in an answer; it cannot be a ground for the court’s sua sponte dismissal.
4. On Collateral Attack: The petition is not a collateral attack on the marriage. A direct action is one where the primary objective is to establish the nullity of a marriage. Here, the primary objective is to recognize a foreign judgment that has already declared the marriage void. Seeking its recognition and annotation is a consequence of that foreign judgment, not an attack on the marriage itself.
5. On Verification: The requirement for authentication of the verification and certification against forum shopping under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not applicable, as that rule does not govern this special proceeding.
The Supreme Court held that a foreign judgment declaring a marriage void on the ground of bigamy is capable of recognition in the Philippines and may be the basis for cancellation or annotation in the civil registry under Rule 108, provided it is proven and found to be consistent with Philippine law on bigamy (Article 35(4) of the Family Code).