G.R. No. L-18176 October 26, 1966
LAZARO B. RAYRAY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CHAE KYUNG LEE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff Lazaro B. Rayray, a Filipino citizen, filed a complaint in the Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations of Manila seeking the annulment of his marriage to defendant Chae Kyung Lee, a Korean national whose whereabouts were unknown. Summons was served by publication. The City Fiscal of Manila found no collusion between the parties after a referral pursuant to the Civil Code. The lower court dismissed the complaint on two grounds: (1) that it had no jurisdiction to nullify a marriage contracted abroad in Seoul, Korea; and (2) that the facts proven did not warrant the relief. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court as the lower court’s jurisdiction was in issue.
On the merits, plaintiff testified that he and defendant were married in Pusan, Korea, on March 15, 1953. He presented a Korean “police clearance” (Exhibit A) dated February 16, 1953, and its English translation (Exhibit B), which indicated defendant was married as of that date. Plaintiff claimed that when he confronted defendant about this in October 1953, she replied it was not unusual for a Korean girl to marry twice and admitted to prior cohabitation but said there was no impediment to their marriage. Plaintiff also admitted he had falsely declared himself as single in the Korean marriage ceremony, having previously married one Adelaida Melecio or Valdez in Baguio in 1940, which marriage he claimed was illegal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations of Manila had jurisdiction to annul a marriage celebrated in Seoul, Korea.
2. Whether the evidence presented by plaintiff was sufficient to establish that defendant was previously married, warranting the annulment of their marriage.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: YES, the lower court had jurisdiction. For a court to validly decide a case, it must have jurisdiction over: (a) the subject-matter; (b) the parties; and (c) in actions in rem or quasi in rem, the res. The subject-matter (annulment of marriage) is within the jurisdiction of courts of first instance (and in Manila, the Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations). Jurisdiction over plaintiff was acquired by his filing of the complaint. Jurisdiction over defendant was acquired through service of summons by publication. The action is in rem as it concerns the marital status of the parties. Jurisdiction over the res (the marriage tie) depends on the nationality or domicile of the parties, not the place of celebration (locus celebrationis). Since plaintiff is a Filipino citizen domiciled in the Philippines, the lower court had jurisdiction over the res. The prevailing rule is that a court has jurisdiction in an annulment action if at least one party is domiciled in or is a national of the forum. Therefore, the lower court erred in holding it had no jurisdiction.
2. On the Merits: NO, the evidence was insufficient to warrant annulment. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that plaintiff’s evidence failed to prove defendant was married to another person prior to March 15, 1953. Exhibit A (the police clearance) was not signed, only purported to bear a seal, and its preparer’s identity and personal knowledge were not established. It was hearsay evidence, especially since defendant was a native of Seoul, not Pusan. Plaintiff’s testimony about defendant’s alleged admission was inconsistent, as she reportedly denied any impediment. The circumstances raised doubts: if Exhibit A showed she was married, why did the wedding proceed? There was no competent evidence that Korean law permits bigamy or polygamy; the presumption is that foreign law is identical to Philippine law, which prohibits it. The marriage certificate (Exhibit D) contained entries relevant only if prior marriage was an impediment, and it stated defendant had no previous marriage. Furthermore, plaintiff’s credibility was damaged by his admission that he lied about his own marital status during the Korean marriage ceremony.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The decision of the lower court dismissing the complaint was AFFIRMED, with costs against plaintiff-appellant.