Munari v. Asprec
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gianni de Munari (Gianni), an Italian citizen and a resident of the Philippines, married Thelma Asprec (Thelma), a Filipino citizen, in Italy on December 10, 2011. Thelma subsequently registered their marriage at the Consulate General of the Philippines in Milan, Italy, on December 29, 2011. Gianni later alleged that, unknown to him, Thelma had previously contracted two marriages: the first on September 2, 1979, with Menandro Centeno (Menandro) in Calumpit, Bulacan, Philippines, and the second on August 12, 1991, with Marco Picotto (Marco) in Makati City, Philippines, while her marriage with Menandro was still subsisting. Gianni alleged that both Menandro and Marco were still alive, rendering his marriage with Thelma null and void for being bigamous. Procedural History: On July 17, 2022, Gianni filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, or in the alternative, for the cancellation of their marriage in the records of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa City. The RTC initially ordered Gianni to furnish copies of the Complaint to the Office of the City Prosecutor and the Office of the Solicitor General. However, on August 15, 2022, the RTC set aside its previous order and dismissed Gianni's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, citing Article 17 of the Civil Code, given that the marriage was contracted in Italy. Gianni filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 19, 2022, which the RTC denied on August 24, 2022. The RTC reiterated that Gianni's national law governs his marriage and distinguished his standing from that of a Filipino petitioner. It also held that the alternative prayer for cancellation of registration was a proper subject of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. The Petition: Gianni directly sought relief from the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising pure questions of law. He argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding it had no jurisdiction over a nullity case between a Filipina and a foreign national married abroad based on Article 17 of the Civil Code. He further contended that the trial court gravely erred in making a distinction between the standing of a foreign national petitioner and a Filipina spouse concerning the nullity of marriage on the basis of Article 35 (4) of the Family Code.
Issue(s)
Did the Regional Trial Court (RTC) err in dismissing the Complaint for the Declaration of Nullity of a marriage celebrated abroad, filed by a foreigner against a Filipino spouse, due to lack of jurisdiction? Does a foreigner have the legal standing to file for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage celebrated abroad with a Filipino spouse before the Philippine courts?
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Gianni De Munari is GRANTED. The Orders, dated August 15, 2022 and August 24, 2022, of Branch 47, Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City are REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings, which shall be pursued with utmost dispatch. SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in dismissing the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is a matter of law, conferred by the Constitution or by statute, and cannot be subject to agreement or stipulation, as established in Non v. Office of the Ombudsman. Republic Act No. 8369, otherwise known as the Family Courts Act of 1997, explicitly grants Family Courts, or in their absence, the RTCs, exclusive original jurisdiction over complaints for declaration of nullity of marriage. The RTC's reliance on Article 17 of the Civil Code, which embodies the principle of lex loci celebrationis concerning the extrinsic validity (forms and solemnities) of contracts, was misplaced. While Article 26 of the Family Code generally upholds marriages solemnized abroad if valid there, it explicitly provides exceptions, including bigamous marriages under Article 35 (4). The Court emphasized that the intrinsic validity or legality of a marriage, especially for a Filipino citizen, is governed by Philippine law due to the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code, which binds Filipino citizens to Philippine laws on family rights and duties even when living abroad. As affirmed in Ambrose v. Suque-Ambrose, the validity of a marriage celebrated elsewhere may be held invalid in the Philippines if it falls under exceptions like bigamous marriages. Therefore, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to nullify a bigamous marriage involving a foreigner and a Filipino, even if celebrated abroad, to ensure adherence to Philippine public policy against bigamy. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that a foreign national has the legal standing to file for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage with a Filipino spouse before Philippine courts. Section 2 (a) of SC Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10-SC, or The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, clearly states that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed "solely by the husband or the wife," without making any distinction between Filipinos and foreigners. Applying the basic rule of statutory construction, ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos (where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish), the Court held that no such distinction should be made. Citing Ambrose v. Suque-Ambrose, the Court reiterated that a foreigner has both the legal capacity and personality to sue, as the action directly affects his civil status. Furthermore, the Court referenced Juliano-Llave v. Republic and Fujiki v. Marinay, which affirmed that even a prior spouse or a third party can challenge a bigamous marriage due to its offensive nature to public policy and its criminal aspect. Thus, Gianni, as an alleged unsuspecting victim of a bigamous marriage, must be granted the right to seek redress and have the marriage declared null and void, thereby restoring his legal capacity to enter into a valid marriage in the future, upholding principles of justice and fairness.
Main Doctrine
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over complaints for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage between a foreigner and a Filipino, even if the marriage was celebrated abroad. A foreign national has the legal standing to file for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage with a Filipino spouse before Philippine courts. This is based on the nationality principle (Article 15, Civil Code) binding Filipino citizens to Philippine laws on family rights and duties, and the explicit exceptions to lex loci celebrationis under Article 26 of the Family Code for bigamous marriages. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not distinguish between Filipinos and foreigners regarding who may institute an action for nullity of marriage.