Doctrine
Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a petition for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage between a foreigner and a Filipino, even if the marriage was celebrated abroad. A foreigner may file such a petition, as the law makes no distinction between Filipino citizens and foreigners regarding who may file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Facts
Gianni De Munari, an Italian citizen residing in the Philippines, married Thelma Asprec, a Filipino citizen, in Italy on December 10, 2011. Thelma registered their marriage with the Philippine Consulate in Milan on December 29, 2011.
However, Gianni later discovered that Thelma had two prior subsisting marriages—one in 1979 with Menandro Centeno and another in 1991 with Marco Picotto—both of whom were still alive. Gianni filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Puerto Princesa, claiming the marriage was bigamous and thus void.
However, the RTC dismissed the complaint, citing a lack of jurisdiction based on Article 17 of the Civil Code, asserting that since the marriage was celebrated in Italy, Philippine courts had no jurisdiction over the matter. The RTC also stated that only Thelma, being a Filipino citizen, could file such a case, and that Gianni’s prayer to cancel the PSA record should have been filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the petition for nullity of marriage celebrated abroad.
Ruling
YES, Philippine courts have jurisdiction over a petition for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage between a foreigner and a Filipino, even if the marriage was celebrated abroad. Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that when it comes to the form and solemnities of contracts, wills and other public instruments, the law of the country of execution shall govern. This is also known as the principle of lex loci celebrationis. Lex loci celebrationis is a conflict of law principle that comes into play when there are substantive issues relating to a contract that is celebrated elsewhere than the place of citizenship of its parties. With respect to marriages, this principle is expressed in the first paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, which states:
Article 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
This provision pertains to the extrinsic validity of the marriage, meaning the formalities and solemnities required by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. As long as these requirements are met, the marriage is likewise considered valid in the Philippines. However, the intrinsic validity or legality of the marriage is a different matter. Article 26 of the Family Code, in its final phrase, explicitly outlines exceptions to the principle of lex loci celebrationis, including bigamous marriages. Article 35 ( 4) of the Family Code explicitly declares that bigamous marriages are void from the beginning.
It is well to note that Thelma, as a Filipino citizen, is bound by the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code, which states:
Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Due to this principle, Filipino citizens are covered by the policy against bigamous marriages, anywhere in the world, as these are considered void ab initio in the Philippines.
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that Philippine courts have jurisdiction to nullify a bigamous marriage involving a foreigner and a Filipino, even if the marriage was celebrated abroad. This aligns with the principle that the intrinsic validity of a marriage, including its legality, must adhere to Philippine law when one or both of the parties are Filipino citizens. This approach prevents individuals from circumventing Philippine laws by marrying abroad, and additionally ensures that the family rights and duties of Filipino citizens are consistently applied. Consequently, even if a marriage is valid in the country where it was celebrated, it can still be declared void in the Philippines if it contravenes the country’s legal provisions, such as those prohibiting bigamy, in express exception to Article 26 of the Family Code which concedes the extrinsic validity of a marriage celebrated abroad following the laws of the country of celebration.