Can an American citizen who is married to a Filipina file a petition for nullity of marriage in the Philippines where the ceremony was solemnized?
In 2013, a branch of the regional trial court (RTC) in Quezon City denied, after trial, the petition filed by the American husband in 2007 on alleged psychological incapacity of her Filipino wife. They were married in the Philippines in 2005.
The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that the husband lacked the legal capacity to sue.
The trial court ruled that the nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that the husband, an American citizen, is not covered by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status and legal capacity.
It also denied the husband’s notice of appeal on account of his failure to file a motion for reconsideration. The husband elevated the issue before the SC which ruled in his favor.
(The names of the husband and the wife involved in the case were deleted by the Manila Bulletin to respect and protect their privacy.)
While the husband’s direct recourse to the SC had some procedural concerns, the High Court relaxed the rules to promote substantial justice and considered the nature and the issues aired in the petition.
The SC reversed the ruling of the RTC as it granted the husband’s petition in a decision that was made public last Nov. 16 and written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.
The decision ordered the remand of the case to the RTC “for further proceedings and judgment on the merits.”
The ruling granted the husband’s argument that “the legal capacity to get married and its consequences, including the nullification of void marriage is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was entered into and not by the nationality principle."
The SC said “the validity of a contract is governed by the place where it is made, executed, or to be performed.”
“It is adhered to by Philippine law, as enunciated under the first paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, viz.: Art. 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...” like incestuous or bigamous marriages, it said.
“Otherwise stated, a marriage formally valid in the place it is celebrated is valid in the Philippines,” it stressed.
It also said:
“Applied to this controversy, the marriage between the parties having been celebrated in the Philippines, is governed by Philippine laws. The same laws hold true with its incidents and consequences.
“Thus, all matters relating to the validity of the contract of marriage, such as the presence or absence of requisites, forms, or solemnities are to be judged in relation to the law in which it has been celebrated or performed.
“Along this line, it is useful to state that when the marriage is celebrated elsewhere, its validity does not depend fully on foreign law. While accepted in the jurisdiction in which it is celebrated, it may be held invalid in the Philippines when it falls under the instances mentioned in par. 1, Article 26 of the Family Code such as incestuous or bigamous marriages.
“As well, irrespective of the place of solemnization of marriage, Philippine laws bind the contracting Filipino citizen with respect to ‘family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity;’ any controversy arising therefrom would then have to be determined in accordance with the same law.
“Herein, it is indubitable that the action relates to the validity of the marriage celebrated in the Philippines. The petitioner's (husband) action assails the psychological incapacity of the respondent (wife) to perform the essential marital obligations.
“Ultimately, therefore, the result of the action would have an effect on the personal status of the respondent. With this, there is no reason to foreclose the petitioner's right to institute the instant petition for nullity of marriage.”
On lack of legal capacity to sue, the SC said:
“Lack of capacity to sue is distinguished from lack of legal personality to sue while the former refers to the general disqualification of a plaintiff to institute an action, the latter refers to the fact that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest.
“A real party in interest is one who possesses a substantial interest in the case as a result of breach of a legal right.
“Both ‘lack of legal capacity to sue’ and ‘lack of legal personality’ to sue are affirmative defenses. In the first, the ground is ‘that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue,’ while in the second, the ground is based on the fact ‘that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action.’
“Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the petitioner has both the legal capacity and personality to sue. His legal personality proceeds from the fact that it is his marriage to the respondent, which, in turn, relates to his civil status, that stands to be affected by the petition for nullity that he instituted. He has legal personality in the action as he has personal and material interest in the result of the action.
“With respect to his legal capacity to sue, the statement as to who may institute an action for a petition for nullity of marriage does not distinguish between citizens of the Philippines and foreigners.
“In view of the foregoing, therefore, the RTC should not have dismissed the case on the absence of the petitioner's legal capacity to sue. By doing so, it failed to resolve factual issues necessary to resolve whether or not the marriage between the parties should be nullified on the ground of psychological incapacity.
“Considering that a petition for review on certiorari is limited to questions of law and the Court is not a trier of facts, the remand of this case to the RTC for the proper resolution of this case on the merits is most appropriate.
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. Consequently, the Decision dated Feb. 13, 2013 and Order dated April 8, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City Branch 89, in Civil Case No. Q-07-60216 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to the RTC for further proceedings and judgment on the merits. SO ORDERED.”