Abbas vs Abbas Digest

Download Abbas vs Abbas Digest

Post on 03-Dec-2015




3 download

Embed Size (px)




<p>ABBAS VS. ABBAS</p> <p>In January 1993, Syed Azhar Abbas was invited to the house of Felicitas Goo, mother of Gloria Goo. He said he was asked to participate in a ceremony which was meant to welcome him to the Philippines (Abbas is a Pakistani). He said he did not know that the ceremony was actually his marriage with Gloria Goo. Later, Gloria filed a bigamy case against Abbas. Abbas allegedly married a certain Maria Corazon Buenaventura. To avoid the bigamy case, Abbas filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gloria Goo. To prove the validity of their marriage, Gloria presented a marriage contract signed by Abbas as well as the solemnizing officer who celebrated their marriage. The marriage contract contained the alleged marriage license issued to Abbas.Abbas presented a certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar, which states that the marriage license, based on its number, indicated in the marriage contract, was never issued to Abbas but to someone else.</p> <p>The RTC ruled in favor of Abbas. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC on the ground that there was no diligence to search for the real source of the marriage license issued to Abbas (for it could be that the marriage license was issued in another municipality).</p> <p>ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Abbas and Goo is void ab initio.</p> <p>HELD: Yes. Their marriage lacked one of the essential requisites of marriage which is the issuance of a valid marriage license.</p> <p>The Court of Appeals is wrong in reversing the RTC. The Local Civil registrars certification enjoyed probative value as her duty was to maintain records of data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. There is a presumption of regularity of official acts in favor of the local civil registrar. Gloria was not able to overcome this presumption hence it stands to favor Abbas.The fact that Abbas did sign the marriage contract does not make it conclusive that there was in fact a valid marriage license issued to him nor does it cure the fact that no marriage license was issued to Abbas. Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when it says, The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio. Article 35(3) of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void from the beginning.</p> <p>MINORU FUJIKI, Petitioner, -versus- MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE,</p> <p>FACTS:Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioners parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other.</p> <p>In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).</p> <p>DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:(1) RTC: dismissed the petition for "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)" based on improper venue and the lack of personality of petitioner, Minoru Fujiki, to file the petition.</p> <p>ISSUES &amp; RULING:(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.</p> <p>No. Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. Moreover, in Juliano-Llave v. Republic, this Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 02- 11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage does not apply if the reason behind the petition is bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent with Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.</p> <p>(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.</p> <p>Yes. [t]he recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact.Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:Sec. 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. (Emphasis supplied)There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it.</p> <p>(3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.</p> <p>Yes. There is neither circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case which was already tried and decided under foreign law.In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment on how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the family rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of a foreign country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code.For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations.</p> <p>REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, Respondent.</p> <p>FACTS:</p> <p>On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an American citizen, and Albios were married, as evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage. On December 6, 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer, alleging that immediately after their marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never really had any intention of entering into a married state or complying with any of their essential marital obligations.</p> <p>Fringer did not file his answer. On September 13, 2007, Albios filed a motion to set case for pre-trial and to admit her pre-trial brief. After the pre-trial, only Albios, her counsel and the prosecutor appeared. Fringer did not attend the hearing despite being duly notified of the schedule.</p> <p>The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio. The RTC opined that the parties married each other for convenience only. Albios stated that she contracted Fringer to enter into a marriage to enable her to acquire American citizenship and that in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay him the sum of $2,000.00. However, she did not pay Fringer $2,000.00 because the latter never processed her petition for citizenship</p> <p>The OSG filed an appeal before the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling which found that the essential requisite of consent was lacking.</p> <p>ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?</p> <p>HELD: The marriage between the parties is valid</p> <p>CIVIL LAW: validity of marriage</p> <p>In 1975, the seminal case of Bark v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, established the principal test for determining the presence of marriage fraud in immigration cases. It ruled that a arriage is a sham if the bride and groom did not intend to establish a life together at the time they were married.This standard was modified with the passage of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment of 1986 (IMFA), which now requires the couple to instead demonstrate that the marriage was not ntered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of the United States.The focus, thus, shifted from determining the intention to establish a life together, to determining the intention of evading immigration laws. It must be noted, however, that this standard is used purely for immigration purposes and, therefore, does not purport to rule on the legal validity or existence of a marriage.</p> <p>In the 1969 case of Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, which declared as valid a marriage entered into solely for the husband to gain entry to the United States, stating that a valid marriage could not be avoided erely because the marriage was entered into for a limited purpose.The 1980 immigration case of Matter of McKee, further recognized that a fraudulent or sham marriage was intrinsically different from a nonsubsisting one.</p> <p>Under Article 2 of the Family Code, for consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2) made in the presence of a solemnizing officer. A reely givenconsent requires that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately enter into the marriage. Consent must be real in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the vices of consent under Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code, such as fraud, force, intimidation, and undue influence. Consent must also be conscious or intelligent, in that the parties must be capable of intelligently understanding the nature of, and both the beneficial or unfavorable consequences of their act.</p> <p>Based on the above, consent was not lacking between Albios and Fringer. In fact, there was real consent because it was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of consent. Their consent was also conscious and intelligent as they understood the nature and the beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing impaired their ability to do so. That their consent was freely given is best evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring American citizenship through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that they willingly and deliberately contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention to enter into a real and valid marriage so as to fully comply with the requirements of an application for citizenship. There was a full and complete understanding of the legal tie that would be created between them, since it was that precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their goal.</p> <p>GRANTED.</p> <p>PILAPIL vs. HON IBAY-SOMERA, VICTOR AND GEILING et alG.R. No. 80116June 30, 1989</p> <p>FACTS: Petitioner Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Geiling, a German national, were married in Germany. After about three and a half years of marriage, such connubial disharmony eventuated in Geiling initiating a divorce proceeding against Pilapil in Germany. The Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.</p> <p>More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geiling filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging in one that, while still married to said Geiling, Pilapil had an affair with a certain William Chia. The Assistant Fiscal, after the corresponding investigation, recommended the dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. However, upon review, the respondent city fiscal Victor approved a resolution directing the filing of 2 complaint for adultery against the petitioner. The case entitled PP Philippines vs. Pilapil and Chia was assigned to the court presided by the respondent judge Ibay-Somera.</p> <p>A motion to quash was filed in the same case which was denied by the respondent. Pilapil filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a TRO, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to quash.</p> <p>As cogently argued by Pilapil, Article 344 of the RPC thus presupposes that the marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action for adultery.</p> <p>ISSUE: Did Geiling have legal capacity at the time of the filing of the complaint for adultery, considering that it was done after obtaining a divorce decree?</p> <p>HELD: WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying petitioners MTQ is SET ASIDE and another one entered DISMISSING the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The TRO issued in this case is hereby made permanent.</p> <p>NO</p> <p>Under Article 344 of the RPC, the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement.</p> <p>Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute...</p>