Bigamy (2)

THIS is a case of double marriage.

Maria married a Japanese named Fujiki in the Philippines in 2004. When Fujiki failed to bring Maria to Japan because the parents of Fujiki objected to his marriage to Maria, Maria married another Japanese named Maekara also in the Philippines.

Maekara successfully brought Maria to Japan. As fate would have it, Maria and Fujiki met each other in Japan and Maria told Fujiki how she suffered as Maekara’s wife. Knowing this, Fujiki filed a petition in Japan to declare the marriage between Maria and Maekara as void for being bigamous. The court in Japan declared the marriage as void for being bigamous.

Fujiki then filed in the Philippines a petition for recognition of foreign judgment, the one declaring the Maria-Maekara marriage as void and for an order for the civil registrar in the Philippines to record the foreign judgment. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition ruling that only the husband or the wife can personally petition to declare a marriage void, not a stranger to the marriage like Fujiki, and that a petition for declaration of void marriage should be filed in the Philippines, not in Japan. Disagreeing with the RTC, Fujiki appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that Fujiki is right on two points.

Firstly, any adversely affected party can file a petition declaring a void marriage to be so. Hence, Fujiki, being the husband in the first marriage of Maria, is the person adversely affected by the void second marriage. He therefore is the proper party to file such petition. Fujiki’s property rights and other marital rights will surely be affected by Maria’s second bigamous marriage.

Secondly, the petition filed in Japan was proper as the status of Fujiki, like his marital status, is determined by his national law—or by Japanese law. Hence, the court ruling in Japan declaring the second marriage of Maria as void should be given judicial recognition in the Philippines and the Japanese court’s declaration of a void bigamous marriage should be recognized and registered in the Philippines thru the office of the Civil Registrar. In fact, the Supreme Court opined that to require a new petition for declaration of a void bigamous marriage anew in Philippine courts would result to repetitive litigation.

This case of Fujiki is not uncommon in the Philippines. Thus, this ruling in the case of Minoru Fijuki vs. Maria Paz Marinay, et al., G.R. No. 196049 (June 26, 2013) will surely be a useful guideline for many.

E-mail: joepallugna@yahoo.com