Today is Tuesday, October 24, 2023home

ConstitutionStatutesExecutive IssuancesJudicial IssuancesOther

G.R. No. 206761, June 23, 2021,

[ G.R. No. 206761, June 23, 2021 ]

PAUL AMBROSE, PETITIONER, VS. LOUELLA SUQUE-AMBROSE, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

GAERLAN, J.:

This is a direct recourse through a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court from the Decision2 dated February 13, 2013, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Quezon City, Branch 89, in Civil Case No. Q-07-60216 and its Order3 dated April 8, 2013,
denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.

Petitioner Paul Ambrose (petitioner), a citizen of the United States, married respondent
Louella Suque-Ambrose (respondent) on March 13, 2005 in Manila, Philippines.4

On April 20, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition5 for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against
respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code of
the Philippines, as amended.6

The petition was amended on May 15, 2007. Thereafter, the respondent filed her Answer
with Counterclaim. After pre-trial, trial ensued. Only the petitioner presented evidence as the
respondent failed to appear and participate during the hearing on the merits.7

After the presentation of evidence by the petitioner, the RTC rendered the herein assailed
decision,8 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.9

The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner lacks the legal capacity to
sue. According to the RTC, under the nationality principle provided for under Article 15 of the
Civil Code, the petitioner, an American Citizen, is not covered by our laws on family rights
and duties, status and legal capacity.10

On April 3, 2013, the petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal but the same was denied due course
by the RTC in its Order11 dated April 8, 2013, on account of the petitioner's failure to file a
Motion for Reconsideration as required by Section 20(1) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.

This prompted the petitioner to file the instant petition for review on certiorari, alleging in
support thereof that:
a) The lower court committed a patently null and void decision and order contrary to Art. 36
of the Family Code and Section 2(a) of the Rule when it ruled that petitioner has no legal
personality to file the petition for being a foreigner pursuant to Art. 15 of the Civil Code;

b) The Supreme Court may suspend Section 20 (1) of the Rule and allow petitioner to avail of
Rule 45 in the interest of procedural due process and afford him his last chance for obtaining
full appellate review of the patently null and void decision and order of the lower court solely
on the legal question raised as allowed by the Court in several cases.12

On January 26, 2015, the respondent filed her compliance13 with the Court's Resolution14
dated October 22, 2014, in which she manifested that she will no longer be filing any
comment in response to the Petition.

The petition is meritorious.

Procedural rules are essential in the administration of justice.15 Rules are established to
provide order and enhance the efficiency of our judicial system.16

However, the Court recognized on certain occasions that procedural rules may be relaxed,
particularly when their strict application frustrate rather than promote substantial justice.
The relaxation of the rules is also warranted considering the nature and the issues involved in
the case.17

In this case, the RTC denied the petitioner's notice of appeal for failure to file a motion for
reconsideration. The Court notes nonetheless that the notice of appeal was filed well within
the same 15-day period required for the filing of the motion for reconsideration. Due regard
must also be given to the fact that the decision appealed from is a dismissal of the petition
that is based not on the sufficiency of the ground raised but solely for lack of legal capacity
on the part of the petitioner.

Thus, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, the Court resolves in view of the attendant
circumstances of this case, to disregard the procedural lapse committed in order to give the
parties the amplest opportunity to fully ventilate their claims and to fully ascertain the merits
of the case.18

Proceeding to the meat of the instant controversy, the petitioner argues that Article 15 of
the Civil Code does not apply, as "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."19

The Court agrees.

Lex loci celebrationis is a latin term, literally translated as the law of the place of the
ceremony. It means that the validity of a contract is governed by the place where it is made,
executed, or to be performed.20 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 under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38.

Otherwise stated, a marriage formally valid in the place it is celebrated is valid in the
Philippines.

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.21 Philippine courts apply the same, not only with respect to
marriage but to other contracts, in order to determine the law that is to be applied in
resolving disputes that arise as a result thereof.

Applied to this controversy, the marriage between the parties having been celebrated in the
Philippines, is governed by Philippine laws. The same laws holds 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.22

Herein, it is indubitable that the action relates to the validity of the marriage celebrated in
the Philippines. The petitioner's action assails the psychological incapacity of the respondent
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.

Furthermore, a review of procedural rules present no obstacle in the instant action being
instituted by a foreigner. Legal capacity to sue or the capacity to institute legal action is
governed by Section 1, Rule 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, under which, "[o]nly natural or
juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action." The absence
of legal capacity to sue indicates the general disability of a plaintiff to sue as when a plaintiff
is not in the exercise of his or her civil rights, does not have the necessary qualification to
appear in the case, or does not have the character or representation; which may be on
account of minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality, or other similar
grounds for disqualification.23

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. As defined under Section 2, Rule 3
of the Rules of Civil Procedure, "[a] real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit." A real party in interest is one who possesses a substantial interest in the case as a result
of breach of a legal right.24

Both "lack of legal capacity to sue" and "lack of legal personality" to sue are affirmative
defenses.25 In the first, the ground is "that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue,"26 while
in the second, the ground is based on the fact "that the pleading asserting the claim states
no cause of action."27

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.28

With respect to his legal capacity to sue, the statement as to who may institute an action a
petition for nullity of marriage does not distinguish between citizens of the Philippines and
foreigners. Section 2 of A.M. No. 02 11-10-SC, provides:

Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

A. Who may file. - A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
solely by the husband or the wife.

The provision is clear in that either of the contracting parties may file a petition to declare
the marriage void. It is a basic rule in statutory construction that where the law does not
distinguish, the courts should not distinguish. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere
debemos. No distinction should be made in the application of the law where none has been
indicated. Courts can only interpret the law; it cannot read into the law what is not written
therein.29

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 February 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.

Gesmundo, C.J., Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concur.

Caguioa, J., please see concurring opinion.