Legal capacity and legal personality

Can a foreigner file a suit in the Philippines? What law is applicable in the case of the legality of a marriage entered into by a foreigner here in the Philippines? These are the questions resolved in this case of Jimmy.

Jimmy is a citizen of the United States who married Linda, a Filipina, in Manila. After only two years of marriage, Jimmy filed a petition against Linda for Declaration of Nullity of their marriage because of psychological incapacity of Linda to perform the obligation of marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. Later, Jimmy amended his petition, to which Linda filed her answer with counterclaim.

At the trial, only Jimmy presented evidence since Linda failed to appear and participate. Thereafter, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition on the ground that Jimmy lacks the legal capacity to sue under the nationality principle pursuant to Article 15 of the Civil Code, considering that he is an American citizen who is not covered by our laws on family rights and duties, status and legal capacity. Was the RTC correct?

The Supreme Court (SC) said no. According to the SC, Article 15 of the Civil Code does not apply because the legal capacity to get married and its consequences, including the nullification of a void marriage, is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was entered into and not by the nationality principle. This is pursuant to the principle of lex loci celebrations, which means that the validity of a contract is governed by the place where it is made, executed and to be performed.

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 marriage. 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.

In this case, it is indubitable that the action relates to the validity of the marriage celebrated in the Philippines. Jimmy’s action assails the psychological incapacity of Linda to perform the essential marital obligations. Ultimately, therefore, the result of the action would have an effect on the personal status of Linda. So, there is no reason to foreclose Jimmy’s right to institute the instant petition for nullity of marriage.

Furthermore, under our procedural rules, Jimmy has legal capacity and personality to sue. His legal personality proceeds from the fact that it is his marriage to Linda, which in turn relates to the 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, Section 2 of SC Administrative Circular 0211-10 clearly provides that: “A petition for declaration of nullity of a void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.”

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 Jimmy 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 which 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 or petition for nullity of marriage does not distinguish between citizens of the Philippines and foreigners. Section 2 of A.M. No. 0211-10-SC, provides: “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. Where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish.

So, the decision of the RTC should be reversed and set aside and the case is remanded to the said court for further proceedings. (Ambrose vs. Ambrose G.R. 206761, June 23, 2021)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]