THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that regional trial courts can hear a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by a foreigner married to a Filipina even if their wedding was solemnized abroad.
The SC Third Division made the position in a 14-page decision promulgated on April 7, 2025 but only made public recently where it remanded to the regional trial court the annulment petition filed by Italian national Gianni De Munari.
De Munari has sought to void his marriage to Thelma Asprec for being bigamous, telling Branch 47 of the Puerto Princesa City RTC in Palawan that Asprec was still married to two other men at the time she married him in Italy in 2011.
De Munari and Asprec’s marriage was registered at the Philippine Consulate General in Milan, Italy.
De Munari said he did not know that Asprec previously contracted two marriages, the first in 1979 with one Menandro Centeno, the second to Marco Picotto in 1991. Both marriages were solemnized in the Philippines.
After learning of Asprec’ previous marriages, De Munari filed a petition seeking to declare their marriage null and void on the ground of bigamy.
However, the trial court rejected De Munari’s petition saying his marriage to Asprec was solemnized in Italy, and as such, it has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
De Munari elevated the case to the SC by filing a petition for certiorari.
The SC ruled in favor of De Munari and held that the Palawan RTC erred in finding that it has no jurisdiction to hear the petition.
“If a person not party to the marriage can challenge a bigamous marriage, there is no reason to foreclose Gianni’s action to nullify his alleged bigamous marriage with Thelma. His legal standing is further justified as the present action pertains to his civil status, condition, and legal capacity,” the SC ruling penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh said.
“If Gianni is indeed an unsuspecting victim of a bigamous marriage, he must be granted the right to seek redress and have the marriage declared null and void, thereby restoring his legal capacity to enter into a valid marriage in the future,” it also said.
The High Court said it found no legal basis for the trial court to junk De Munari’s petition.
“It is well to note that Thelma, as a Filipino citizen, is bound by the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code which states: Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad,” the SC stressed.
“Due to this principle, Filipino citizens are covered by the policy against bigamous marriages, anywhere in the world, as these are considered void ab initio in the Philippines,” it said.
With this, the SC ruled that Philippine courts have jurisdiction to nullify a bigamous marriage involving a foreigner and a Filipino, even if the marriage was solemnized abroad.
It said this aligns with the principle that the intrinsic validity of a marriage, including its legality, must adhere to Philippine law when one or both of the parties are Filipino citizens.
“This approach prevents individuals from circumventing Philippine laws by marrying abroad, and additionally ensures that the family rights and duties of Filipino citizens are consistently applied,” it added.
