CASE DIGEST : Paul Ambrose v. Louella Suque-Ambrose G.R. No. 206761, June 23, 2021 GAERLAN

 

FACTS

Paul Ambrose, an American citizen, married Louella Suque-Ambrose, a Filipino citizen, on March 13, 2005, in Manila, Philippines. During their marriage, Ambrose alleged that his wife was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, he filed a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, which recognizes psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring a marriage void.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City dismissed Ambrose’s petition. The RTC ruled that because Ambrose was a foreign citizen, he allegedly had no legal capacity to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 15 of the Civil Code, which provides that laws relating to family rights, duties, status, and legal capacity of Filipino citizens shall bind them even when they are abroad. The RTC interpreted the provision as limiting the right to file the petition only to Filipinos.

Ambrose questioned the RTC ruling, arguing that his nationality did not prevent him from filing a petition for nullity of marriage because the marriage was celebrated in the Philippines and governed by Philippine law. He also argued that he should be allowed to pursue his petition because the issue involved the validity of his marriage, which should be determined based on the merits of his claim regarding psychological incapacity.

The Court of Appeals did not resolve the merits of the petition because of the procedural issues raised. Ambrose then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC committed an error in dismissing his case solely because he was a foreigner.

ISSUE

Whether or not a foreign spouse has the legal capacity to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before Philippine courts under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed the petition on the ground that Ambrose, being an American citizen, lacked legal capacity to sue under Article 15 of the Civil Code.

Whether or not the case should be remanded to the RTC for determination of the merits of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.

HELD

The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that Ambrose, despite being a foreign citizen, had the legal capacity to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. The Court held that the RTC erred in dismissing the case based solely on Ambrose’s nationality because the law does not distinguish between Filipino and foreign spouses regarding who may file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage.

The Court explained that under Section 2 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed solely by either the husband or the wife. The provision does not state that only Filipino citizens may file such petition. Applying the principle of ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus (where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish), the Court ruled that a foreign spouse who is a party to the marriage has the same right to seek declaration of nullity.

The Supreme Court further held that Article 15 of the Civil Code does not apply to prevent Ambrose from filing the petition. The provision refers to the personal laws of Filipino citizens concerning family rights, duties, status, and legal capacity, but it does not remove the right of foreign spouses to seek judicial remedies concerning marriages celebrated and recognized under Philippine law. The Court emphasized that the validity of the marriage should be determined based on the applicable law and evidence, not dismissed merely because one spouse is a foreigner.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and set aside the RTC decision and order dismissing the petition. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings and determination of the merits of Ambrose’s claim for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court ruled that the RTC should first resolve the factual issues regarding the alleged psychological incapacity instead of dismissing the case based on an incorrect interpretation of the petitioner’s legal capacity to sue.