Refiling of petitions involving marital status

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

If a complaint or petition is dismissed after trial, may it still be refiled?

Generally, it is a sound and efficient policy to bar the refiling of an already dismissed case. Courts are saddled by heavy dockets and to allow the limitless filing of previously disposed cases would only exacerbate this already dire situation.

Litis pendentia (pending case) and res judicata (previously decided case) are principles that would bar the refiling of a previously litigated case.

The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other. (Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v. Mabalacat Institute, Inc., G.R. No. 211563, September 29, 2021; Evangeline Engao Asis v. Heirs of Rosello Calignawan, G.R. No. 242127, September 15, 2021)

On the other hand, the elements of res judicata, also known as bar by prior judgment, are: (a) the former judgment must be final; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment on the merits; and ( d) there must be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. (Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. v. Mabalacat Institute, Inc., G.R. No. 211563, September 29, 2021; Evangeline Engao Asis v. Heirs of Rosello Calignawan, G.R. No. 242127, September 15, 2021).

However, recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court seem to teach that cases involving the marital status of a person may be refiled even if they have already been previously tried and decided.

In Kondo v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 223628, March 4, 2020 (Kondo), a Filipino wife filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce relative to her marriage with her Japanese husband but it was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) because she was unable to sufficiently prove Japan’s law on divorce. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it concluded that the status of a person is in rem and thus any decision involving the same does not constitute as res judicata to bar its refiling.

Similarly, in Jorge Joaquin V. Santos v. Caroline H. Santos, G.R. No. 267675, May 20, 2025 Joaquin), the wife filed a case for legal separation against her husband. While it was pending, the husband filed his own petition for legal separation against his wife. The Supreme Court held that there is no litis pendentia nor res judicata in respect to the two cases filed. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court still dismissed the husband’s petition based on “public policy considerations” but clarified that the husband may refile the case after the case filed by the wife is decided.

And as to the third case, a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground that there was no valid marriage license, was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The reason cited was failure to comply with Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence that requires that a certification of absence of a public document like a marriage license must be issued by the “custodian” of the document. Regrettably in this case, it was the municipal treasurer who issued the negative certification and not the local civil registrar (LCR) who is the custodian of marriage licenses. Still, in this third case, it was held that a case involving the status of a person is in rem and if the marriage is void but the petition is dismissed on account of insufficient evidence or lack of probative value thereof, then res judicata will not apply. (Pascua v. Republic, G.R. No. 253896, August 4, 2025, “Pascua”).

The commonality among these three cases is that they involve marital status issues. Indeed, as to a person’s status, it would not be sound policy to bar the refiling when the previous dismissal is due to mere failure to present enough evidence.

In Kondo, even if the petitioner-wife was initially unable to present sufficient evidence to comply with evidentiary requirements, still, the fact remains that there is a divorce obtained by her Japanese husband. Should she be barred from being given the second chance to present all the needed documentary pieces of evidence, she would be left helpless as she would be deemed married to her Japanese husband who is no longer married to her.

In Joaquin, if the husband will be forever barred from filing his own petition for legal separation just because the wife jumped the gun on him by filing her case ahead of his, then it would not be fair as the husband’s petition may be based on a different ground than that of the wife.

Finally, in Pascua, the Supreme Court correctly opened the door for the husband to refile the petition to declare his marriage as void if indeed he can show that there was no valid marriage license by presenting a certification duly issued by the LCR and not merely by the municipal treasurer.

In fine, jurisprudence rightly acknowledges that some things that are factual but unfortunately were not proven through the lens of evidential law, must not be ignored. While sometimes the legal truth would not jibe with the real truth, it would still be consistent with justice and equity when there is a conscious effort to make the two the same.

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates (ETRIIILaw)– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. Among the books he authored is Law on Property and Essentials of Land Registration [2024 Edition] which was on the bestseller’s list in online shops for several months. His website is etriiilaw.com).