Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 427 views

    Rayray V Kyung-Lee Grl18176

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    The plaintiff, Lazaro B. Rayray, sought annulment of his marriage to the defendant, Chae Kyung Lee, in a Philippine court. The defendant's whereabouts were unknown, so summons was served by publication. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling it had no jurisdiction over a marriage solemnized in Korea. However, the Supreme Court ruled that dismissal was incorrect. It found the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, and the marriage (res). For annulment cases, jurisdiction depends on the nationality or domicile of the parties, not where the marriage was celebrated. Since the plaintiff was Filipino and domiciled in the Philippines, the trial court had proper jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rayray V Kyung-Lee Grl18176

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    427 views2 pages
    The plaintiff, Lazaro B. Rayray, sought annulment of his marriage to the defendant, Chae Kyung Lee, in a Philippine court. The defendant's whereabouts were unknown, so summons was served by publication. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling it had no jurisdiction over a marriage solemnized in Korea. However, the Supreme Court ruled that dismissal was incorrect. It found the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, and the marriage (res). For annulment cases, jurisdiction depends on the nationality or domicile of the parties, not where the marriage was celebrated. Since the plaintiff was Filipino and domiciled in the Philippines, the trial court had proper jurisdiction

    Original Description:

    Civil Procedure

    Original Title

    Rayray v Kyung-lee Grl18176

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff, Lazaro B. Rayray, sought annulment of his marriage to the defendant, Chae Kyung Lee, in a Philippine court. The defendant's whereabouts were unknown, so summons was served by publication. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling it had no jurisdiction over a marriage solemnized in Korea. However, the Supreme Court ruled that dismissal was incorrect. It found the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, and the marriage (res). For annulment cases, jurisdiction depends on the nationality or domicile of the parties, not where the marriage was celebrated. Since the plaintiff was Filipino and domiciled in the Philippines, the trial court had proper jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    427 views2 pages

    Rayray V Kyung-Lee Grl18176

    Uploaded by

    Adi Lim
    The plaintiff, Lazaro B. Rayray, sought annulment of his marriage to the defendant, Chae Kyung Lee, in a Philippine court. The defendant's whereabouts were unknown, so summons was served by publication. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling it had no jurisdiction over a marriage solemnized in Korea. However, the Supreme Court ruled that dismissal was incorrect. It found the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties, and the marriage (res). For annulment cases, jurisdiction depends on the nationality or domicile of the parties, not where the marriage was celebrated. Since the plaintiff was Filipino and domiciled in the Philippines, the trial court had proper jurisdiction

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-18176 October 26, 1966

    LAZARO B. RAYRAY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CHAE KYUNG


    LEE, defendant-appellee.

    CONCEPCION, C.J.:

    FACTS:

    Lorenzo Rayray seeks the annulment of his marriage to Chae Kyung Lee.
    Defendant’s whereabouts being unknown, summons was served by
    publication. Not having filed an answer, Rayray moved that defendant be
    declared in default, which was granted after finding that there was no
    collusion between the parties. The trial court dismissed the complaint ruling
    that it had no jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of Rayray’s marriage to
    defendant, it having been solemnized in Seoul, Korea.

    ISSUE:

    WON the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint is correct; or, WON the trial
    court has jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the marriage though such
    was solemnized in Korea.

    RULING:

    No, the dismissal is not correct, thus, it could validly inquire into the validity
    of the marriage.

    1. In order that a given case could be validly decided by a court of justice, it


    must have jurisdiction over (1) the subject-matter of the litigation; (2) the
    person of the parties therein; and (3) in actions in rem or quasi-in-rem, the
    res. The subject-matter of the present case is the annulment of plaintiff's
    marriage to the defendant, which is within the jurisdiction of our courts of
    first instance, and, in Manila, of its Court of Juvenile and Domestic
    Relations.

    2. The court acquired jurisdiction over plaintiff herein by his submission


    thereto in consequence of the filing of the complaint. Defendant was placed
    under the jurisdiction of said court, upon the service of summons by
    publication.
    3. This is an action in rem, for it concerns the status of the parties herein,
    and status affects or binds the whole word. The res in the present case is
    the relation between said parties, or their marriage tie. Jurisdiction over the
    same depends upon the nationality or domicile of the parties, not the place
    of celebration of marriage, or the locus celebrationis.
    ******
    The prevailing rule is, accordingly, that a court has jurisdiction over the res,
    in an action for annulment of marriage, provided, at least, one of the parties
    is domiciled in, or a national of, the forum. Since plaintiff is a Filipino,
    domiciled in the Philippines, it follows that the lower court had jurisdiction
    over the res, in addition to its jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the
    parties. In other words, it could validly inquire into the legality of the
    marriage between the parties herein.

    You might also like