Personal Status Litigation Act

This Act establishes the special provisions and other measures referred to in the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 109 of 1996) for personal status litigation proceedings.

The term "personal status litigation" as used in this Act means litigation related to any of the following actions or to any other action through which a person seeks a change in the status of a familial relationship or a declaratory judgment as to whether a familial relationship exists (referred to below as a "personal status action"):

an action to nullify or rescind a marriage, action for divorce, action to nullify or rescind a divorce by agreement, or action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether a marital relationship exists;

an action to rebut the presumption of legitimacy, action for filiation, action to nullify or rescind an acknowledgment of parentage, action to establish paternity pursuant to the provisions of Article 773 of the Civil Code (Act No. 89 of 1896), or action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether a biological parent and child relationship exists; and

an action to nullify or rescind an adoption, action to dissolve an adoptive relationship, action to nullify or rescind the dissolution of an adoptive relationship by agreement, or action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether an adoptive parent and child relationship exists.

Beyond what is prescribed in this Act, the Rules of the Supreme Court provide for the necessary particulars relevant to personal status litigation proceedings.

A personal status action may be filed with a Japanese court if it falls under any of the following items:

if the action is being filed against one party to a familial relationship and that party is domiciled in Japan (or resides in Japan, if the party has no domicile or the party's domicile is unknown);

if the action is being filed against both parties to a familial relationship and either party or both parties are domiciled in Japan (or reside in Japan, if they have no domicile or their domiciles are unknown);

if the action is being filed by one party to a familial relationship and the other party was domiciled in Japan at the time of their death;

if both parties to a familial relationship have died and either party or both parties were domiciled in Japan at the time of their deaths;

if both parties to a familial relationship are Japanese nationals (including if either or both were Japanese nationals at the time of their death);

if the action is being filed by one party to a familial relationship who is domiciled in Japan, and the parties to the familial relationship were last domiciled together in Japan; or

if the action is being filed by one party to a familial relationship who is domiciled in Japan and there are found to be special circumstances because of which conducting a trial and reaching a judicial decision in a Japanese court will help achieve equity between the parties or hold a fair and speedy trial, such as if the other party is missing or if the final and binding judicial decision on an action concerning the same familial relationship that was filed in the country where the other party is domiciled is not effective in Japan.

If a single action involves a claim related to personal status litigation and a claim for damages arising from the facts that constitute a cause of action associated with the claim (limited to the claim from one of the parties to the other party of the personal status litigation), the action may be filed with a Japanese court, but only if the Japanese courts have jurisdiction over the claim related to that personal status litigation.

If a Japanese court has jurisdiction over an action to rescind a marriage or an action for divorce, it has jurisdiction over the case that involves the judicial decision referred to in Article 32, paragraph (1) to designate the custodial parent and settle other matters related to child custody and over the case that involves the judicial decision referred to in that paragraph to designate the person exercising parental authority alone, and it has jurisdiction over the case that involves the judicial decision referred to in paragraph (3) of that Article to designate the person with parental authority.

If a Japanese court has jurisdiction over an action to rescind a marriage or an action for divorce, it has jurisdiction over the case that involves the judicial decision to settle matters related to the distribution of property under Article 32, paragraph (1), if that case falls under any of the items of Article 3-12 of the Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act (Act No. 52 of 2011).

Even when the Japanese courts have jurisdiction over an action, the court may deny all or part of the action if it finds there are special circumstances because of which, if the Japanese courts were to conduct a trial and reach a judicial decision, it would be inequitable to either party or prevent a fair and speedy trial, in consideration of circumstances such as the nature of the case, the degree of burden that the defendant would have to bear in responding to the action, the location of evidence, or the interests of any children of the parties to the familial relationship that the action concerns who have not yet attained the age of majority.

A personal status action falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court covering the place that constitutes the general venue for the party to the familial relationship that the action concerns, or the place that constituted the general venue for that party at the time of their death.

If the court of jurisdiction cannot be determined under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the personal status action falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court that has jurisdiction over the place specified by the Rules of the Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, if multiple claims by or against multiple persons seeking changes in the status of multiple familial relationships or a declaratory judgment as to whether multiple familial relationships exist are filed in a single personal status action, the action may be filed with a family court that has jurisdiction over one of those claims pursuant to the provisions of the preceding Article provided, however, that this is limited to the cases specified in the first sentence of Article 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 16, paragraph (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if a family court finds that all or part of personal status litigation is not under its jurisdiction, the court may itself conduct proceedings and make judicial decisions for all or part of that personal status litigation upon petition or sua sponte, if a case under conciliation that was petitioned for in connection with the relevant personal status litigation case pursuant to the provisions of Article 257, paragraph (1) of the Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act was pending before that court, and if the court finds it particularly necessary to do so in light of the progress of the conciliation, the opinions of the parties, and any other circumstances.

Even if personal status litigation is under the jurisdiction of a family court, the court may transfer all or part of that litigation to another court with jurisdiction upon petition or sua sponte if it finds this to be necessary in order to avoid a substantial delay in litigation or in order to help achieve equity between the parties, in light of the addresses of the parties and the witnesses to be examined, and any other circumstances.

Upon petition, a court of first instance before which there is pending litigation involving a claim for damages arising from facts that constitute a cause of action relating to personal status litigation that is pending in a family court may transfer the litigation involving the claim for damages to the family court, if it finds this to be reasonable. In this case, the family court to which the litigation is transferred may conduct its own trial and reach a judicial decision itself for the litigation involving the claim for damages.

A family court to which litigation involving a claim for damages is transferred pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph must order the consolidation of oral arguments for the personal status litigation case that is referred to in that paragraph and the transferred case.

If a family court finds it necessary, it may have a court advisor attend a trial or be present for an attempt to arrange a settlement, and hear their opinions on the case.

There is to be at least one court advisor for each case.

A court advisor is designated by the family court for each case from among persons appointed in advance by the family court every year.

The Rules of the Supreme Court prescribe the qualifications and number of persons to be appointed pursuant to the preceding paragraph and other necessary matters relevant to appointing them as referred to in that paragraph.

A court advisor is paid travel expenses, a daily allowance, and lodging fees in the amounts specified by the Rules of the Supreme Court.

When a family court has a court advisor attend a trial or attempt to arrange a settlement pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), if the court finds it appropriate, the family court may, after hearing the opinions of both parties, have the court advisor attend the trial or attempt to arrange a settlement and take action on the relevant date, as provided by the Rules of the Supreme Court, by a method that enables the family court and both parties to simultaneously communicate with the court advisor through audio transmission.

The provisions of Articles 23 to 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to court advisors.

Once a petition to disqualify or challenge a court advisor is filed, the advisor may not participate in the case with respect to which the petition has been filed until the ruling on the petition becomes final and binding.

If a current or former court advisor divulges, without legitimate grounds, a personal secret learned in relation to the matters they have handled in the course of duty, they are subject to imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.

Except as otherwise provided, in a personal status action that is filed by one party to the familial relationship that the action in question concerns, the other party to the familial relationship is to be named as the defendant.

Except as otherwise provided, in a personal status action that is filed by a person other than a party to the familial relationship that the action in question concerns, both of the parties to the familial relationship are to be named as defendant; if one of the parties has died, the other party is to be named as the defendant.

If a person that is to be named as a defendant in the relevant action pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs dies and there is no other person that is to be named as a defendant, the public prosecutor is to be named as the defendant.

The provisions of Article 5, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Civil Code and of Article 9, Article 13, and Article 17 of that Code, as well as the provisions of Article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and of Article 32, paragraph (1) (including as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 40, paragraph (4) of that Code) and Article 32, paragraph (2) of that Code do not apply to procedural acts in personal status litigation proceedings.

If a person with a limited capacity to engage in procedural acts seeks to engage in procedural acts under the preceding paragraph, the presiding judge, upon petition, may appoint an attorney as the person's counsel if found necessary to do so.

If a person with a limited capacity to engage in procedural acts does not file the petition under the preceding paragraph, the presiding judge may still order appointment of an attorney as the person's counsel, or may appoint an attorney as the person's counsel sua sponte.

The amount of remuneration the person with a limited capacity to engage in procedural acts is to pay to the attorney appointed by the presiding judge as the person’s counsel pursuant to the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs is to be the amount the court finds reasonable.

If a person who is to be the plaintiff or defendant in a personal status action is an adult ward, the guardian may sue or be sued in their stead provided, however, that this does not apply if the guardian is the other party to the litigation connected with that action.

In the case referred to in the proviso to the preceding paragraph, the adult guardianship supervisor may sue or be sued instead of the adult ward.