LEONOR VS COURT OF APPEALS GR NO.

112597 APRIL 2 1996

FACTS: The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari assailing the validity of the judgment of the lower court. It was shown that she was married to the private respondent and they had three kids. While her husband was studying and working abroad, he cohabited with another woman. This prompted her to file for separation and alimony against her husband. Her husband in return filed a divorce case against her in Swiss Courts, contending that their marriage was void for absence of valid marriage certificate. The Swiss Court held in favour of the private respondent. Subsequently the Private Respondent filed a petition for the cancellation of the marriage certificate in the Philippines. The trial court granted his petition and denied Petitioners appeal. The Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari in the CA, but the latter denied the same. She filed this petition with the Supreme Court to assail the validity of CAs decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lower court erred in declaring the marriage null and void?

HELD: Yes. Rule 108 as the basis of the private respondents contention is untenable. The Court explained that the Rule only applies to cases concerning typographical or other clerical errors in the marriage contract. It does not apply to cases where the status of the parties and their children shall be affected. The Supreme Court held in favour of the petitioner contending that A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at alli

Leonor v CA April 2 1996, Gr. 112597