A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996 RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, complainant, vs. JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY, respondent.

ROMERO, J.:p The complainant in this administrative case is the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro. He has submitted evidence in relation to two specific acts committed by respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy, which, he contends, exhibits gross misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law. First, on September 27, 1994, respondent judge solemnized the wedding between Gaspar A. Tagadan and Arlyn F. Borga, despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first wife. Second, it is alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. Respondent judge holds office and has jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte. The wedding was solemnized at the respondent judge's residence in the municipality of Dapa, which does not fall within his jurisdictional area of the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, located some 40 to 45 kilometers away from the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. In his letter-comment to the office of the Court Administrator, respondent judge avers that the office and name of the Municipal Mayor of Dapa have been used by someone else, who, as the mayor's "lackey," is overly concerned with his actuations both as judge and as a private person. The same person had earlier filed Administrative Matter No 94-980-MTC, which was dismissed for lack of merit on September 15, 1994, and Administrative Matter No. OCA-IPI-95-16, "Antonio Adapon v. Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy," which is still pending. In relation to the charges against him, respondent judge seeks exculpation from his act of having solemnized the marriage between Gaspar Tagadan, a married man separated from his wife, and Arlyn F. Borga by stating that he merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each other for almost seven years. 1 With respect to the second charge, he maintains that in solemnizing the marriage between Sumaylo and del Rosario, he did not violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family Code which states that: "Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction;" and that article 8 thereof applies to the case in question. The complaint was not referred, as is usual, for investigation, since the pleadings submitted were considered sufficient for a resolution of the case.
2

Since the countercharges of sinister motives and fraud on the part of complainant have not been sufficiently proven, they will not be dwelt upon. The acts complained of and respondent judge's answer thereto will suffice and can be objectively assessed by themselves to prove the latter's malfeasance. The certified true copy of the marriage contract between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga states that Tagadan's civil status is "separated." Despite this declaration, the wedding ceremony was solemnized by respondent judge. He presented in evidence a joint affidavit by Maurecio A. Labado, Sr. and Eugenio Bullecer, subscribed and sworn to before Judge Demosthenes C. Duquilla, Municipal Trial Judge of Basey, Samar. 3 The affidavit was not issued by the latter judge, as claimed by respondent judge, but merely acknowledged before him. In their affidavit, the affiants stated that they knew Gaspar Tagadan to have been civilly married to Ida D. Pearanda in September 1983; that after thirteen years of cohabitation and having borne five children, Ida Pearanda left the conjugal dwelling in Valencia, Bukidnon and that she has not returned nor been heard of for almost seven years, thereby giving rise to the presumption that she is already dead. In effect, Judge Domagtoy maintains that the aforementioned joint affidavit is sufficient proof of Ida Pearanda's presumptive death, and ample reason for him to proceed with the marriage ceremony. We do not agree. Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides: A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Articles 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse presentmust institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (Emphasis added.) There is nothing ambiguous or difficult to comprehend in this provision. In fact, the law is clear and simple. Even if the spouse present has a wellfounded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a subsequent marriage, a mandatory requirement which has been precisely incorporated into the Family Code to discourage subsequent marriages where it is not proven that the previous marriage has been dissolved or a missing spouse is factually or presumptively dead, in accordance with pertinent provisions of law. In the case at bar, Gaspar Tagadan did not institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wife's presumptive death. Absent this judicial declaration, he remains married to Ida Pearanda. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of respondent judge to have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom. Such neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a bigamous, and therefore void, marriage. Under Article 35 of the Family Code, " The following marriage shall be void from the beginning: (4) Those bigamous . . . marriages not falling under Article 41." The second issue involves the solemnization of a marriage ceremony outside the court's jurisdiction, covered by Articles 7 and 8 of the Family Code, thus: Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by : (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied.) Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.

Respondent judge points to Article 8 and its exceptions as the justification for his having solemnized the marriage between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside of his court's jurisdiction. As the aforequoted provision states, a marriage can be held outside of the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the following instances: (1) at the point of death, (2) in remote places in accordance with Article 29 or (3) upon request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. There is no pretense that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the point of death or in the remote place. Moreover, the written request presented addressed to the respondent judge was made by only one party, Gemma del Rosario. 4 More importantly, the elementary principle underlying this provision is the authority of the solemnizing judge. Under Article 3, one of the formal requisites of marriage is the "authority of the solemnizing officer." Under Article 7, marriage may be solemnized by, among others, "any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction." Article 8, which is a directory provision, refers only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the solemnizing officer as provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance herewith will not invalidate the marriage. A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinary to marry the faithful, is authorized to do so only within the area of the diocese or place allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within said areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court's jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the officiating official to administrative liability. 5 Inasmuch as respondent judge's jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. By citing Article 8 and the exceptions therein as grounds for the exercise of his misplaced authority, respondent judge again demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic principles of civil law. Accordingly, the Court finds respondent to have acted in gross ignorance of the law. The legal principles applicable in the cases brought to our attention are elementary and uncomplicated, prompting us to conclude that respondent's failure to apply them is due to a lack of comprehension of the law. The judiciary should be composed of persons who, if not experts, are at least, proficient in the law they are sworn to apply, more than the ordinary laymen. They should be skilled and competent in understanding and applying the law. It is imperative that they be conversant with basic legal principles like the ones involved in instant case. 6 It is not too much to expect them to know and apply the law intelligently. 7 Otherwise, the system of justice rests on a shaky foundation indeed, compounded by the errors committed by those not learned in the law. While magistrates may at times make mistakes in judgment, for which they are not penalized, the respondent judge exhibited ignorance of elementary provisions of law, in an area which has greatly prejudiced the status of married persons. The marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is considered bigamous and void, there being a subsisting marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Ida Pearanda. The Office of the Court Administrator recommends, in its Memorandum to the Court, a six-month suspension and a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Considering that one of the marriages in question resulted in a bigamous union and therefore void, and the other lacked the necessary authority of respondent judge, the Court adopts said recommendation. Respondent is advised to be more circumspect in applying the law and to cultivate a deeper understanding of the law. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months and given a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Regalado, Puno, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-11598

January 27, 1959

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelee, vs. FEDERIC BUSTAMANTE, defendant-appellant. Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Atty. Eduardo C. Abaya for appellee. Ramon S. Milo for appellant. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Charged and convicted of the crime of bigamy in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Federico Bustamante appealed to this Court on points of law. The records disclose that defendant-appellant Bustamante was united in wedlock to one Maria Perez on August 9, 1954, before the Justice of the Peace of Binalonan, Pangasinan (Exh. "A", pp. 9-11, t.s.n.). A little over a year later, or on September 16, 1955, he contracted a second marriage with Demetria Tibayan, solemnized before Vice-Mayor Francisco B. Nato of Mapandan, Pangasinan, who was then acting as Mayor of the said Municipality (Exh. "B"), while the first marriage was still subsisting. Defendant dwelt with Demetria and her parents for about a month, after which a time he returned to Calasiao, Pangasinan to live with the first wife, Maria Perez. In the course of her search for him, Demetria discovered from the Binalonan municipal authorities the previous marriage of defendant Bustamante. Hence, this accusation. Defendant did not testify in his behalf during the trial. the main problem poised in this appeal concerns the authority of Francisco Nato to solemnize the second marriage. It appears that Enrique Aquino and Francisco Nato were the duly elected mayor and vice-mayor, respectively, of the municipality of Mapandan, Pangasinan in the elections of 1951. On September 16, 1955, Aquino went on leave of absence for one month. In view of this, the vice-mayor was designed by the mayor to take over the rein of municipal government during his absence; and Nato was acting in this capacity when he performed the second marriage of Bustamante with Demetria Tibayan. Appellant, relying upon article 56 of the Civil Code of the Philippines Art. 56. Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court; (2) The Presiding Justice and the Justice of the Court of Appeals; (3) Judges of the Courts of First Instance; (4) Mayors of cities and municipalities;

(5) Municipal judges and justices of the Peace; (6) Priests, rabbis, ministers of the gospel of any denominations, church, religion or sect, duly registered, as provided in article 92; and (7) Ship captains, airplanes chiefs, military commanders, and consuls and vice-consuls in special cases provided in provided in articles 74 and 75. contends that there could not have been a second marriage to speak of, as Nato was merely acting as mayor when he celebrated the same, hence, without authority of law to do so. He lays stress on the distinction made by this court in the case Salaysay vs. Hon. Fred Ruiz Castro, et al.* 52 Off. Gaz., No. 2, 809, between "Acting Mayor" and "Vice-Mayor acting as Mayor", urging that while the former may solemnize marriages, the latter could not. We find this connection untenable. When the issue involves the assumption of powers and duties of the office of the mayor by the vice-mayor, when proper, it is immaterial whether it because the latter is the Acting Mayor or merely acting as Mayor, for in both instances, he discharges all the duties and wields the power appurtenant to said office (Laxamana vs. Baltazar,1 48 Off. Gaz., No. 9, 3869; Sec. 2195, Revised Administrative Code). The case of Salaysay vs. Castro (supra) cited by the appellant, which revolves upon the interpretation of section 27 of the Revised Election Code, is entirely distinct from the one at bar. This instance does not involve a question of title to the office, but the performance of the functions thereunto appertaining by one who is admitted to be temporarily vested with it. As correctly observed by the lower court, that case even concedes and recognizes the powers and duties of the Mayor to devolve upon the Vice-Mayor whenever the latter is in an acting capacity. The word "acting" as held in the case of Austria vs. Amante,2 45 Off. Gaz., 2809, when preceding the title of an office connotes merely the temporary character or nature of the same. The information charges that the appellant contracted the second marriage before the Justice of the Peace of Mapandan, Pangasinan, while the marriage certificate, Exh. "B", and the testimonies of witnesses indicate clearly that it was performed by Francisco Nato. Appellant assigns as error the admission by the lower court of the said evidence, notwithstanding counsel's objection. This is not reversible error. The wrong averment, if at all, was unsubstantial and immaterial that need not even be alleged, for it matters not who solemnized the marriage, it being sufficient that the information charging bigamy alleges that a second marriage was contracted while the first still remained undissolved. The information filed in this case which properly states the time and place of the second wedding, was sufficient to apprise the defendant of the crime imputed. Neither procedural prejudice nor error was committed by the lower court in finding appellant guilty. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code attaches the penalty of prision mayor to the crime of bigamy. Pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court must impose an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the Code (in this case the medium period of prision mayor, there being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances), and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed for the offense (or prision correccionalmedium) (People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil., 549). The penalty imposed by the lower court (imprisonment for not less than two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional and not more than eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor), being in accordance with law, is affirmed. Costs against appellant. So ordered. Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-9005

June 20, 1958

ARSENIO DE LORIA and RICARDA DE LORIA, petitioners, vs. FELIPE APELAN FELIX, respondent. Guido Advincula and Nicanor Lapuz for petitioners. Nicodemus L. Dasig for respondent. BENGZON, J.: Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, involving the central issue of the validity of the marriage in articulo mortis between Matea de la Cruz and Felipe Apelan Felix. It appears that long before, and during the War of the Pacific, these two persons lived together as wife and husband at Cabrera Street, Pasay City. They acquired properties but had no children. In the early part of the liberation of Manila and surrounding territory, Matea be came seriously ill. Knowing her critical condition, two young ladies of legal age dedicated to the service of God, named Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra 1 visited and persuaded her to go to confession. They fetched Father Gerardo Bautista, Catholic parish priest of Pasay. The latter, upon learning that the penitent had been living with Felipe Apelan Felix without benefit of marriage, asked both parties to ratify their union according to the rites of his Church. Both agreed. Whereupon the priest heard the confession of the bed-ridden old woman, gave her Holy Communion, administered the Sacrament of Extreme Unction and then solemnized her marriage with Felipe Apelan Felix in articulo mortis,2 Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra acting as sponsors or witnesses. It was then January 29 or 30, 1945. After a few months, Matea recovered from her sickness; but death was not to be denied, and in January 1946, she was interred in Pasay, the same Fr. Bautista performing the burial ceremonies. On May 12, 1952, Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria filed this complaint to compel defendant to an accounting and to deliver the properties left by the deceased. They are grandchildren of Adriana de la Cruz, sister of Matea, and claim to be the only surviving forced heirs of the latter. Felipe Apelan Felix resisted the action, setting up his rights as widower. They obtained favorable judgment in the court of first instance, but on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint. Their request for review here was given due course principally to consider the legal question-which they amply discussed in their petition and printed brief whether the events which took place in January 1945 constituted, in the eyes of the law, a valid and binding marriage. According to the Court of Appeals: There is no doubt at all in the mind of this Court, that Fr. Gerardo Bautista, solemnized the marriage in articulo mortis of Defendant Apelan Felix and Matea de la Cruz, on January 29 and 30, 1945, under the circumstances set forth in the reverend's testimony in court. Fr. Bautista, a respectable old priest of Pasay City then, had no reason to side one or the other. . . . Notwithstanding this positive evidence on the celebration or performance of the marriage in question, Plaintiffs-Appellees contend that the same was not in articulo mortis, because Matea de la Cruz was not then on the point of death. Fr. Bautista clearly testified, however, that her condition at the time was bad; she was bed-ridden; and according to his observation, she might die at any moment (Exhibit 1), so apprehensive was he about her condition that he decided in administering to her the sacrament of extreme unction, after hearing her confession. . . . .The greatest objection of the Appellees and the trial court against the validity of the marriage under consideration, is the admitted fact that it was not registered. The applicable legal provisions are contained in the Marriage Law of 1929 (Act No. 3613) as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 114 (Nov. 1936) specially sections 1, 3, 20 and 21.

There is no question about the officiating priest's authority to solemnize marriage. There is also no question that the parties had legal capacity to contract marriage, and that both declared before Fr. Bautista and Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra that "they took each other as husband and wife." The appellants' contention of invalidity rests on these propositions: (a) There was no "marriage contract" signed by the wedded couple the witnesses and the priest, as required by section 3 of the Marriage Law; and (b) The priest filed no affidavit, nor recorded the marriage with the local civil registry. The factual basis of the first proposition no signing may seriously be doubted. The Court of Appeals made no finding thereon. Indeed if anything, its decision impliedly held such marriage contract to have been executed, since it said "the marriage in articulo mortis was a fact", and the only question at issue was whether "the failure of Fr. Bautista to send copies of the certificate of marriage in question to the Local Civil Registrar and to register the said marriage in the Record of Marriages of the Pasay Catholic Church . . . renders the said marriage invalid." And such was the only issue tendered in the court of first instance. (See p. 14, 34, Record on Appeal.) However, we may as well face this second issue: Does the failure to sign the "marriage certificate or contract" constitute a cause for nullity? Marriage contract is the "instrument in triplicate" mentioned in sec. 3 of the Marriage Law which provides: Sec. 3. Mutual Consent. No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required, but the parties with legal capacity to contract marriage must declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of legal age, that they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be set forth in an instrument in triplicate, signed by signature or mark by the contracting parties and said two witnesses and attested by the person solemnizing the marriage. . . . (Emphasis ours). In the first place, the Marriage Law itself, in sections 28, 29 and 30 enumerates the causes for annulment of marriage. Failure to sign the marriage contract is not one of them. In the second place, bearing in mind that the "essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contracting parties and their consent" (section 1), the latter being manifested by the declaration of "the parties" "in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife" which in this case actually occurred.3 We think the signing of the marriage contract or certificate was required by the statute simply for the purpose of evidencing the act.4 No statutory provision or court ruling has been cited making it an essential requisite not the formal requirement of evidentiary value, which we believe it is. The fact of marriage is one thing; the proof by which it may be established is quite another. Certificate and Record. Statutes relating to the solemnization of marriage usually provide for the issuance of a certificate of marriage and for the registration or recording of marriage . . . Generally speaking, the registration or recording of a marriage is not essential to its validity, the statute being addressed to the officials issuing the license, certifying the marriage, and making the proper return and registration or recording. (Sec. 27 American Jurisprudence "Marriage" p. 197-198.) Formal Requisites. . . . The general rule, however, is that statutes which direct that a license must be issued and procured, that only certain persons shall perform the ceremony, that a certain number of witnesses shall be present, that a certificate of the marriage shall be signed, returned, and recorded, and that persons violating the conditions shall be guilty of a criminal offense, are addressed to persons in authority to secure publicity and to require a record to be made of the marriage contract. Such statutes do not void common-law marriages unless they do so expressly, even where such marriage are entered into without obtaining a license and are not recorded. It is the purpose of these statutes to discourage deception and seduction, prevent illicit intercourse under the guise of matrimony, and relieve from doubt the status of parties who live together as man and wife, by providing competent evidence of the marriage. . . . (Section 15 American Jurisprudence "Marriage" pp. 188-189.) Emphasis Ours. (See also Corpus Juris Secundum "Marriage" Sec. 33.) And our law says, "no marriage shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several formal requirements of this Act . . . ." (Section 27.) In the third place, the law, imposing on the priest the duty to furnish to the parties copies of such marriage certificate (section 16) and punishing him for its omission (section 41) implies his obligation to see that such "certificate" is executed accordingly. Hence, it would not be fair to visit upon the wedded couple in the form of annulment, Father Bautista's omission, if any, which apparently had been caused by the prevailing disorder during the liberation of Manila and its environs. Identical remarks apply to the priest's failure to make and file the affidavit required by sections 20 and 21. It was the priest's obligation; non-compliance with it, should bring no serious consequences to the married pair, specially where as in this case, it was caused by the emergency. The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff's natural father and mother, while the latter was in articulo mortis, failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since it does not appear that in the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity were not present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not being one of the requisites. (Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179.) See also Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1. The law permits in articulo mortis marriages, without marriage license; but it requires the priest to make the affidavit and file it. Such affidavit contains the data usually required for the issuance of a marriage license. The first practically substitutes the latter. Now then, if a marriage celebrated without the license is not voidable (under Act 3613),5 this marriage should not also be voidable for lack of such affidavit. In line with the policy to encourage the legalization of the union of men and women who have lived publicly in a state of concubinage6, (section 22), we must hold this marriage to be valid. The widower, needless to add, has better rights to the estate of the deceased than the plaintiffs who are the grandchildren of her sister Adriana. "In the absence of brothers or sisters and of nephews, children of the former, . . . the surviving spouse . . . shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. (Art 952, Civil Code.) Wherefore, the Court of Appeals' decision is affirmed, with costs. So ordered. Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ.,concur.

G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001 SUSAN NICDAO CARIO, petitioner, vs. SUSAN YEE CARIO, respondent. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: The issue for resolution in the case at bar hinges on the validity of the two marriages contracted by the deceased SPO4 Santiago S. Cario, whose death benefits is now the subject of the controversy between the two Susans whom he married. 1wphi1.nt Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51263, which affirmed in toto the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, in Civil Case No. Q-93-18632. During the lifetime of the late SPO4 Santiago S. Cario, he contracted two marriages, the first was on June 20, 1969, with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cario (hereafter referred to as Susan Nicdao), with whom he had two offsprings, namely, Sahlee and Sandee Cario; and the second was on November 10, 1992, with respondent Susan Yee Cario (hereafter referred to as Susan Yee), with whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way back in 1982. In 1988, SPO4 Santiago S. Cario became ill and bedridden due to diabetes complicated by pulmonary tuberculosis. He passed away on November 23, 1992, under the care of Susan Yee, who spent for his medical and burial expenses. Both petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining to the deceased from various government agencies. Petitioner Susan Nicdao was able to collect a total of P146,000.00 from MBAI, PCCUI, Commutation, NAPOLCOM, [and] Pag-ibig, 3 while respondent Susan Yee received a total of P21,000.00 from GSIS Life, Burial (GSIS) and burial (SSS). 4 On December 14, 1993, respondent Susan Yee filed the instant case for collection of sum of money against petitioner Susan Nicdao praying, inter alia, that petitioner be ordered to return to her at least one-half of the one hundred forty-six thousand pesos (P146,000.00) collectively denominated as death benefits which she (petitioner) received from MBAI, PCCUI, Commutation, NAPOLCOM, [and] Pag-ibig. Despite service of summons, petitioner failed to file her answer, prompting the trial court to declare her in default. Respondent Susan Yee admitted that her marriage to the deceased took place during the subsistence of, and without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of, the marriage between petitioner and the deceased. She, however, claimed that she had no knowledge of the previous marriage and that she became aware of it only at the funeral of the deceased, where she met petitioner who introduced herself as the wife of the deceased. To bolster her action for collection of sum of money, respondent contended that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased is void ab initio because the same was solemnized without the required marriage license. In support thereof, respondent presented: 1) the marriage certificate of the deceased and the petitioner which bears no marriage license number; 5 and 2) a certification dated March 9, 1994, from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, which reads This is to certify that this Office has no record of marriage license of the spouses SANTIAGO CARINO (sic) and SUSAN NICDAO, who are married in this municipality on June 20, 1969. Hence, we cannot issue as requested a true copy or transcription of Marriage License number from the records of this archives. This certification is issued upon the request of Mrs. Susan Yee Cario for whatever legal purpose it may serve. 6 On August 28, 1995, the trial court ruled in favor of respondent, Susan Yee, holding as follows: WHEREFORE, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P73,000.00, half of the amount which was paid to her in the form of death benefits arising from the death of SPO4 Santiago S. Cario, plus attorneys fees in the amount of P5,000.00, and costs of suit. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 On appeal by petitioner to the Court of Appeals, the latter affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, the instant petition, contending that: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT THAT VDA. DE CONSUEGRA VS. GSIS IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN APPLYING EQUITY IN THE INSTANT CASE INSTEAD OF THE CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL MANDATE OF THE FAMILY CODE. III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE CASE OF VDA. DE CONSUEGRA VS GSIS TO HAVE BEEN MODIFIED, AMENDED AND EVEN ABANDONED BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE FAMILY CODE. 8 Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Meaning, where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law, for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. 9 However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to the determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. 10 In such instances, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity. These need not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void. 11 It is clear therefore that the Court is clothed with sufficient authority to pass upon the validity of the two marriages in this case, as the same is essential to the determination of who is rightfully entitled to the subject death benefits of the deceased. Under the Civil Code, which was the law in force when the marriage of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased was solemnized in 1969, a valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage, 12 and the absence thereof, subject to certain exceptions, 13 renders the marriage void ab initio. 14 In the case at bar, there is no question that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased does not fall within the marriages exempt from the license requirement. A marriage license, therefore, was indispensable to the validity of their marriage. This notwithstanding, the records reveal that the marriage

contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no marriage license number and, as certified by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such marriage license. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, 15 the Court held that such a certification is adequate to prove the nonissuance of a marriage license. Absent any circumstance of suspicion, as in the present case, the certification issued by the local civil registrar enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Such being the case, the presumed validity of the marriage of petitioner and the deceased has been sufficiently overcome. It then became the burden of petitioner to prove that their marriage is valid and that they secured the required marriage license. Although she was declared in default before the trial court, petitioner could have squarely met the issue and explained the absence of a marriage license in her pleadings before the Court of Appeals and this Court. But petitioner conveniently avoided the issue and chose to refrain from pursuing an argument that will put her case in jeopardy. Hence, the presumed validity of their marriage cannot stand. It is beyond cavil, therefore, that the marriage between petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased, having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license, and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, is undoubtedly void ab initio. It does not follow from the foregoing disquisition, however, that since the marriage of petitioner and the deceased is declared void ab initio, the death benefits under scrutiny would now be awarded to respondent Susan Yee. To reiterate, under Article 40 of the Family Code, for purposes of remarriage, there must first be a prior judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter into a second marriage, otherwise, the second marriage would also be void. Accordingly, the declaration in the instant case of nullity of the previous marriage of the deceased and petitioner Susan Nicdao does not validate the second marriage of the deceased with respondent Susan Yee. The fact remains that their marriage was solemnized without first obtaining a judicial decree declaring the marriage of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased void. Hence, the marriage of respondent Susan Yee and the deceased is, likewise, void ab initio. One of the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage is the separation of the property of the spouses according to the applicable property regime. 16 Considering that the two marriages are void ab initio, the applicable property regime would not be absolute community or conjugal partnership of property, but rather, be governed by the provisions of Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code on Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, which refers to the property regime of bigamous marriages, adulterous relationships, relationships in a state of concubine, relationships where both man and woman are married to other persons, multiple alliances of the same married man, 17 ... [O]nly the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions ... In this property regime, the properties acquired by the parties through their actual joint contribution shall belong to the co-ownership. Wages and salaries earned by each party belong to him or her exclusively. Then too, contributions in the form of care of the home, children and household, or spiritual or moral inspiration, are excluded in this regime. 18 Considering that the marriage of respondent Susan Yee and the deceased is a bigamous marriage, having been solemnized during the subsistence of a previous marriage then presumed to be valid (between petitioner and the deceased), the application of Article 148 is therefore in order. The disputed P146,000.00 from MBAI [AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc.], NAPOLCOM, Commutation, Pag-ibig, and PCCUI, are clearly renumerations, incentives and benefits from governmental agencies earned by the deceased as a police officer. Unless respondent Susan Yee presents proof to the contrary, it could not be said that she contributed money, property or industry in the acquisition of these monetary benefits. Hence, they are not owned in common by respondent and the deceased, but belong to the deceased alone and respondent has no right whatsoever to claim the same. By intestate succession, the said death benefits of the deceased shall pass to his legal heirs. And, respondent, not being the legal wife of the deceased is not one of them. As to the property regime of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased, Article 147 of the Family Code governs. This article applies to unions of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void for other reasons, like the absence of a marriage license. Article 147 of the Family Code reads Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the formers efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. xxx When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. In contrast to Article 148, under the foregoing article, wages and salaries earned by either party during the cohabitation shall be owned by the parties in equal shares and will be divided equally between them, even if only one party earned the wages and the other did not contribute thereto. 19 Conformably, even if the disputed death benefits were earned by the deceased alone as a government employee, Article 147 creates a co-ownership in respect thereto, entitling the petitioner to share one-half thereof. As there is no allegation of bad faith in the present case, both parties of the first marriage are presumed to be in good faith. Thus, one-half of the subject death benefits under scrutiny shall go to the petitioner as her share in the property regime, and the other half pertaining to the deceased shall pass by, intestate succession, to his legal heirs, namely, his children with Susan Nicdao. In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals relied on the case of Vda. de Consuegra v. Government Service Insurance System, 20 where the Court awarded one-half of the retirement benefits of the deceased to the first wife and the other half, to the second wife, holding that: ... [S]ince the defendants first marriage has not been dissolved or declared void the conjugal partnership established by that marriage has not ceased. Nor has the first wife lost or relinquished her status as putative heir of her husband under the new Civil Code, entitled to share in his estate upon his death should she survive him. Consequently, whether as conjugal partner in a still subsisting marriage or as such putative heir she has an interest in the husbands share in the property here in dispute.... And with respect to the right of the second wife, this Court observed that although the second marriage can be presumed to be void ab initio as it was celebrated while the first marriage was still subsisting, still there is need for judicial declaration of such nullity. And inasmuch as the conjugal partnership formed by the second marriage was dissolved before judicial declaration of its nullity, [t]he only just and equitable solution in this case would be to recognize the right of the second wife to her share of one-half in the property acquired by her and her husband, and consider the other half as pertaining to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage. 21 It should be stressed, however, that the aforecited decision is premised on the rule which requires a prior and separate judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. This is the reason why in the said case, the Court determined the rights of the parties in accordance with their existing property regime.

In Domingo v. Court of Appeals, 22 however, the Court, construing Article 40 of the Family Code, clarified that a prior and separate declaration of nullity of a marriage is an all important condition precedent only for purposes of remarriage. That is, if a party who is previously married wishes to contract a second marriage, he or she has to obtain first a judicial decree declaring the first marriage void, before he or she could contract said second marriage, otherwise the second marriage would be void. The same rule applies even if the first marriage is patently void because the parties are not free to determine for themselves the validity or invalidity or their marriage. However, for purposes other than to remarry, like for filing a case for collection of sum of money anchored on a marriage claimed to be valid, no prior and separate judicial declaration of nullity is necessary. All that a party has to do is to present evidence, testimonial or documentary, that would prove that the marriage from which his or her rights flow is in fact valid. Thereupon, the court, if material to the determination of the issues before it, will rule on the status of the marriage involved and proceed to determine the rights of the parties in accordance with the applicable laws and jurisprudence. Thus, in Nial v. Bayadog, 23 the Court explained: [T]he court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void in Article 40 of the Family Code connoted that such final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51263 which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City ordering petitioner to pay respondent the sum of P73,000.00 plus attorneys fees in the amount of P5,000.00, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint in Civil Case No. Q-93-18632, is hereby DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur. Puno J., on official leave.

G.R. No. 145226

February 06, 2004

LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.: This petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the decision1 dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, which affirmed the judgment2 dated August 5, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol, Branch 4, in Criminal Case No. 8688. The trial court found herein petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced him to a prison term of seven (7) months of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. Also assailed in this petition is the resolution3 of the appellate court, dated September 25, 2000, denying Morigos motion for reconsideration. The facts of this case, as found by the court a quo, are as follows: Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran City, Province of Bohol, for a period of four (4) years (from 1974-1978). After school year 1977-78, Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete lost contact with each other. In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The former replied and after an exchange of letters, they became sweethearts. In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there. While in Canada, they maintained constant communication. In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition appellant to join her in Canada. Both agreed to get married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol. On September 8, 1990, Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving appellant Lucio behind. On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court (General Division) a petition for divorce against appellant which was granted by the court on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February 17, 1992. On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago4 at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol. On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No. 6020. The complaint seek (sic) among others, the declaration of nullity of accuseds marriage with Lucia, on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place. On October 19, 1993, appellant was charged with Bigamy in an Information5 filed by the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran [City], with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.6 The petitioner moved for suspension of the arraignment on the ground that the civil case for judicial nullification of his marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. His motion was granted, but subsequently denied upon motion for reconsideration by the prosecution. When arraigned in the bigamy case, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 8688, herein petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter ensued. On August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol handed down its judgment in Criminal Case No. 8688, as follows: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Court finds accused Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from Seven (7) Months of Prision Correccional as minimum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as maximum.

SO ORDERED.7 In convicting herein petitioner, the trial court discounted petitioners claim that his first marriage to Lucia was null and void ab initio. Following Domingo v. Court of Appeals,8 the trial court ruled that want of a valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of bigamy. The parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again. Anent the Canadian divorce obtained by Lucia, the trial court cited Ramirez v. Gmur,9 which held that the court of a country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and in which one or both spouses may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, has no jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of the parties. As such, a divorce granted by said court is not entitled to recognition anywhere. Debunking Lucios defense of good faith in contracting the second marriage, the trial court stressed that following People v. Bitdu,10 everyone is presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does not know that his act constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him from the consequences thereof. Seasonably, petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 20700. Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, or while CA-G.R. CR No. 20700 was pending before the appellate court, the trial court rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 6020 declaring the marriage between Lucio and Lucia void ab initiosince no marriage ceremony actually took place. No appeal was taken from this decision, which then became final and executory. On October 21, 1999, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. CR No. 20700 as follows: WHEREFORE, finding no error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.11 In affirming the assailed judgment of conviction, the appellate court stressed that the subsequent declaration of nullity of Lucios marriage to Lucia in Civil Case No. 6020 could not acquit Lucio. The reason is that what is sought to be punished by Article 349 12 of the Revised Penal Code is the act of contracting a second marriage before the first marriage had been dissolved. Hence, the CA held, the fact that the first marriage was void from the beginning is not a valid defense in a bigamy case. The Court of Appeals also pointed out that the divorce decree obtained by Lucia from the Canadian court could not be accorded validity in the Philippines, pursuant to Article 1513 of the Civil Code and given the fact that it is contrary to public policy in this jurisdiction. Under Article 1714 of the Civil Code, a declaration of public policy cannot be rendered ineffectual by a judgment promulgated in a foreign jurisdiction. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the appellate courts decision, contending that the doctrine in Mendiola v. People,15 allows mistake upon a difficult question of law (such as the effect of a foreign divorce decree) to be a basis for good faith. On September 25, 2000, the appellate court denied the motion for lack of merit. 16 However, the denial was by a split vote. The ponente of the appellate courts original decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, joined in the opinion prepared by Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis. The dissent observed that as the first marriage was validly declared void ab initio, then there was no first marriage to speak of. Since the date of the nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage and since herein petitioner was, in the eyes of the law, never married, he cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. The present petition raises the following issues for our resolution: A. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT IN CRIMES PENALIZED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL INTENT IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE. COROLLARILY, WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE [THE] PETITIONERS LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT WHEN HE CONTRACTED THE SECOND MARRIAGE. B. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RULING IN PEOPLE VS. BITDU (58 PHIL. 817) IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR. C. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE THAT EACH AND EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE FAVORING THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.17 To our mind, the primordial issue should be whether or not petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether his defense of good faith is valid. The petitioner submits that he should not be faulted for relying in good faith upon the divorce decree of the Ontario court. He highlights the fact that he contracted the second marriage openly and publicly, which a person intent upon bigamy would not be doing. The petitioner further argues that his lack of criminal intent is material to a conviction or acquittal in the instant case. The crime of bigamy, just like other felonies punished under the Revised Penal Code, is mala in se, and hence, good faith and lack of criminal intent are allowed as a complete defense. He stresses that there is a difference between the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. Hence, it does not necessarily follow that his intention to contract a second marriage is tantamount to an intent to commit bigamy. For the respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submits that good faith in the instant case is a convenient but flimsy excuse. The Solicitor General relies upon our ruling in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,18 which held that bigamy can be successfully prosecuted provided all the elements concur, stressing that under Article 4019 of the Family Code, a judicial declaration of nullity is a must before a party may re-marry. Whether or not the petitioner was aware of said Article 40 is of no account as everyone is presumed to know the law. The OSG counters that petitioners contention that he was in good faith because he relied on the divorce decree of the Ontario court is negated by his act of filing Civil Case No. 6020, seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia. Before we delve into petitioners defense of good faith and lack of criminal intent, we must first determine whether all the elements of bigamy are present in this case. In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis,20 we laid down the elements of bigamy thus: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and

(4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first. Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we note that during the pendency of CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, the RTC of Bohol Branch 1, handed down the following decision in Civil Case No. 6020, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered decreeing the annulment of the marriage entered into by petitioner Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete on August 23, 1990 in Pilar, Bohol and further directing the Local Civil Registrar of Pilar, Bohol to effect the cancellation of the marriage contract. SO ORDERED.21 The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio, in accordance with Articles 322 and 423 of the Family Code. As the dissenting opinion in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, correctly puts it, "This simply means that there was no marriage to begin with; and that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from the date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the celebration of the first marriage, the accused was, under the eyes of the law, never married." 24 The records show that no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 6020, hence, the decision had long become final and executory. The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally married. But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of. Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab initio, the two were never married "from the beginning." The contract of marriage is null; it bears no legal effect. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, for legal purposes, petitioner was not married to Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with Maria Jececha. The existence and the validity of the first marriage being an essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where there is no first marriage to speak of. The petitioner, must, perforce be acquitted of the instant charge. The present case is analogous to, but must be distinguished from Mercado v. Tan.25 In the latter case, the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was likewise obtained after the second marriage was already celebrated. We held therein that: A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statutes as "void."26 It bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first marriage was actually solemnized not just once, but twice: first before a judge where a marriage certificate was duly issued and then again six months later before a priest in religious rites. Ostensibly, at least, the first marriage appeared to have transpired, although later declared void ab initio. In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage. The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done. Under the circumstances of the present case, we held that petitioner has not committed bigamy. Further, we also find that we need not tarry on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent, which is now moot and academic. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision, dated October 21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700, as well as the resolution of the appellate court dated September 25, 2000, denying herein petitioners motion for reconsideration, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho is ACQUITTED from the charge of BIGAMY on the ground that his guilt has not been proven with moral certainty. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 138509

July 31, 2000

IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs. ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said marriage having been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez. Based on petitioner's complaint-affidavit, an information for bigamy was filed against respondent on February 25, 1998, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q98-75611 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City. Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license. Respondent then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The trial judge granted the motion to suspend the criminal case in an Order dated December 29, 1998.1 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner argues that respondent should have first obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage before entering into the second marriage, inasmuch as the alleged prejudicial question justifying suspension of the bigamy case is no longer a legal truism pursuant to Article 40 of the Family Code.2 The issue to be resolved in this petition is whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein.3It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.4 It must appear not only that the civil case involves facts upon which the criminal action is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would necessarily be determinative of the criminal case. 5 Consequently, the defense must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution determinative of whether or not the latter action may proceed. 6 Its two essential elements are:7 (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and

(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case. A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of a crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution has not yet presented a single evidence on the indictment or may not yet have rested its case. A challenge of the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit. Article 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the time of celebration of the second marriage, requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may remarry. The clear implication of this is that it is not for the parties, particularly the accused, to determine the validity or invalidity of the marriage.8Whether or not the first marriage was void for lack of a license is a matter of defense because there is still no judicial declaration of its nullity at the time the second marriage was contracted. It should be remembered that bigamy can successfully be prosecuted provided all its elements concur two of which are a previous marriage and a subsequent marriage which would have been valid had it not been for the existence at the material time of the first marriage.9 In the case at bar, respondent's clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is to disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage aware of the absence of a requisite - usually the marriage license - and thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void. Such scenario would render nugatory the provisions on bigamy. As succinctly held in Landicho v. Relova:10 (P)arties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. Respondent alleges that the first marriage in the case before us was void for lack of a marriage license. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that her marriage to respondent was exempt from the requirement of a marriage license. More specifically, petitioner claims that prior to their marriage, they had already attained the age of majority and had been living together as husband and wife for at least five years. 11 The issue in this case is limited to the existence of a prejudicial question, and we are not called upon to resolve the validity of the first marriage. Be that as it may, suffice it to state that the Civil Code, under which the first marriage was celebrated, provides that "every intendment of law or fact leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds."12 [] Hence, parties should not be permitted to judge for themselves the nullity of their marriage, for the same must be submitted to the determination of competent courts. Only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists. 13 No matter how obvious, manifest or patent the absence of an element is, the intervention of the courts must always be resorted to. That is why Article 40 of the Family Code requires a "final judgment," which only the courts can render. Thus, as ruled in Landicho v. Relova,14 he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy, and in such a case the criminal case may not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity. In a recent case for concubinage, we held that the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question.15 This ruling applies here by analogy since both crimes presuppose the subsistence of a marriage. Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot even be successfully invoked as an excuse. 16The contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code.17 The legality of a marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to know the law. As respondent did not obtain the judicial declaration of nullity when he entered into the second marriage, why should he be allowed to belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to delay his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by his own disobedience of the law? If he wants to raise the nullity of the previous marriage, he can do it as a matter of defense when he presents his evidence during the trial proper in the criminal case. The burden of proof to show the dissolution of the first marriage before the second marriage was contracted rests upon the defense, 18 but that is a matter that can be raised in the trial of the bigamy case. In the meantime, it should be stressed that not every defense raised in the civil action may be used as a prejudicial question to obtain the suspension of the criminal action. The lower court, therefore, erred in suspending the criminal case for bigamy. Moreover, when respondent was indicted for bigamy, the fact that he entered into two marriage ceremonies appeared indubitable. It was only after he was sued by petitioner for bigamy that he thought of seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage. The obvious intent, therefore, is that respondent merely resorted to the civil action as a potential prejudicial question for the purpose of frustrating or delaying his criminal prosecution. As has been discussed above, this cannot be done.1awphi1 In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. Per current jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void. 19 The reason is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner.20 Against this legal backdrop, any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question. As stated above, respondent cannot be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him. 21 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated December 29, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226 of Quezon City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the trial court is ordered to IMMEDIATELY proceed with Criminal Case No. Q98-75611. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 167684

July 31, 2006

JAIME O.SEVILLA, petitioner, vs. CARMELITA N. CARDENAS, respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74416 dated 20 December 2004 which set aside the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, in Civil Case No. 94-1285 dated 25 January 2002. In a Complaint3 dated 28 March 1994 filed by Jaime O. Sevilla before the RTC, he claimed that on 19 May 1969, through machinations, duress and intimidation employed upon him by Carmelita N. Cardenas and the latter's father, retired Colonel Jose Cardenas of the Armed forces of the Philippines, he and Carmelita went to the City Hall of Manila and they were introduced to a certain Reverend Cirilo D. Gonzales, a supposed Minister of the Gospel. On the said date, the father of Carmelita caused him and Carmelita to sign a marriage contract before the said Minister of the Gospel. According to

Jaime, he never applied for a marriage license for his supposed marriage to Carmelita and never did they obtain any marriage license from any Civil Registry, consequently, no marriage license was presented to the solemnizing officer. For her part, Carmelita refuted these allegations of Jaime, and claims that she and Jaime were married civilly on 19 May 1969,4 and in a church ceremony thereafter on 31 May 19695 at the Most Holy Redeemer Parish in Quezon City. Both marriages were registered with the local civil registry of Manila and the National Statistics Office. He is estopped from invoking the lack of marriage license after having been married to her for 25 years. The trial court made the following findings: In support of his complaint, plaintiff [Jaime] testified that on May 19, 1969, he and defendant [Carmelita] appeared before a certain Rev. Cirilo D. Gonzales, a Minister of the Gospel, at the city hall in Manila where they executed a Marriage Contract (Exh. "A") in civil rites. A certain Godofredo Occena who, plaintiff alleged, was an aide of defendant's father accompanied them, and who, together with another person, stood as witness to the civil wedding. That although marriage license no. 2770792 allegedly issued in San Juan, Rizal on May 19, 1969 was indicated in the marriage contract, the same was fictitious for he never applied for any marriage license, (Ibid., p. 11). Upon verifications made by him through his lawyer, Atty. Jose M. Abola, with the Civil Registry of San Juan, a Certification dated March 11, 1994 (Exh. "E") was issued by Rafael D. Aliscad, Jr., Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, that "no marriage license no. 2770792 was ever issued by said office." On May 31, 1969, he and defendant were again wed, this time in church rites, before Monsignor Juan Velasco at the Most Holy Redeemer Parish Church in Brixton Hills, Quezon City, where they executed another marriage contract (Exh. "F") with the same marriage license no. 2770792 used and indicated. Preparations and expenses for the church wedding and reception were jointly shared by his and defendant's parents. After the church wedding, he and defendant resided in his house at Brixton Hills until their first son, Jose Gabriel, was born in March 1970. As his parents continued to support him financially, he and defendant lived in Spain for some time, for his medical studies. Eventually, their marital relationship turned bad because it became difficult for him to be married he being a medical student at that time. They started living apart in 1976, but they underwent family counseling before they eventually separated in 1978. It was during this time when defendant's second son was born whose paternity plaintiff questioned. Plaintiff obtained a divorce decree against defendant in the United States in 1981 and later secured a judicial separation of their conjugal partnership in 1983. Atty. Jose M. Abola, then counsel for the plaintiff, himself manifested that when his service was engaged by plaintiff, and after the latter narrated to him the circumstances of his marriage, he made inquiries with the Office of Civil Registry of San Juan where the supposed marriage license was obtained and with the Church of the Most Holy Redeemer Parish where the religious wedding ceremony was celebrated. His request letters dated March 3, 1994 (Exh. "J"), March 7, 1994 (Exh. "L"), March 9, 1994 (Exh. "M") and March 11, 1994 (Exh. "K") were all sent to and received by the Civil Registrar of San Juan, who in reply thereto, issued Certifications dated March 4, 1994 (Exh. "I"), and March 11, 1994 (Exh. "E") and September 20, 1994 (Exh. "C"), that "no marriage license no. 2770792 was ever issued by that office." Upon his inquiry, the Holy Redeemer Parish Church issued him a certified copy of the marriage contract of plaintiff and defendant (Exh. "F") and a Certificate of Marriage dated April 11, 1994 (Exh. "G"), wherein it noted that it was a "purely religious ceremony, having been civilly married on May 19, 1969 at the City Hall, Manila, under Marriage License No. 2770792 issued at San Juan, Rizal on May 19, 1969." Perlita Mercader, Registration Officer III of the Local Registry of San Juan, identified the Certificates dated March 4, 1994, March 11, 1994 and September 20, 1994 issued by Rafael Aliscad, Jr., the Local Civil Registrar, and testified that their office failed to locate the book wherein marriage license no. 2770792 may have been registered (TSN, 8-6-96, p. 5). Defendant Carmelita Cardenas testified that she and plaintiff had a steady romantic relationship after they met and were introduced to each other in October 1968. A model, she was compelled by her family to join the Mutya ng Pilipinas beauty pageant when plaintiff who was afraid to lose her, asked her to run away with him to Baguio. Because she loved plaintiff, she turned back on her family and decided to follow plaintiff in Baguio. When they came back to Manila, she and plaintiff proceeded to the latter's home in Brixton Hills where plaintiff's mother, Mrs. Sevilla, told her not to worry. Her parents were hostile when they learned of the elopement, but Mrs. Sevilla convinced them that she will take care of everything, and promised to support plaintiff and defendant. As plaintiff was still fearful he may lose her, he asked her to marry him in civil rites, without the knowledge of her family, more so her father (TSN, 5-28-98, p. 4) on May 19, 1969, before a minister and where she was made to sign documents. After the civil wedding, they had lunch and later each went home separately. On May 31, 1969, they had the church wedding, which the Sevilla family alone prepared and arranged, since defendant's mother just came from hospital. Her family did not participate in the wedding preparations. Defendant further stated that there was no sexual consummation during their honeymoon and that it was after two months when they finally had sex. She learned from Dr. Escudero, plaintiff's physician and one of their wedding sponsors that plaintiff was undergoing psychiatric therapy since age 12 (TSN, 11-2-98, p. 15) for some traumatic problem compounded by his drug habit. She found out plaintiff has unusual sexual behavior by his obsession over her knees of which he would take endless pictures of. Moreover, plaintiff preferred to have sex with her in between the knees which she called "intrafemural sex," while real sex between them was far and between like 8 months, hence, abnormal. During their marriage, plaintiff exhibited weird sexual behavior which defendant attributed to plaintiff's drug addiction (TSN, 11-5-98, pp. 5-8). A compulsive liar, plaintiff has a bad temper who breaks things when he had tantrums. Plaintiff took drugs like amphetamines, benzedrine and the like, "speed" drugs that kept him from sleep and then would take barbiturates or downers, like "mogadon." Defendant tried very hard to keep plaintiff away from drugs but failed as it has become a habit to him. They had no fixed home since they often moved and partly lived in Spain for about four and a half years, and during all those times, her mother-in-law would send some financial support on and off, while defendant worked as an English teacher. Plaintiff, who was supposed to be studying, did nothing. Their marriage became unbearable, as plaintiff physically and verbally abused her, and this led to a break up in their marriage. Later, she learned that plaintiff married one Angela Garcia in 1991 in the United States. Jose Cardenas, father of defendant, testified that he was not aware of the civil wedding of his daughter with the plaintiff; that his daughter and grandson came to stay with him after they returned home from Spain and have lived with him and his wife ever since. His grandsons practically grew up under his care and guidance, and he has supported his daughter's expenses for medicines and hospital confinements (Exhs. "9" and "10"). Victoria Cardenas Navarro, defendant's sister, testified and corroborated that it was plaintiff's family that attended to all the preparations and arrangements for the church wedding of her sister with plaintiff, and that she didn't know that the couple wed in civil rites some time prior to the church wedding. She also stated that she and her parents were still civil with the plaintiff inspite of the marital differences between plaintiff and defendant. As adverse witness for the defendant, plaintiff testified that because of irreconcilable differences with defendant and in order for them to live their own lives, they agreed to divorce each other; that when he applied for and obtained a divorce decree in the United States on June 14, 1983 (Exh. "13"), it was with the knowledge and consent of defendant who in fact authorized a certain Atty. Quisumbing to represent her (TSN, 12-7-2000, p. 21). During his adverse testimony, plaintiff identified a recent certification dated July 25, 2000 (Exh. "EE") issued by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, that the marriage license no. 2770792, the same marriage license appearing in the marriage contract (Exh. "A"), is inexistent, thus appears to be fictitious.6 In its Decision dated 25 January 2002, declaring the nullity of the marriage of the parties, the trial court made the following justifications: Thus, being one of the essential requisites for the validity of the marriage, the lack or absence of a license renders the marriage void ab initio. It was shown under the various certifications (Exhs. "I", "E", and "C") earlier issued by the office of the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of San Juan, and the more recent one issued on July 25, 2000 (Exh. "EE") that no marriage license no. 2770792 was ever issued by that office, hence, the marriage license no. 2770792 appearing on the marriage contracts executed on May 19, 1969 (Exh. "A") and on May 31, 1969 (Exh. "F") was fictitious. Such a certification enjoys probative value under the rules on evidence, particularly Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, x x x. xxxx WHEREFORE, the Court hereby declares the civil marriage between Jaime O. Sevilla and Carmelita N. Cardenas solemnized by Rev. Cirilo D. Gonzales at the Manila City Hall on May 19, 1969 as well as their contract of marriage solemnized under religious rites by Rev. Juan B.

Velasco at the Holy Redeemer Parish on May 31, 1969, NULL and VOID for lack of the requisite marriage license. Let the marriage contract of the parties under Registry No. 601 (e-69) of the registry book of the Local Civil Registry of Manila be cancelled. Let copies of this Decision be duly recorded in the proper civil and property registries in accordance with Article 52 of the Family Code. Likewise, let a copy hereof be forwarded the Office of the Solicitor General for its record and information. 7 Carmelita filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated 20 December 2004, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court and held: In People v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 106025, February 9, 1994), the Supreme Court explained that: "The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive." In this case, We note that a certain Perlita Mercader of the local civil registry of San Juan testified that they "failed to locate the book wherein marriage license no. 2770792 is registered," for the reason that "the employee handling is already retired." With said testimony We cannot therefore just presume that the marriage license specified in the parties' marriage contract was not issued for in the end the failure of the office of the local civil registrar of San Juan to produce a copy of the marriage license was attributable not to the fact that no such marriage license was issued but rather, because it "failed to locate the book wherein marriage license no. 2770792 is registered." Simply put, if the pertinent book were available for scrutiny, there is a strong possibility that it would have contained an entry on marriage license no. 2720792. xxxx Indeed, this Court is not prepared to annul the parties' marriage on the basis of a mere perception of plaintiff that his union with defendant is defective with respect to an essential requisite of a marriage contract, a perception that ultimately was not substantiated with facts on record.8 Jaime filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 6 January 2005 which the Court of Appeals denied in a Resolution dated 6 April 2005. This denial gave rise to the present Petition filed by Jaime. He raises the following issues for Resolution. 1. Whether or not a valid marriage license was issued in accordance with law to the parties herein prior to the celebration of the marriages in question; 2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly applied and relied on the presumption of regularity of officials acts, particularly the issuance of a marriage license, arising solely from the contents of the marriage contracts in question which show on their face that a marriage license was purportedly issued by the Local Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, and 3. Whether or not respondent could validly invoke/rely upon the presumption of validity of a marriage arising from the admitted "fact of marriage."9 At the core of this controversy is the determination of whether or not the certifications from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan stating that no Marriage License No. 2770792 as appearing in the marriage contract of the parties was issued, are sufficient to declare their marriage as null and void ab initio. We agree with the Court of Appeals and rule in the negative. Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code which was the law in force at the time of the marriage of the parties are Articles 53,10 5811 and 80.12 Based on the foregoing provisions, a marriage license is an essential requisite for the validity of marriage. The marriage between Carmelita and Jaime is of no exception. At first glance, this case can very well be easily dismissed as one involving a marriage that is null and void on the ground of absence of a marriage license based on the certifications issued by the Local Civil Registar of San Juan. As ruled by this Court in the case of Cario v. Cario13: [A]s certified by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such marriage license. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that such a certification is adequate to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license. Absent any circumstance of suspicion, as in the present case, the certification issued by the local civil registrar enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all date relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Such being the case, the presumed validity of the marriage of petitioner and the deceased has been sufficiently overcome. It then became the burden of petitioner to prove that their marriage is valid and that they secured the required marriage license. Although she was declared in default before the trial court, petitioner could have squarely met the issue and explained the absence of a marriage license in her pleadings before the Court of Appeals and this Court. But petitioner conveniently avoided the issue and chose to refrain from pursuing an argument that will put her case in jeopardy. Hence, the presumed validity of their marriage cannot stand. It is beyond cavil, therefore, that the marriage between petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased, having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license, and not being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, is undoubtedly void ab initio. The foregoing Decision giving probative value to the certifications issued by the Local Civil Registrar should be read in line with the decision in the earlier case of Republic v. Court of Appeals,14 where it was held that: The above Rule authorized the custodian of documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data. (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the certification to be issued by the Local Civil Registrar must categorically state that the document does not exist in his office or the particular entry could not be found in the register despite diligent search. Such certification shall be sufficient proof of lack or absence of record as stated in Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record. a written statement signed by an officer having the custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. We shall now proceed to scrutinize whether the certifications by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan in connection with Marriage License No. 2770792 complied with the foregoing requirements and deserved to be accorded probative value.

The first Certification15 issued by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, was dated 11 March 1994. It reads: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: No Marriage License Number 2770792 were (sic) ever issued by this Office. With regards (sic) to Marriage License Number 2880792,16 we exert all effort but we cannot find the said number. Hope and understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force locating the above problem. San Juan, Metro Manila March 11, 1994

(SGD)RAFAEL D. ALISCAD, JR. Local Civil Registrar The second certification17 was dated 20 September 1994 and provides: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that no marriage license Number 2770792 were ever issued by this Office with regards to Marriage License Number 2880792, we exert all effort but we cannot find the said number. Hope and understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force locating the above problem. San Juan, Metro Manila September 20, 1994

(SGD)RAFAEL D. ALISCAD, JR. Local Civil Registrar The third Certification,18 issued on 25 July 2000, states: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that according to the records of this office, no Marriage License Application was filed and no Marriage License No. 2770792 allegedly dated May 19, 1969 was issued by this Office to MR. JAIME O. SEVILLA and MS. CARMELITA CARDENAS-SEVILLA. This is to further certify that the said application and license do not exist in our Local Civil Registry Index and, therefore, appear to be fictitious. This certification is being issued upon the request of the interested party for whatever legal intent it may serve. San Juan, Metro Manila July 25, 2000

(SGD)RAFAEL D. ALISCAD, JR. Local Civil Registrar

Note that the first two certifications bear the statement that "hope and understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force locating the above problem." It could be easily implied from the said statement that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar could not exert its best efforts to locate and determine the existence of Marriage License No. 2770792 due to its "loaded work." Likewise, both certifications failed to state with absolute certainty whether or not such license was issued. This implication is confirmed in the testimony of the representative from the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated that they cannot locate the logbook due to the fact that the person in charge of the said logbook had already retired. Further, the testimony of the said person was not presented in evidence. It does not appear on record that the former custodian of the logbook was deceased or missing, or that his testimony could not be secured. This belies the claim that all efforts to locate the logbook or prove the material contents therein, had been exerted. As testified to by Perlita Mercader: Q Under the subpoena duces tecum, you were required to bring to this Court among other things the register of application of/or (sic) for marriage licenses received by the Office of the :Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Province of Rizal, from January 19, 1969 to May 1969. Did you bring with you those records? A I brought may 19, 1969, sir. Q Is that the book requested of you under no. 3 of the request for subpoena? A Meron pang January. I forgot, January . . . Q Did you bring that with you? A No, sir. Q Why not? A I cannot locate the book. This is the only book.

Q Will you please state if this is the register of marriage of marriage applications that your office maintains as required by the manual of the office of the Local Civil Registrar? COURT May I see that book and the portion marked by the witness. xxxx COURT Why don't you ask her direct question whether marriage license 2880792 is the number issued by their office while with respect to license no. 2770792 the office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan is very definite about it it was never issued. Then ask him how about no. 2880792 if the same was ever issued by their office. Did you ask this 2887092, but you could not find the record? But for the moment you cannot locate the books? Which is which now, was this issued or not? A The employee handling it is already retired, sir.19 Given the documentary and testimonial evidence to the effect that utmost efforts were not exerted to locate the logbook where Marriage License No. 2770792 may have been entered, the presumption of regularity of performance of official function by the Local Civil Registrar in issuing the certifications, is effectively rebutted. According to Section 3(m),20 Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is among the disputable presumptions. In one case, it was held: A disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence that may be accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence. One such disputable/rebuttable presumption is that an official act or duty has been regularly performed. x x x. 21 The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.22 The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty is disputable and can be overcome by other evidence as in the case at bar where the presumption has been effectively defeated by the tenor of the first and second certifications. Moreover, the absence of the logbook is not conclusive proof of non-issuance of Marriage License No. 2770792. It can also mean, as we believed true in the case at bar, that the logbook just cannot be found. In the absence of showing of diligent efforts to search for the said logbook, we cannot easily accept that absence of the same also means non-existence or falsity of entries therein. Finally, the rule is settled that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds.23 The courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight. 24 The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. 25 The parties have comported themselves as husband and wife and lived together for several years producing two offsprings, 26 now adults themselves. It took Jaime several years before he filed the petition for declaration of nullity. Admittedly, he married another individual sometime in 1991.27 We are not ready to reward petitioner by declaring the nullity of his marriage and give him his freedom and in the process allow him to profit from his own deceit and perfidy.28 Our Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break-up of families weakens our social and moral fabric; hence, their preservation is not the concern of the family members alone. 29 "The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is x x x marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is `that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.' Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio Always presume marriage."30 This jurisprudential attitude towards marriage is based on the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.31 By our failure to come to the succor of Jaime, we are not trifling with his emotion or deepest sentiments. As we have said in Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco,32 regrettably, there are situations like this one, where neither law nor society can provide the specific answers to every individual problem. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 20 December 2004 and the Resolution dated 6 April 2005 are AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., J.J., concur.

G.R. No. 175581

March 28, 2008

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JOSE A. DAYOT, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 179474 FELISA TECSON-DAYOT, Petitioner, vs. JOSE A. DAYOT, Respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Before us are two consolidated petitions. G.R. No. 175581 and G.R. No. 179474 are Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Republic of the Philippines and Felisa Tecson-Dayot (Felisa), respectively, both challenging the Amended Decision1 of the Court of Appeals, dated 7 November 2006, in CA-G.R. CV No. 68759, which declared the marriage between Jose Dayot (Jose) and Felisa void ab initio. The records disclose that on 24 November 1986, Jose and Felisa were married at the Pasay City Hall. The marriage was solemnized by Rev. Tomas V. Atienza.2 In lieu of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a sworn affidavit, 3 also dated 24 November 1986, attesting that both of them had attained the age of maturity, and that being unmarried, they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. On 7 July 1993, Jose filed a Complaint4 for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bian, Laguna, Branch 25. He contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham, as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between the parties; that he did not execute the sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband and wife for at least five years; and that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud. In his Complaint, Jose gave his version of the events which led to his filing of the same. According to Jose, he was introduced to Felisa in 1986. Immediately thereafter, he came to live as a boarder in Felisas house, the latter being his landlady. Some three weeks later, Felisa requested him to accompany her to the Pasay City Hall, ostensibly so she could claim a package sent to her by her brother from Saudi Arabia. At the Pasay City Hall, upon a pre-arranged signal from Felisa, a man bearing three folded pieces of paper approached them. They were told that Jose needed to sign the papers so that the package could be released to Felisa. He initially refused to do so. However, Felisa cajoled him, and told him that his refusal could get both of them killed by her brother who had learned about their relationship. Reluctantly, he signed the pieces of paper, and gave them to the man who immediately left. It was in February 1987 when he discovered that he had contracted marriage with Felisa. He alleged that he saw a piece of paper lying on top of the table at the sala of Felisas house. When he perused the same, he discovered that it was a copy of his marriage contract with Felisa. When he confronted Felisa, the latter feigned ignorance. In opposing the Complaint, Felisa denied Joses allegations and defended the validity of their marriage. She declared that they had maintained their relationship as man and wife absent the legality of marriage in the early part of 1980, but that she had deferred contracting marriage with him on account of their age difference.5 In her pre-trial brief, Felisa expounded that while her marriage to Jose was subsisting, the latter contracted marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual (Rufina) on 31 August 1990. On 3 June 1993, Felisa filed an action for bigamy against Jose. Subsequently, she filed an administrative complaint against Jose with the Office of the Ombudsman, since Jose and Rufina were both employees of the National Statistics and Coordinating Board.6 The Ombudsman found Jose administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct, and meted out to him the penalty of suspension from service for one year without emolument. 7 On 26 July 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision8 dismissing the Complaint. It disposed: WHEREFORE, after a careful evaluation and analysis of the evidence presented by both parties, this Court finds and so holds that the [C]omplaint does not deserve a favorable consideration. Accordingly, the above-entitled case is hereby ordered DISMISSED with costs against [Jose]. 9 The RTC ruled that from the testimonies and evidence presented, the marriage celebrated between Jose and Felisa on 24 November 1986 was valid. It dismissed Joses version of the story as implausible, and rationalized that: Any person in his right frame of mind would easily suspect any attempt to make him or her sign a blank sheet of paper. [Jose] could have already detected that something was amiss, unusual, as they were at Pasay City Hall to get a package for [Felisa] but it [was] he who was made to sign the pieces of paper for the release of the said package. Another indirect suggestion that could have put him on guard was the fact that, by his own admission, [Felisa] told him that her brother would kill them if he will not sign the papers. And yet it took him, more or less, three months to "discover" that the pieces of paper that he signed was [sic] purportedly the marriage contract. [Jose] does not seem to be that ignorant, as perceived by this Court, to be "taken in for a ride" by [Felisa.] [Joses] claim that he did not consent to the marriage was belied by the fact that he acknowledged Felisa Tecson as his wife when he wrote [Felisas] name in the duly notarized statement of assets and liabilities he filled up on May 12, 1988, one year after he discovered the marriage contract he is now claiming to be sham and false. [Jose], again, in his company I.D., wrote the name of [Felisa] as the person to be contacted in case of emergency. This Court does not believe that the only reason why her name was written in his company I.D. was because he was residing there then. This is just but a lame excuse because if he really considers her not his lawfully wedded wife, he would have written instead the name of his sister. When [Joses] sister was put into the witness stand, under oath, she testified that she signed her name voluntarily as a witness to the marriage in the marriage certificate (T.S.N., page 25, November 29, 1996) and she further testified that the signature appearing over the name of Jose Dayot was the signature of his [sic] brother that he voluntarily affixed in the marriage contract (page 26 of T.S.N. taken on November 29, 1996), and when she was asked by the Honorable Court if indeed she believed that Felisa Tecson was really chosen by her brother she answered yes. The testimony of his sister all the more belied his claim that his consent was procured through fraud. 10 Moreover, on the matter of fraud, the RTC ruled that Joses action had prescribed. It cited Article 8711 of the New Civil Code which requires that the action for annulment of marriage must be commenced by the injured party within four years after the discovery of the fraud. Thus: That granting even for the sake of argument that his consent was obtained by [Felisa] through fraud, trickery and machinations, he could have filed an annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage at the earliest possible opportunity, the time when he discovered the alleged sham and false marriage contract. [Jose] did not take any action to void the marriage at the earliest instance. x x x. 12 Undeterred, Jose filed an appeal from the foregoing RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated 11 August 2005, the Court of Appeals found the appeal to be without merit. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED. 13 The Court of Appeals applied the Civil Code to the marriage between Jose and Felisa as it was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The appellate court observed that the circumstances constituting fraud as a ground for annulment of marriage under Article 86 14 of the Civil Code did not

exist in the marriage between the parties. Further, it ruled that the action for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud was filed beyond the prescriptive period provided by law. The Court of Appeals struck down Joses appeal in the following manner: Nonetheless, even if we consider that fraud or intimidation was employed on Jose in giving his consent to the marriage, the action for the annulment thereof had already prescribed. Article 87 (4) and (5) of the Civil Code provides that the action for annulment of marriage on the ground that the consent of a party was obtained by fraud, force or intimidation must be commenced by said party within four (4) years after the discovery of the fraud and within four (4) years from the time the force or intimidation ceased. Inasmuch as the fraud was allegedly discovered by Jose in February, 1987 then he had only until February, 1991 within which to file an action for annulment of marriage. However, it was only on July 7, 1993 that Jose filed the complaint for annulment of his marriage to Felisa.15 Likewise, the Court of Appeals did not accept Joses assertion that his marriage to Felisa was void ab initio for lack of a marriage license. It ruled that the marriage was solemnized under Article 7616 of the Civil Code as one of exceptional character, with the parties executing an affidavit of marriage between man and woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. The Court of Appeals concluded that the falsity in the affidavit to the effect that Jose and Felisa had lived together as husband and wife for the period required by Article 76 did not affect the validity of the marriage, seeing that the solemnizing officer was misled by the statements contained therein. In this manner, the Court of Appeals gave credence to the good-faith reliance of the solemnizing officer over the falsity of the affidavit. The appellate court further noted that on the dorsal side of said affidavit of marriage, Rev. Tomas V. Atienza, the solemnizing officer, stated that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to their marriage. Finally, the Court of Appeals dismissed Joses argument that neither he nor Felisa was a member of the sect to which Rev. Tomas V. Atienza belonged. According to the Court of Appeals, Article 5617 of the Civil Code did not require that either one of the contracting parties to the marriage must belong to the solemnizing officers church or religious sect. The prescription was established only in Article 718 of the Family Code which does not govern the parties marriage. Differing with the ruling of the Court of Appeals, Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof.1avvphi1 His central opposition was that the requisites for the proper application of the exemption from a marriage license under Article 76 of the Civil Code were not fully attendant in the case at bar. In particular, Jose cited the legal condition that the man and the woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage. Essentially, he maintained that the affidavit of marital cohabitation executed by him and Felisa was false. The Court of Appeals granted Joses Motion for Reconsideration and reversed itself. Accordingly, it rendered an Amended Decision, dated 7 November 2006, the fallo of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 11, 2005 is RECALLED and SET ASIDE and another one entered declaring the marriage between Jose A. Dayot and Felisa C. Tecson void ab initio. Furnish a copy of this Amended Decision to the Local Civil Registrar of Pasay City.19 In its Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals relied on the ruling of this Court in Nial v. Bayadog, 20 and reasoned that: In Nial v. Bayadog, where the contracting parties to a marriage solemnized without a marriage license on the basis of their affidavit that they had attained the age of majority, that being unmarried, they had lived together for at least five (5) years and that they desired to marry each other, the Supreme Court ruled as follows: "x x x In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse. Marriage being a special relationship must be respected as such and its requirements must be strictly observed. The presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife is based on the approximation of the requirements of the law. The parties should not be afforded any excuse to not comply with every single requirement and later use the same missing element as a pre-conceived escape ground to nullify their marriage. There should be no exemption from securing a marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of the exception. It should be noted that a license is required in order to notify the public that two persons are about to be united in matrimony and that anyone who is aware or has knowledge of any impediment to the union of the two shall make it known to the local civil registrar. Article 80(3) of the Civil Code provides that a marriage solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character, shall be void from the beginning. Inasmuch as the marriage between Jose and Felisa is not covered by the exception to the requirement of a marriage license, it is, therefore, void ab initio because of the absence of a marriage license. 21 Felisa sought reconsideration of the Amended Decision, but to no avail. The appellate court rendered a Resolution 22 dated 10 May 2007, denying Felisas motion. Meanwhile, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Review before this Court in G.R. No. 175581, praying that the Court of Appeals Amended Decision dated 7 November 2006 be reversed and set aside for lack of merit, and that the marriage between Jose and Felisa be declared valid and subsisting. Felisa filed a separate Petition for Review, docketed as G.R. No. 179474, similarly assailing the appellate courts Amended Decision. On 1 August 2007, this Court resolved to consolidate the two Petitions in the interest of uniformity of the Court rulings in similar cases brought before it for resolution. 23 The Republic of the Philippines propounds the following arguments for the allowance of its Petition, to wit: I RESPONDENT FAILED TO OVERTHROW THE PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF HIS MARRIAGE TO FELISA. II RESPONDENT DID NOT COME TO THE COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROFIT FROM HIS OWN FRAUDULENT CONDUCT. III RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED FROM ASSAILING THE LEGALITY OF HIS MARRIAGE FOR LACK OF MARRIAGE LICEN[S]E. 24 Correlative to the above, Felisa submits that the Court of Appeals misapplied Nial. 25 She differentiates the case at bar from Nial by reasoning that one of the parties therein had an existing prior marriage, a circumstance which does not obtain in her cohabitation with Jose. Finally, Felisa adduces that Jose only sought the annulment of their marriage after a criminal case for bigamy and an administrative case had been filed against him in order to avoid liability. Felisa surmises that the declaration of nullity of their marriage would exonerate Jose from any liability. For our resolution is the validity of the marriage between Jose and Felisa. To reach a considered ruling on the issue, we shall jointly tackle the related arguments vented by petitioners Republic of the Philippines and Felisa.

The Republic of the Philippines asserts that several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage exists between Jose and Felisa. For her part, Felisa echoes the claim that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage by citing this Courts ruling in Hernandez v. Court of Appeals.26 To buttress its assertion, the Republic points to the affidavit executed by Jose and Felisa, dated 24 November 1986, attesting that they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, which they used in lieu of a marriage license. It is the Republics position that the falsity of the statements in the affidavit does not affect the validity of the marriage, as the essential and formal requisites were complied with; and the solemnizing officer was not required to investigate as to whether the said affidavit was legally obtained. The Republic opines that as a marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained, so must a marriage not be invalidated by the fact that the parties incorporated a fabricated statement in their affidavit that they cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years. In addition, the Republic posits that the parties marriage contract states that their marriage was solemnized under Article 76 of the Civil Code. It also bears the signature of the parties and their witnesses, and must be considered a primary evidence of marriage. To further fortify its Petition, the Republic adduces the following documents: (1) Joses notarized Statement of Assets and Liabilities, dated 12 May 1988 wherein he wrote Felisas name as his wife; (2) Certification dated 25 July 1993 issued by the Barangay Chairman 192, Zone ZZ, District 24 of Pasay City, attesting that Jose and Felisa had lived together as husband and wife in said barangay; and (3) Joses company ID card, dated 2 May 1988, indicating Felisas name as his wife. The first assignment of error compels this Court to rule on the issue of the effect of a false affidavit under Article 76 of the Civil Code. A survey of the prevailing rules is in order. It is beyond dispute that the marriage of Jose and Felisa was celebrated on 24 November 1986, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Accordingly, the Civil Code governs their union. Article 53 of the Civil Code spells out the essential requisites of marriage as a contract: ART. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; (2) Their consent, freely given; (3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and (4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character. (Emphasis ours.) Article 5827 makes explicit that no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually resides, save marriages of an exceptional character authorized by the Civil Code, but not those under Article 75.28 Article 80(3)29 of the Civil Code makes it clear that a marriage performed without the corresponding marriage license is void, this being nothing more than the legitimate consequence flowing from the fact that the license is the essence of the marriage contract.30 This is in stark contrast to the old Marriage Law,31 whereby the absence of a marriage license did not make the marriage void. The rationale for the compulsory character of a marriage license under the Civil Code is that it is the authority granted by the State to the contracting parties, after the proper government official has inquired into their capacity to contract marriage.32 Under the Civil Code, marriages of exceptional character are covered by Chapter 2, Title III, comprising Articles 72 to 79. To wit, these marriages are: (1) marriages in articulo mortis or at the point of death during peace or war, (2) marriages in remote places, (2) consular marriages,33 (3) ratification of marital cohabitation, (4) religious ratification of a civil marriage, (5) Mohammedan or pagan marriages, and (6) mixed marriages.34 The instant case pertains to a ratification of marital cohabitation under Article 76 of the Civil Code, which provides: ART. 76. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman who have attained the age of majority and who, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, desire to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The official, priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage. The reason for the law,35 as espoused by the Code Commission, is that the publicity attending a marriage license may discourage such persons who have lived in a state of cohabitation from legalizing their status. 36 It is not contested herein that the marriage of Jose and Felisa was performed without a marriage license. In lieu thereof, they executed an affidavit declaring that "they have attained the age of maturity; that being unmarried, they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years; and that because of this union, they desire to marry each other."37 One of the central issues in the Petition at bar is thus: whether the falsity of an affidavit of marital cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen short of the minimum five-year requirement, effectively renders the marriage void ab initio for lack of a marriage license. We answer in the affirmative. Marriages of exceptional character are, doubtless, the exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite of a marriage license. Under the rules of statutory construction, exceptions, as a general rule, should be strictly 38 but reasonably construed.39 They extend only so far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the exception. 40 Where a general rule is established by statute with exceptions, the court will not curtail the former or add to the latter by implication.41 For the exception in Article 76 to apply, it is a sine qua non thereto that the man and the woman must have attained the age of majority, and that, being unmarried, they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. A strict but reasonable construction of Article 76 leaves us with no other expediency but to read the law as it is plainly written. The exception of a marriage license under Article 76 applies only to those who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and desire to marry each other. The Civil Code, in no ambiguous terms, places a minimum period requirement of five years of cohabitation. No other reading of the law can be had, since the language of Article 76 is precise. The minimum requisite of five years of cohabitation is an indispensability carved in the language of the law. For a marriage celebrated under Article 76 to be valid, this material fact cannot be dispensed with. It is embodied in the law not as a directory requirement, but as one that partakes of a mandatory character. It is worthy to mention that Article 76 also prescribes that the contracting parties shall state the requisite facts42 in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths; and that the official, priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage. It is indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together for five years at the time they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. The Republic admitted that Jose and Felisa started living together only in June 1986, or barely five months before the celebration of their marriage.43 The Court of Appeals also noted Felisas testimony that Jose was introduced to her by her neighbor, Teresita Perwel, sometime in February or March 1986 after the EDSA Revolution.44 The appellate court also cited Felisas own testimony that it was only in June 1986 when Jose commenced to live in her house.45 Moreover, it is noteworthy that the question as to whether they satisfied the minimum five-year requisite is factual in nature. A question of fact arises when there is a need to decide on the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. 46Under Rule 45, factual findings are ordinarily not subject to this Courts review.47 It is already well-settled that: The general rule is that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. A recognized exception to this rule is when the Court of Appeals and the trial court, or in this case the administrative body, make contradictory findings. However, the exception does not apply in every instance that the Court of Appeals and the trial court or administrative body disagree. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals remain conclusive on this Court if such findings are supported by the record or based on substantial evidence. 48

Therefore, the falsity of the affidavit dated 24 November 1986, executed by Jose and Felisa to exempt them from the requirement of a marriage license, is beyond question. We cannot accept the insistence of the Republic that the falsity of the statements in the parties affidavit will not affect the validity of marriage, since all the essential and formal requisites were complied with. The argument deserves scant merit. Patently, it cannot be denied that the marriage between Jose and Felisa was celebrated without the formal requisite of a marriage license. Neither did Jose and Felisa meet the explicit legal requirement in Article 76, that they should have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, so as to be excepted from the requirement of a marriage license. Anent petitioners reliance on the presumption of marriage, this Court holds that the same finds no applicability to the case at bar. Essentially, when we speak of a presumption of marriage, it is with reference to the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.49 Restated more explicitly, persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. 50 The present case does not involve an apparent marriage to which the presumption still needs to be applied. There is no question that Jose and Felisa actually entered into a contract of marriage on 24 November 1986, hence, compelling Jose to institute a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, which spawned the instant consolidated Petitions. In the same vein, the declaration of the Civil Code51 that every intendment of law or fact leans towards the validity of marriage will not salvage the parties marriage, and extricate them from the effect of a violation of the law. The marriage of Jose and Felisa was entered into without the requisite marriage license or compliance with the stringent requirements of a marriage under exceptional circumstance. The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law and would lead or could be used, at least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and unwary parties, which was one of the evils that the law sought to prevent by making a prior license a prerequisite for a valid marriage. 52 The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well. 53 To permit a false affidavit to take the place of a marriage license is to allow an abject circumvention of the law. If this Court is to protect the fabric of the institution of marriage, we must be wary of deceptive schemes that violate the legal measures set forth in our laws. Similarly, we are not impressed by the ratiocination of the Republic that as a marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained, so must a marriage not be invalidated by a fabricated statement that the parties have cohabited for at least five years as required by law. The contrast is flagrant. The former is with reference to an irregularity of the marriage license, and not to the absence of one. Here, there is no marriage license at all. Furthermore, the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisas cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an exception to the requirement for a marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath. If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper, without force and effect. Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at all. In its second assignment of error, the Republic puts forth the argument that based on equity, Jose should be denied relief because he perpetrated the fabrication, and cannot thereby profit from his wrongdoing. This is a misplaced invocation. It must be stated that equity finds no room for application where there is a law.54 There is a law on the ratification of marital cohabitation, which is set in precise terms under Article 76 of the Civil Code. Nonetheless, the authorities are consistent that the declaration of nullity of the parties marriage is without prejudice to their criminal liability.55 The Republic further avers in its third assignment of error that Jose is deemed estopped from assailing the legality of his marriage for lack of a marriage license. It is claimed that Jose and Felisa had lived together from 1986 to 1990, notwithstanding Joses subsequent marriage to Rufina Pascual on 31 August 1990, and that it took Jose seven years before he sought the declaration of nullity; hence, estoppel had set in. This is erroneous. An action for nullity of marriage is imprescriptible.56 Jose and Felisas marriage was celebrated sans a marriage license. No other conclusion can be reached except that it is void ab initio. In this case, the right to impugn a void marriage does not prescribe, and may be raised any time. Lastly, to settle all doubts, jurisprudence has laid down the rule that the five-year common-law cohabitation period under Article 76 means a five-year period computed back from the date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of a marriage.57 It covers the years immediately preceding the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity - meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years - and continuity that is unbroken.58 WHEREFORE, the Petitions are DENIED. The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 7 November 2006 in CA-G.R. CV No. 68759, declaring the marriage of Jose Dayot to Felisa Tecson-Dayot void ab initio, is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to their criminal liability, if any. No costs. SO ORDERED. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice Acting Chairperson DANTE O. TINGA* Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.** Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice Acting Chairperson, Third Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairpersons attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

G.R. No. 103047 September 2, 1994 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND ANGELINA M. CASTRO, respondents. Parungao, Abesamis, Eleazar & Pulgar Law Offices for private respondent.

PUNO, J.: The case at bench originated from a petition filed by private respondent Angelina M. Castro in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas. 1 As ground therefor, Castro claims that no marriage license was ever issued to them prior to the solemnization of their marriage. Despite notice, defendant Edwin F. Cardenas failed to file his answer. Consequently, he was declared in default. Trial proceeded in his absence. The controlling facts are undisputed: On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents. Defendant Cardenas personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of the marriage, license. In fact, the marriage contract itself states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila. The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to Castro's parents. Thus, it was only in March 1971, when Castro discovered she was pregnant, that the couple decided to live together. However, their cohabitation lasted only for four (4) months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways. On October 19, 1971, Castro gave birth. The baby was adopted by Castro's brother, with the consent of Cardenas. The baby is now in the United States. Desiring to follow her daughter, Castro wanted to put in order her marital status before leaving for the States. She thus consulted a lawyer, Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar, regarding the possible annulment of her marriage. Through her lawyer's efforts, they discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage. As proof, Angelina Castro offered in evidence a certification from the Civil Register of Pasig, Metro Manila. It reads: February 20, 1987 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that the names EDWIN F. CARDENAS and ANGELINA M. CASTRO who were allegedly married in the Pasay City Court on June 21, 1970 under an alleged (s)upportive marriage license no. 3196182 allegedly issued in the municipality on June 20, 1970 cannot be located as said license no. 3196182 does not appear from our records. Issued upon request of Mr. Ed Atanacio. (Sgd) CENONA D. QUINTO S Senior Civil Registry Officer Castro testified that she did not go to the civil registrar of Pasig on or before June 24, 1970 in order to apply for a license. Neither did she sign any application therefor. She affixed her signature only on the marriage contract on June 24, 1970 in Pasay City. The trial court denied the petition. 2 It held that the above certification was inadequate to establish the alleged non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties. It ruled that the "inability of the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued." Unsatisfied with the decision, Castro appealed to respondent appellate court. She insisted that the certification from the local civil registrar sufficiently established the absence of a marriage license. As stated earlier, respondent appellate court reversed the Decision of the trial court. 3 It declared the marriage between the contracting parties null and void and directed the Civil Registrar of Pasig to cancel the subject marriage contract. Hence this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines urges that respondent appellate court erred when it ruled that the certification issued by the civil registrar that marriage license no. 3196182 was not in their record adequately proved that no such license was ever issued. Petitioner also faults the respondent court for relying on the self-serving and uncorroborated testimony of private respondent Castro that she had no part in the procurement of the subject marriage license. Petitioner thus insists that the certification and the uncorroborated testimony of private respondent are insufficient to overthrow the legal presumption regarding the validity of a marriage. Petitioner also points that in declaring the marriage between the parties as null and void, respondent appellate court disregarded the presumption that the solemnizing officer, Judge Pablo M. Malvar, regularly performed his duties when he attested in the marriage contract that marriage license no. 3196182 was duly presented to him before the solemnization of the subject marriage. The issues, being interrelated, shall be discussed jointly. The core issue presented by the case at bench is whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas. We affirm the impugned Decision.

At the time the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital relations was the New Civil Code. The law 4 provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license would render the marriage void ab initio. 5 Petitioner posits that the certification of the local civil registrar of due search and inability to find a record or entry to the effect that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued to the parties is not adequate to prove its non-issuance. We hold otherwise. The presentation of such certification in court is sanctioned by Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, viz.: Sec. 29. Proof of lack of record. A written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy, that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. The above Rule authorized the custodian of documents to certify that despite diligent search, a particular document does not exist in his office or that a particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be found in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil registrars are public officers charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a register book where they are required to enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the names of the applicants, the date the marriage license was issued and such other relevant data. 6 The certification of "due search and inability to find" issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of "due search and inability to find" sufficiently proved that his office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties. The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her petition is, in itself, not a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" a legally non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown to the parents of the former. Surely, the fact that only private respondent Castro testified during the trial cannot be held against her. Her husband, Edwin F. Cardenas, was duly served with notice of the proceedings and a copy of the petition. Despite receipt thereof, he chose to ignore the same. For failure to answer, he was properly declared in default. Private respondent cannot be faulted for her husband's lack of interest to participate in the proceedings. There was absolutely no evidence on record to show that there was collusion between private respondent and her husband Cardenas. It is noteworthy to mention that the finding of the appellate court that the marriage between the contracting parties is null and void for lack of a marriage license does not discount the fact that indeed, a spurious marriage license, purporting to be issued by the civil registrar of Pasig, may have been presented by Cardenas to the solemnizing officer. In fine, we hold that, under the circumstances of the case, the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent Castro sufficiently established the absence of the subject marriage license. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED there being no showing of any reversible error committed by respondent appellate court. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-21076

March 31, 1965

WONG WOO YIU alias NG YAO, petitioner-appellee, vs. HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellants. Platon A. Baysa for petitioner-appellee. Office of the Solicitor General for respondents-appellants. BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: On June 28, 1961, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision finding petitioner to be legally married to Perfecto Blas and admitting her into the country as a non-quota immigrant. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners on July 12, 1961 of which petitioner was duly informed in a letter sent on the same date by the Secretary of the Board. However, on June 28, 1962, the same Board of Commissioners, but composed entirely of a new set of members, rendered a new decision reversing that of the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 and ordering petitioner to be excluded from the country. On August 9, 1962, petitioner filed a motion for new trial requesting an opportunity to clarify certain points taken in the decision, but the same was denied for lack of merit. Whereupon, on September 14, 1962, petitioner initiated the instant petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila which incidentally was considered by it as a petition forcertiorari. In due time, respondents filed their answer, and, after the parties had submitted a written stipulation of facts, attaching thereto some documentary evidence, the court a quo rendered a decision granting in, toto the relief prayed for. Thus, the court declared valid the decision rendered by the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 while it restrained respondents from excluding petitioner from the country. Respondents interposed the present appeal. It appears that in the proceedings held before the Board of Special Inquiry sometime in June, 1961, petitioner declared that she came to the Philippines in 1961 for the first time to join her husband Perfecto Blas to whom she was married in Chingkang, China on January 15, 1929; that they had several children all of whom are not in the Philippines; that their marriage was celebrated by one Chua Tio, a village leader; that on June 28, 1961 the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 rendered a decision finding, among others, that petitioner is legally married to Perfecto Blas, a Filipino Citizen, and admitted her into the country as a non-quota immigrant; that this decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners of which petitioner was duly notified by the Secretary of said Board in a letter dated July 12, 1961; that in a motu proprio decision rendered by the Board of Commissioners composed of a new set of members dated June 28, 1962 the latter found that petitioner's claim that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas was without basis in evidence as it was "bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship"; that said Board further held that, it appearing that in the entry proceedings of Perfecto Blas had on January 23, 1947 he declared that he first visited China in 1935 and married petitioner in 1936, it could not possibly sustain her claim that she married Perfecto Blas in 1929; that in an affidavit dated August 9, 1962 Perfecto Blas claimed that he went to China in 1929, 1935 and 1941, although in his re-entry declaration he admitted that he first went to China in 1935, then in 1937, then in 1939, and lastly in 1941; and that Perfecto Blas in the same affidavit likewise claimed that he first went to China when he was merely four years old so that computed from his date of birth in 1908 it must have been in 1912.1wph1.t In view of the discrepancies found in the statements made by petitioner and her alleged husband Perfecto Blas in the several investigations conducted by the immigration authorities concerning their alleged marriage before a village leader in China in 1929, coupled with the fact that the only basis in support of petitioner's claim that she is the lawful wife of Perfecto Blas is "a mass of oral and documentary evidence bereft of substantial proof of

husband-wife relationship," the Board of Commissioners motu proprio reviewed the record concerning the admission of petitioner into the country resulting in its finding that she was improperly admitted. Thus, said Board made the following comment: The only basis in support of the claim that she is the wife of Perfecto Blas is a mass of oral and documentary evidence bereft of substantial proof of husband-wife relationship. She relies on the records of Perfecto Blas in connection with his cancellation case and the testimony of the supposed children in the previous admission proceeding. But this claim is belied by the admission of Perfecto Blas himself, in the hearing conducted by a Board of special inquiry in connection with his entry on January 23, 1947, that he was married to one Ng Yo in Ki Say, Chingkang, China in 1936, his first visit there being in 1935; he could not therefore have been married to herein applicant in 1929. The above comment cannot be disputed, it finding support in the record. Indeed, not only is there no documentary evidence to support the alleged marriage of petitioner to Perfecto Blas but the record is punctured with so many inconsistencies which cannot but lead one to doubt their veracity concerning the pretended marriage in China in 1929. This claim cannot also be entertained under our law on family relations. Thus, Article 15 of our new Civil Code provides that laws relating to family rights or to the status of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad, and it is well-known that in 1929 in order that a marriage celebrated in the Philippines may be valid it must be solemnized either by a judge of any court inferior to the Supreme Court, a justice of the peace, or a priest or minister of the gospel of any denomination duly registered in the Philippine Library and Museum (Public Act 3412, Section 2). Even if we assume, therefore, that the marriage of petitioner to Perfecto Blas before a village leader is valid in China, the same is not one of those authorized in our country. But it may be contended that under Section 4 of General orders No. 68, as reproduced in Section 19 of Act No. 3613, which is now Article 71 of our new Civil Code, a marriage contracted outside of the Philippines which is valid under the law of the country in which it was celebrated is also valid in the Philippines. But no validity can be given to this contention because no proof was presented relative to the law of marriage in China. Such being the case, we should apply the general rule that in the absence of proof of the law of a foreign country it should be presumed that it is the same as our own. The statutes of other countries or states must be pleaded and proved the same as any other fact. Courts cannot take judicial notice of what such laws are. In the absence of pleading and proof the laws of a foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our own. (Yam Ka Lim v. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. 46). In the absence of anything to the contrary as to the character of a foreign law, it will be presumed to be the same as the domestic law on the same subject. (Lim and Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472). In the absence of evidence to the contrary foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. (Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867). Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the officers mentioned therein, and a village leader is not one of them, it is clear that petitioner's marriage, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. As a corollary, the petition for mandamus filed before the court a quo is hereby dismissed. No costs. Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

G.R. Nos. 95122-23 May 31, 1991 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION), BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, COMMISSIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JORGE V. SARMIENTO, ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER REGINO R. SANTIAGO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, ESTANISLAO CANTA, LEO MAGAHOM and BENJAMIN KALAW, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, Presiding Judge, RTC Manila, Branch 29, WILLIAM T. GATCHALIAN,respondents. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION), BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, COMMISSIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JORGE V. SARMIENTO, ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER REGINO R. SANTIAGO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, ESTANISLAO CANTA, LEO MAGAHOM and BENJAMIN KALAW, petitioners, vs. HON. TERESITA DIZON CAPULONG, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 172, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, DEE HUA T. GATCHALIAN, SHERWING T. GATCHALIAN, KENNETH T. GATCHALIAN, REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, and WESLIE T. GATCHALIAN, respondents. G.R. Nos. 95612-13 May 31, 1991 WILLIAM T. GATCHALIAN, petitioner, vs. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION), et al., respondents. The Solicitor General for petitioners. edesma, Saludo & Associates for respondent William Gatchalian. Cervo and Tanay Law Office for respondent T.D. Capulong, D.H.T. Gatchalian, et al.

BIDIN, J.:p This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by the Solicitor General seeking 1) to set aside the Resolution/Temporary Restraining Order dated September 7, 1990, issued by respondent Judge de la Rosa in Civil Case No. 90-54214 which denied petitioners' motion to dismiss and restrained petitioners from commencing or continuing with any of the proceedings which would lead to the deportation of respondent William Gatchalian, docketed as D.C. No. 90-523, as well as the Order of respondent Judge Capulong dated September 6, 1990 in Civil Case No. 3431-V-90 which likewise enjoined petitioners from proceeding with the deportation charges against respondent Gatchalian, and 2) to prohibit respondent judges from further acting in the aforesaid civil cases. On October 23, 1990, respondent Gatchalian filed his Comment with Counter-Petition, docketed as G.R. Nos. 96512-13, alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent Board of Commissioners, et al., over his person with prayer that he be declared a Filipino citizen, or in the alternative, to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On December 13, 1990, petitioners filed their comment to respondent Gatchalian's counter-petition. The Court considers the comment filed by respondent Gatchalian as answer to the petition and petitioners' comment as answer to the counter-petition and gives due course to the petitions. There is no dispute as to the following facts:

On July 12, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his natural mother, Marciana Gatchalian (Annex "1", counter-petition). Before the Citizenship Evaluation Board, Santiago Gatchalian testified that he has five (5) children with his wife Chu Gim Tee, namely: Jose Gatchalian, Gloria Gatchalian, Francisco Gatchalian, Elena Gatchalian and Benjamin Gatchalian (Annex "2", counter-petition). On June 27, 1961, William Gatchalian, then a twelve-year old minor, arrived in Manila from Hongkong together with Gloria, Francisco, and Johnson, all surnamed Gatchalian. They had with them Certificates of Registration and Identity issued by the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram bearing the signature of the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Felixberto Serrano, and sought admission as Filipino citizens. Gloria and Francisco are the daughter and son, respectively, of Santiago Gatchalian; while William and Johnson are the sons of Francisco. After investigation, the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 rendered a decision dated July 6, 1961, admitting William Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino citizens (Annex "C", petition). As a consequence thereof, William Gatchalian was issued Identification Certificate No. 16135 by the immigration authorities on August 16, 1961 (Annex "D", petition). On January 24, 1962, the then Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. 9 setting aside all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners on appeal or on review motu proprio of decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry. The same memorandum directed the Board of Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was a Philippine citizen. Among those cases was that of William and others. On July 6, 1962, the new Board of Commissioners, after a review motu proprio of the proceedings had in the Board of Special Inquiry, reversed the decision of the latter and ordered the exclusion of, among others, respondent Gatchalian (Annex "E", petition). A warrant of exclusion also dated July 6, 1962 was issued alleging that "the decision of the Board of Commissioners dated July 6, 1962 . . . has now become final and executory (Annex "F", petition). The actual date of rendition of said decision by the Board of Commissioners (whether on July 6, 1962 or July 20, 1962) became the subject of controversy in the 1967 case of Arocha vs. Vivo (21 SCRA 532) wherein this Court sustained the validity of the decision of the new Board of Commissioners having been promulgated on July 6, 1962, or within the reglementary period for review. Sometime in 1973, respondent Gatchalian, as well as the others covered by the July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion, filed a motion for re-hearing with the Board of Special Inquiry where the deportion case against them was assigned. On March 14, 1973, the Board of Special Inquiry recommended to the then Acting Commissioner Victor Nituda the reversal of the July 6, 1962 decision of the then Board of Commissioners and the recall of the warrants of arrest issued therein (Annex "5", counter-petition). On March 15, 1973, Acting Commissioner Nituda issued an order reaffirming the July 6, 1961 decision of the Board of Special Inquiry thereby admitting respondent Gatchalian as a Filipino citizen and recalled the warrant of arrest issued against him (Annex "6", counter-petition). On June 7, 1990, the acting director of the National Bureau of Investigation wrote the Secretary of Justice recommending that respondent Gatchalian along with the other applicants covered by the warrant of exclusion dated July 6, 1962 be charged with violation of Sec. 37 (a), pars. 1 and 2, in relation to Secs. 45 (c), and (d) and (e) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, also known as the Immigration Act of 1940 (Annex "G", petition). On August 1, 1990, the Secretary of Justice indorsed the recommendation of the NBI to the Commissioner of Immigration for investigation and immediate action (Annex "20", counter-petition). On August 15, 1990, petitioner Commissioner Domingo of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation * issued a mission order commanding the arrest of respondent William Gatchalian (Annex "18", counter-petition). The latter appeared before Commissioner Domingo on August 20, 1990 and was released on the same day upon posting P200,000.00 cash bond. On August 29, 1990, William Gatchalian filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Br. 29, presided by respondent Judge dela Rosa, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-54214. On September 4, 1990, petitioners filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 90-54214 alleging that respondent judge has no jurisdiction over the Board of Commissioners and/or the Board of Special Inquiry. Nonetheless, respondent judge dela Rosa issued the assailed order dated September 7, 1990, denying the motion to dismiss. Meanwhile, on September 6, 1990, respondent Gatchalian's wife and minor children filed before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Br. 172, presided by respondent judge Capulong Civil Case No. 3431-V-90 for injunction with writ of preliminary injunction. The complaint alleged, among others, that petitioners acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in the institution of deportation proceedings against William. On the same day, respondent Capulong issued the questioned temporary restraining order restraining petitioners from continuing with the deportation proceedings against William Gatchalian. The petition is anchored on the following propositions: 1) respondent judges have no jurisdiction over petitioners (Board of Commissioners, et al.,) and the subject matter of the case, appellate jurisdiction being vested by BP 129 with the Court of Appeals; 2) assuming respondent judges have jurisdiction, they acted with grave abuse of discretion in preempting petitioners in the exercise of the authority and jurisdiction to hear and determine the deportation case against respondent Gatchalian, and in the process determine also his citizenship; 3) respondent judge dela Rosa gravely abused his discretion in ruling that the issues raised in the deportation proceedings are beyond the competence and jurisdiction of petitioners, thereby disregarding the cases of Arocha vs. Vivo and Vivo vs. Arca (supra), which put finality to the July 6, 1962 decision of the Board of Commissioners that respondent Gatchalian is a Chinese citizen; and 4) respondent judge Capulong should have dismissed Civil Case No. 3431-V-90 for forum-shopping. In his counter-petition, William Gatchalian alleges among others that: 1) assuming that the evidence on record is not sufficient to declare him a Filipino citizen, petitioners have no jurisdiction to proceed with the deportation case until the courts shall have finally resolved the question of his citizenship; 2) petitioners can no longer judiciously and fairly resolve the question of respondent's citizenship in the deportation case because of their bias, prejudgment and prejudice against him; and 3) the ground for which he is sought to be deported has already prescribed. For purposes of uniformity, the parties herein will be referred to in the order the petitions were filed. Petitioners argue that under Sec. 9 (3) of BP 129, it is the Court of Appeals which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial agencies, boards or commissions, such as the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Special Inquiry. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that petitioners are not quasi-judicial agencies and are not in equal rank with Regional Trial Courts. Under Sec. 21 (1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with this Court and the Court of Appeals to issue "writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpusand injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions, . . ." Thus, the RTCs are vested with the power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. It is true that under Sec. 9 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals is vested with (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, order, or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, board or commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court in accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of this Act, and of sub-paragraph (1) of the third paragraph of and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. It does not provide, however, that said exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals extends to all quasi-judicial agencies. The quasi-judicial bodies whose decisions are exclusively appealable to the Court of Appeals are those which under the law, Republic Act No. 5434, or their enabling acts, are specifically appealable to the Court of Appeals (Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 348 [1989]; Lupangco vs. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 848 [1988]). Thus, under Republic Act No. 5434, it is specifically provided that the decisions of the Land Registration Commission (LRC), the Social Security Commission (SSC), Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), the Patent Office and the Agricultural Invention Board are appealable to the Court of Appeals. In the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force (supra), this Court clarified the matter when We ruled: Under our Resolution dated January 11, 1983: . . . The appeals to the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) from quasi-judicial bodies shall continue to be governed by the provisions of Republic Act No. 5434 insofar as the same is not inconsistent with the provisions of B.P. Blg. 129. The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 5434 are as follows: Sec. 1. Appeals from specified agencies. Any provision of existing law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, parties aggrieved by a final ruling, award, order, or decision, or judgment of the Court of Agrarian Relations; the Secretary of Labor under Section 7 of Republic Act Numbered Six hundred and two, also known as the "Minimum Wage Law"; the Department of Labor under Section 23 of Republic Act Numbered Eight hundred seventy-five, also known as the "Industrial Peace Act"; the Land Registration Commission; the Social Security Commission; the Civil Aeronautics Board; the Patent Office and the Agricultural Inventions Board, may appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeals, within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, or questions of law, or all three kinds of questions. From final judgments or decisions of the Court of Appeals, the aggrieved party may appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court as provided under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Because of subsequent amendments, including the abolition of various special courts, jurisdiction over quasi-judicial bodies has to be, consequently, determined by the corresponding amendatory statutes. Under the Labor Code, decisions and awards of the National Labor Relations Commission are final and executory, but, nevertheless, reviewable by this Court through a petition for certiorariand not by way of appeal. Under the Property Registration Decree, decision of the Commission of Land Registration, en consulta, are appealable to the Court of Appeals. The decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission are likewise appealable to the Appellate Court, and so are decisions of the Social Security Commission. As a rule, where legislation provides for an appeal from decisions of certain administrative bodies to the Court of Appeals, it means that such bodies are co-equal with the Regional Trial Courts, in terms of rank and stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter. (Emphasis supplied) There are quasi-judicial agencies, as the National Labor Relations Commissions, whose decisions are directly appealable to this Court. It is only when a specific law, as Republic Act No. 5434, provides appeal from certain bodies or commissions to the Court of Appeals as the Land Registration Commission (LRC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and others, that the said commissions or boards may be considered co-equal with the RTCs in terms of rank, stature and are logically beyond the control of the latter. However, the Bureau of Immigration (or CID) is not among those quasi-judicial agencies specified by law whose decisions, orders, and resolutions are directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. In fact, its decisions are subject to judicial review in accordance with Sec. 25, Chapter 4, Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code, which provides as follows: Sec. 25. Judicial Review.(1) Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws. xxx xxx xxx (6) The review proceeding shall be filed in the court specified in the statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. Said provision of the Administrative Code, which is subsequent to B.P. Blg. 129 and which thus modifies the latter, provides that the decision of an agency like the Bureau of Immigration should be subject to review by the court specified by the statute or in the absence thereof, it is subject to review by any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. B.P. Blg. 129 did not intend to raise all quasi-judicial bodies to the same level or rank of the RTC except those specifically provided for under the law as aforestated. As the Bureau of Immigration is not of equal rank as the RTC, its decisions may be appealable to, and may be reviewed through a special civil action for certiorari by, the RTC (Sec. 21, (1) BP 129). True, it is beyond cavil that the Bureau of Immigration has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in the process, determine also their citizenship (Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 756 [1989]). And a mere claim of citizenship cannot operate to divest the Board of Commissioners of its jurisdiction in deportation proceedings (Miranda vs. Deportation Board, 94 Phil. 531 [1954]). However, the rule enunciated in the above-cases admits of an exception, at least insofar as deportation proceedings are concerned. Thus, what if the claim to citizenship of the alleged deportee is satisfactory? Should the deportation proceedings be allowed to continue or should the question of citizenship be ventilated in a judicial proceeding? In Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board (96 Phil. 665 [1955]), this Court answered the question in the affirmative, and We quote: When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the deportation proceedings. A citizen is entitled to live in peace, without molestation from any official or authority, and if he is disturbed by a deportation proceeding, he has the unquestionable right to resort to the courts for his protection, either by a writ of habeas corpus or of prohibition, on the legal ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction. If he is a citizen and evidence thereof is satisfactory, there is no sense nor justice in allowing the deportation proceedings to continue, granting him the remedy only after the Board has finished its investigation of his undesirability. . . . And if the right (to peace) is precious and valuable at all, it must also be protected on time, to prevent undue harassment at the hands of ill-meaning or misinformed administrative officials. Of what use is this much boasted right to peace and liberty if it can be

availed of only after the Deportation Board has unjustly trampled upon it, besmirching the citizen's name before the bar of public opinion?(Emphasis supplied) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction of petitioners Board of Commissioners over deportation proceedings is, therefore, not without exception (Calacday vs. Vivo, 33 SCRA 413 [1970]; Vivo vs. Montesa, 24 SCRA 155 [1967]). Judicial intervention, however, should be granted only in cases where the "claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. In other words, the remedy should be allowed only on sound discretion of a competent court in a proper proceeding (Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board, supra; Co. vs. Deportation Board, 78 SCRA 107 [1977]). It appearing from the records that respondent's claim of citizenship is substantial, as We shall show later, judicial intervention should be allowed. In the case at bar, the competent court which could properly take cognizance of the proceedings instituted by respondent Gatchalian would nonetheless be the Regional Trial Court and not the Court of Appeals in view of Sec. 21 (1), BP 129, which confers upon the former jurisdiction over actions for prohibition concurrently with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and in line with the pronouncements of this Court in Chua Hiong and Co cases. Ordinarily, the case would then be remanded to the Regional Trial Court. But not in the case at bar. Considering the voluminous pleadings submitted by the parties and the evidence presented, We deem it proper to decide the controversy right at this instance. And this course of action is not without precedent for "it is a cherished rule of procedure for this Court to always strive to settle the entire controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation. No useful purpose will be served if this case is remanded to the trial court only to have its decision raised again to the Court of Appeals and from there to this Court" (Marquez vs. Marquez, 73 Phil. 74; Keramic Industries, Inc. vs. Guerrero, 61 SCRA 265 [1974]) Alger Electric, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (135 SCRA 37 [1985]), citing Gayos vs. Gayos (67 SCRA 146 [1975]). In Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (157 SCRA 357 [1988]), We also stated: Remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not necessary where the court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it. On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and the expeditious administration of justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them to the trial court for further proceedings, such as where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand of the case or when public interest demands an early disposition of the case or where the trial court had already received all the evidence of the parties (Quisumbing vs. CA, 112 SCRA 703; Francisco, et al., vs. The City of Davao, et al., supra; Republic vs. Security Credit & Acceptance Corp., et al., 19 SCRA 58; Samal vs. CA, supra; Republic vs. Central Surety & Insurance Co., 25 SCRA 641). Likewise in Tejones vs. Gironella (159 SCRA 100 [1988]), We said: Sound practice seeks to accommodate the theory which avoids waste of time, effort and expense, both to the parties and the government, not to speak of delay in the disposal of the case (cf.Fernandez vs. Garcia, 92 Phil. 592, 297). A marked characterstic of our judicial set-up is that where the dictates of justice so demand . . . the Supreme Court should act, and act with finality (Li Siu Liat vs. Republic, 21 SCRA 1039, 1046, citing Samal vs. CA, 99 Phil. 230 and US vs. Gimenez, 34 Phil. 74.) (Beautifont, Inc. vs. Court of appeals, et al., Jan. 29, 1988; See also Labo vs. Commission on Elections, 176 SCRA 1 [1989]). Respondent Gatchalian has adduced evidence not only before the Regional Trial Court but also before Us in the form of public documents attached to his pleadings. On the other hand, Special Prosecutor Renato Mabolo in his Manifestation (dated September 6, 1990; Rollo, p. 298, counter-petition) before the Bureau of Immigration already stated that there is no longer a need to adduce evidence in support of the deportation charges against respondent. In addition, petitioners invoke that this Court's decision in Arocha vs. Vivo and Vivo vs. Arca (supra), has already settled respondent's alienage. Hence, the need for a judicial determination of respondent's citizenship specially so where the latter is not seeking admission, but is already in the Philippines (for the past thirty [30] years) and is being expelled (Chua Hiong vs. Deportation Board, supra). According to petitioners, respondent's alienage has been conclusively settled by this Court in the Arocha and Vivocases, We disagree. It must be noted that in said cases, the sole issue resolved therein was the actual date of rendition of the July 6, 1962 decision of the then board of Commissioners, i.e., whether the decision was rendered on July 6, 1962 or on July 20, 1962 it appearing that the figure (date) "20" was erased and over it was superimposed the figure "6" thereby making the decision fall within the one-year reglementary period from July 6, 1961 within which the decision may be reviewed. This Court did not squarely pass upon any question of citizenship, much less that of respondent's who was not a party in the aforesaid cases. The said cases originated from a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on July 21, 1965 by Macario Arocha in behalf of Pedro Gatchalian. Well settled is the rule that a person not party to a case cannot be bound by a decision rendered therein. Neither can it be argued that the Board of Commissioners' decision (dated July 6, 1962) finding respondent's claim to Philippine citizenship not satisfactorily proved, constitute res judicata. For one thing, said decision did not make any categorical statement that respondent Gatchalian is a Chinese. Secondly, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship (Labo vs. Commission on Elections (supra); citing Soria vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 37 SCRA 213; Lee vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 42 SCRA 561 [1971]; Sia Reyes vs. Deportation Board, 122 SCRA 478 [1983]). In Moy Ya Lim vs. Commissioner of Immigration (41 SCRA 292 [1971]) and in Lee vs. Commissioner of Immigration (supra), this Court declared that: (e)verytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. An exception to the above rule was laid by this Court in Burca vs. Republic (51 SCRA 248 [1973]), viz: We declare it to be a sound rule that where the citizenship of a party in a case is definitely resolved by a court or by an administrative agency, as a material issue in the controversy, after a full-blown hearing with the active participation of the Solicitor General or his authorized representative, and this finding or the citizenship of the party is affirmed by this Court, the decision on the matter shall constitute conclusive proof of such party's citizenship in any other case or proceeding. But it is made clear that in no instance will a decision on the question of citizenship in such cases be considered conclusive or binding in any other case or proceeding, unless obtained in accordance with the procedure herein stated. Thus, in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present: 1) a person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof, and 3) the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court. Gauged by the foregoing, We find the pre-conditions set forth in Burca inexistent in the Arocha and Vivo cases relied upon by petitioners. Indeed, respondent William Gatchalian was not even a party in said cases. Coming now to the contention of petitioners that the arrest of respondent follows as a matter of consequence based on the warrant of exclusion issued on July 6, 1962, coupled with the Arocha and Vivo cases (Rollo, pp. 33), the Court finds the same devoid of merit. Sec. 37 (a) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, otherwise known as the Immigration Act of 1940, reads: Sec. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioner of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien. (Emphasis supplied)

From a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that in matters of implementing the Immigration Act insofar as deportation of aliens are concerned, the Commissioner of Immigration may issue warrants of arrest only after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien. In other words, a warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, to be valid, must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation. A warrant of arrest issued by the Commissioner of Immigration for purposes of investigation only, as in the case at bar, is null and void for being unconstitutional (Ang Ngo Chiong vs. Galang, 67 SCRA 338 [1975] citing Po Siok Pin vs. Vivo, 62 SCRA 363 [1975]; Vivo vs. Montesa, 24 SCRA 155; Morano vs. Vivo, 20 SCRA 562; Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 [1963]; Ng Hua To vs. Galang, 10 SCRA 411; see also Santos vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 74 SCRA 96 [1976]). As We held in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board (supra), "(t)he constitution does not distinguish warrants between a criminal case and administrative proceedings. And if one suspected of having committed a crime is entitled to a determination of the probable cause against him, by a judge, why should one suspected of a violation of an administrative nature deserve less guarantee?" It is not indispensable that the alleged alien be arrested for purposes of investigation. If the purpose of the issuance of the warrant of arrest is to determine the existence of probable cause, surely, it cannot pass the test of constitutionality for only judges can issue the same (Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution). A reading of the mission order/warrant of arrest (dated August 15, 1990; Rollo, p. 183, counter-petition) issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, clearly indicates that the same was issued only for purposes of investigation of the suspects, William Gatchalian included. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the mission order directs the Intelligence Agents/Officers to: xxx xxx xxx 1. Make a warrantless arrest under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5, for violation of the Immigration Act, Sec. 37, para. a; Secs. 45 and 46 Administrative Code; xxx xxx xxx 3. Deliver the suspect to the Intelligence Division and immediately conduct custodial interrogation, after warning the suspect that he has a right to remain silent and a right to counsel; . . . Hence, petitioners' argument that the arrest of respondent was based, ostensibly, on the July 6, 1962 warrant of exclusion has obviously no leg to stand on. The mission order/warrant of arrest made no mention that the same was issued pursuant to a final order of deportation or warrant of exclusion. But there is one more thing that militates against petitioners' cause. As records indicate, which petitioners conveniently omitted to state either in their petition or comment to the counter-petition of respondent, respondent Gatchalian, along with others previously covered by the 1962 warrant of exclusion, filed a motion for re-hearing before the Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) sometime in 1973. On March 14, 1973, the Board of Special Inquiry, after giving due course to the motion for re-hearing, submitted a memorandum to the then Acting Commissioner Victor Nituda (Annex "5", counter-petition) recommending 1 the reconsideration of the July 6, 1962 decision of the then Board of Commissioners which reversed the July 6, 1961 decision of the then Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 and 2 the lifting of the warrants of arrest issued against applicants. The memorandum inferred that the "very basis of the Board of Commissioners in reversing the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry was due to a forged cablegram by the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs, . . ., which was dispatched to the Philippine Consulate in Hong Kong authorizing the registration of applicants as P.I. citizens." The Board of Special Inquiry concluded that "(i)f at all, the cablegram only led to the issuance of their Certificate(s) of Identity which took the place of a passport for their authorized travel to the Philippines. It being so, even if the applicants could have entered illegally, the mere fact that they are citizens of the Philippines entitles them to remain in the country." On March 15, 1973, then Acting Commissioner Nituda issued an Order (Annex "6", counter-petition) which affirmed the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 decision dated July 6, 1961 admitting respondent Gatchalian and others as Filipino citizens; recalled the July 6, 1962 warrant of arrest and revalidated their Identification Certificates. The above order admitting respondent as a Filipino citizen is the last official act of the government on the basis of which respondent William Gatchalian continually exercised the rights of a Filipino citizen to the present. Consequently, the presumption of citizenship lies in favor of respondent William Gatchalian. There should be no question that Santiago Gatchalian, grandfather of William Gatchalian, is a Filipino citizen. As a matter of fact, in the very order of the BOC of July 6, 1962, which reversed the July 6, 1961 BSI order, it is an accepted fact that Santiago Gatchalian is a Filipino. The opening paragraph of said order states: The claim to Filipino citizenship of abovenamed applicants is based on the citizenship of one Santiago Gatchalian whose Philippine citizenship was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration in an Order dated July 12, 1960. (Annex "37", Comment with CounterPetition). Nonetheless, in said order it was found that the applicants therein have not satisfactorily proven that they are the children and/or grandchildren of Santiago Gatchalian. The status of Santiago Gatchalian as a Filipino was reiterated in Arocha and Arca (supra) where advertence is made to the "applicants being the descendants of one Santiago Gatchalian, a Filipino." (at p. 539). In the sworn statement of Santiago Gatchalian before the Philippine Consul in Hongkong in 1961 (Annex "1" to the Comment of petitioners to CounterPetition), he reiterated his status as a Philippine citizen being the illegitimate child of Pablo Pacheco and Marciana Gatchalian, the latter being a Filipino; that he was born in Manila on July 25, 1905; and that he was issued Philippine Passport No. 28160 (PA-No. A91196) on November 18, 1960 by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila. In his affidavit of January 23, 1961 (Annex "5", counter-petition), Santiago reiterated his claim of Philippine citizenship as a consequence of his petition for cancellation of his alien registry which was granted on February 18, 1960 in C.E.B. No. 3660-L; and that on July 20, 1960, he was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a Filipino and was issued Certificate No. 1-2123. The dissenting opinions of my esteemed brethrens, Messrs. Justices F.P. Feliciano and H.G. Davide, Jr., proposing to re-open the question of citizenship of Santiago Gatchalian at this stage of the case, where it is not even put in issue, is quite much to late. As stated above, the records of the Bureau of Immigration show that as of July 20, 1960, Santiago Gatchalian had been declared to be a Filipino citizen. It is a final decision that forecloses a re-opening of the same 30 years later. Petitioners do not even question Santiago Gatchalian's Philippine citizenship. It is the citizenship of respondent William Gatchalian that is in issue and addressed for determination of the Court in this case. Furthermore, petitioners' position is not enhanced by the fact that respondent's arrest came twenty-eight (28) years after the alleged cause of deportation arose. Section 37 (b) of the Immigration Act states that deportation "shall not be effected . . . unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five (5) years after the cause of deportation arises." In Lam Shee vs. Bengzon (93 Phil. 1065 [1953]), We laid down the consequences of such inaction, thus: There is however an important circumstance which places this case beyond the reach of the resultant consequence of the fraudulent act committed by the mother of the minor when she admitted that she gained entrance into the Philippines by making use of the name of a Chinese resident merchant other than that of her lawful husband, and that is, that the mother can no longer be the subject of deportation proceedings for the simple reason that more than 5 years had elapsed from the date of her admission. Note that the above irregularity was divulged by the mother herself, who in a gesture of sincerity, made an spontaneous admission before the immigration officials in the investigation conducted in connection with the landing of the minor on September 24, 1947, and not through any effort on the part of the immigration authorities. And considering this frank admission, plus the fact that the mother was found to be married to another Chinese resident merchant, now deceased, who owned a restaurant in the Philippines valued at P15,000 and which gives a net profit of P500 a month, the immigration officials then must have considered the irregularity not serious enough when, inspire of that finding, they decided to land said minor "as a properly documented preference quota

immigrant" (Exhibit D). We cannot therefore but wonder why two years later the immigration officials would reverse their attitude and would take steps to institute deportation proceedings against the minor. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, we believe that much as the attitude of the mother would be condemned for having made use of an improper means to gain entrance into the Philippines and acquire permanent residence there, it is now too late, not to say unchristian, to deport the minor after having allowed the mother to remain even illegally to the extent of validating her residence by inaction, thus allowing the period of prescription to set in and to elapse in her favor. To permit his deportation at this late hour would be to condemn him to live separately from his mother through no fault of his thereby leaving him to a life of insecurity resulting from lack of support and protection of his family. This inaction or oversight on the part of immigration officials has created an anomalous situation which, for reasons of equity, should be resolved in favor of the minor herein involved. (Emphasis supplied) In the case at bar, petitioners' alleged cause of action and deportation against herein respondent arose in 1962. However, the warrant of arrest of respondent was issued by Commissioner Domingo only on August 15, 1990 28 long years after. It is clear that petitioners' cause of action has already prescribed and by their inaction could not now be validly enforced by petitioners against respondent William Gatchalian. Furthermore, the warrant of exclusion dated July 6, 1962 was already recalled and the Identification certificate of respondent, among others, was revalidated on March 15, 1973 by the then Acting Commissioner Nituda. It is also proposed in the dissenting opinions of Messrs. Justices Feliciano and Davide, Jr., that the BOC decision dated July 6, 1962 and the warrant of exclusion which was found to be valid in Arocha should be applicable to respondent William Gatchalian even if the latter was not a party to said case. They also opined that under Sec. 37 (b) of the Immigration Act, the five (5) years limitation is applicable only where the deportation is sought to be effected under clauses of Sec. 37 (b) other than clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 and that no period of limitation is applicable in deportations under clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12. The Court disagrees. Under Sec. 39 of the Immigration Act, it is reiterated that such deportation proceedings should be instituted within five (5) years. Section 45 of the same Act provides penal sanctions for violations of the offenses therein enumerated with a fine of "not more than P1,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than two (2) years and deportation if he is an alien." Thus: Penal Provisions Sec. 45. Any individual who (a) When applying for an immigration document personates another individual, or falsely appears in the name of deceased individual, or evades the immigration laws by appearing under an assumed name; fictitious name; or (b) Issues or otherwise disposes of an immigration document, to any person not authorized by law to receive such document; or (c) Obtains, accepts or uses any immigration document, knowing it to be false; or (d) Being an alien, enters the Philippines without inspection and admission by the immigration officials, or obtains entry into the Philippines by wilful, false, or misleading representation or wilful concealment of a material fact; or (e) Being an alien shall for any fraudulent purpose represent himself to be a Philippine citizen in order to evade any requirement of the immigration laws; or (f) In any immigration matter shall knowingly make under oath any false statement or representations; or (g) Being an alien, shall depart from the Philippines without first securing an immigration clearance certificates required by section twenty-two of this Act; or (h) Attempts or conspires with another to commit any of the foregoing acts, shall be guilty of an offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand pesos, and imprisoned for not more than two years, and deported if he is an alien. (Emphasis supplied) Such offenses punishable by correctional penalty prescribe in 10 years (Art. 90, Revised Penal Code); correctional penalties also prescribe in 10 years (Art. 92, Revised Penal Code). It must be noted, however, that under Sec. 1, Act No. 3326 [1926], as amended, (Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances) "violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: . . .c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; . . ." Consequently, no prosecution and consequent deportation for violation of the offenses enumerated in the Immigration Act can be initiated beyond the eight-year prescriptive period, the Immigration Act being a special legislation. The Court, therefore, holds that the period of effecting deportation of an alien after entry or a warrant of exclusion based on a final order of the BSI or BOC are not imprescriptible. The law itself provides for a period of prescription. Prescription of the crime is forfeiture or loss of the rights of the State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time, while prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture by the government of the right to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a certain time (Padilla, Criminal Law, Vol. 1, 1974, at p. 855). "Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings." (Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals, supra). Under Sec. 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a final judgment may not be executed after the lapse of five (5) years from the date of its entry or from the date it becomes final and executory. Thereafter, it may be enforced only by a separate action subject to the statute of limitations. Under Art. 1144 (3) of the Civil Code, an action based on judgment must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues. In relation to Sec. 37 (b) of the Immigration Act, the rule, therefore, is: 1. Deportation or exclusion proceedings should be initiated within five (5) years after the cause of deportation or exclusion arises when effected under any other clauses other than clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 and of paragraph (a) of Sec. 37 of the Immigration Act; and 2. When deportation or exclusion is effected under clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of paragraph (a) of Sec. 37, the prescriptive period of the deportation or exclusion proceedings is eight (8) years. In the case at bar, it took petitioners 28 years since the BOC decision was rendered on July 6, 1962 before they commenced deportation or exclusion proceedings against respondent William Gatchalian in 1990. Undoubtedly, petitioners' cause of action has already prescribed. Neither may an action to revive and/or enforce the decision dated July 6, 1962 be instituted after ten (10) years (Art. 1144 [3], Civil Code).

Since his admission as a Filipino citizen in 1961, respondent William Gatchalian has continuously resided in the Philippines. He married Ting Dee Hua on July 1, 1973 (Annex "8", counter-petition) with whom he has four (4) minor children. The marriage contract shows that said respondent is a Filipino (Annex "8"). He holds passports and earlier passports as a Filipino (Annexes "9", "10" & "11", counter-petition). He is a registered voter of Valenzuela, Metro Manila where he has long resided and exercised his right of suffrage (Annex 12, counter-petition). He engaged in business in the Philippines since 1973 and is the director/officer of the International Polymer Corp. and Ropeman International Corp. as a Filipino (Annexes, "13" & "14", counter-petition). He is a taxpayer. Respondent claims that the companies he runs and in which he has a controlling investment provides livelihood to 4,000 employees and approximately 25,000 dependents. He continuously enjoyed the status of Filipino citizenship and discharged his responsibility as such until petitioners initiated the deportation proceedings against him. "The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility of the people" (Lao Gi vs. Court of Appeals, supra). How could one who has helped the economy of the country by providing employment to some 4,000 people be considered undesirable and be summarily deported when the government, in its concerted drive to attract foreign investors, grants Special Resident Visa to any alien who invest at least US$50,000.00 in the country? Even assuming arguendo that respondent is an alien, his deportation under the circumstances is unjust and unfair, if not downright illegal. The action taken by petitioners in the case at bar is diametrically opposed to settled government policy. Petitioners, on the other hand, claim that respondent is an alien. In support of their position, petitioners point out that Santiago Gatchalian's marriage with Chu Gim Tee in China as well as the marriage of Francisco (father of William) Gatchalian to Ong Chiu Kiok, likewise in China, were not supported by any evidence other than their own self-serving testimony nor was there any showing what the laws of China were. It is the postulate advanced by petitioners that for the said marriages to be valid in this country, it should have been shown that they were valid by the laws of China wherein the same were contracted. There being none, petitioners conclude that the aforesaid marriages cannot be considered valid. Hence, Santiago's children, including Francisco, followed the citizenship of their mother, having been born outside of a valid marriage. Similarly, the validity of the Francisco's marriage not having been demonstrated, William and Johnson followed the citizenship of their mother, a Chinese national. After a careful consideration of petitioner's argument, We find that it cannot be sustained. In Miciano vs. Brimo (50 Phil. 867 [1924]; Lim and Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472; Yam Ka Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. 46 [1915]), this Court held that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. In the case at bar, there being no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there arises the presumption that it is the same as that of Philippine law. The lack of proof of Chinese law on the matter cannot be blamed on Santiago Gatchalian much more on respondent William Gatchalian who was then a twelve-year old minor. The fact is, as records indicate, Santiago was not pressed by the Citizenship Investigation Board to prove the laws of China relating to marriage, having been content with the testimony of Santiago that the Marriage Certificate was lost or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of China. Neither was Francisco Gatchalian's testimony subjected to the same scrutiny by the Board of Special Inquiry. Nevertheless, the testimonies of Santiago Gatchalian and Francisco Gatchalian before the Philippine consular and immigration authorities regarding their marriages, birth and relationship to each other are not self-serving but are admissible in evidence as statements or declarations regarding family reputation or tradition in matters of pedigree (Sec. 34, Rule 130). Furtheremore, this salutary rule of evidence finds support in substantive law. Thus, Art. 267 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 267. In the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final judgment or possession of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (See also Art. 172 of the Family Code) Consequently, the testimonies/affidavits of Santiago Gatchalian and Francisco Gatchalian aforementioned are not self-serving but are competent proof of filiation (Art. 172 [2], Family Code). Philippine law, following the lex loci celebrationis, adheres to the rule that a marriage formally valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. Referring to marriages contracted abroad, Art. 71 of the Civil Code (now Art. 26 of the Family Code) provides that "(a)ll marriages performed outside of the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country . . ." And any doubt as to the validity of the matrimonial unity and the extent as to how far the validity of such marriage may be extended to the consequences of the coverture is answered by Art. 220 of the Civil Code in this manner: "In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of property during marriage, the authority of parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression." (Emphasis supplied). Bearing in mind the "processual presumption" enunciated in Miciano and other cases, he who asserts that the marriage is not valid under our law bears the burden of proof to present the foreign law. Having declared the assailed marriages as valid, respondent William Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father Francisco, a Filipino, as a legitimate child of the latter. Francisco, in turn is likewise a Filipino being the legitimate child of Santiago Gatchalian who (the latter) is admittedly a Filipino citizen whose Philippine citizenship was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration in an order dated July 12, 1960. Finally, respondent William Gatchalian belongs to the class of Filipino citizens contemplated under Sec. 1, Article IV of the Constitution, which provides: Sec. 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. . . . This forecloses any further question about the Philippine citizenship of respondent William Gatchalian. The Court is not unaware of Woong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo (13 SCRA 552 [1965]) relied upon by petitioners. The ruling arrived thereat, however, cannot apply in the case at bar for the simple reason that the parties therein testified to have been married in China by a village leader, which undoubtedly is not among those authorized to solemnize marriage as provided in Art. 56 of the Civil Code (now Art. 7, Family Code). Premises considered, the Court deems it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised by the parties. WHEREFORE, G.R. Nos. 95122-23 is DISMISSED for lack of merit; G.R. Nos. 95612-13 is hereby GRANTED and respondent William Gatchalian is declared a Filipino citizen. Petitioners are hereby permanently enjoined from continuing with the deportation proceedings docketed as DC No. 90-523 for lack of jurisdiction over respondent Gatchalian, he being a Filipino citizen; Civil Cases No. 90-54214 and 3431-V-90 pending before respondent judges are likewise DISMISSED. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Gutierrez, Jr., Gancayco, Sarmiento, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur. Fernan, C.J., and Narvasa, J., concur in the result.

G.R. No. 138322

October 2, 2001

GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, vs. REDERICK A. RECIO, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the January 7, 1999 Decision1 and the March 24, 1999 Order2 of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 28, in Civil Case No. 3026-AF. The assailed Decision disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, this Court declares the marriage between Grace J. Garcia and Rederick A. Recio solemnized on January 12, 1994 at Cabanatuan City as dissolved and both parties can now remarry under existing and applicable laws to any and/or both parties." 3 The assailed Order denied reconsideration of the above-quoted Decision. The Facts Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on March 1, 1987. 4 They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. On May 18, 1989,5 a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian family court. On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen, as shown by a "Certificate of Australian Citizenship" issued by the Australian government.6 Petitioner a Filipina and respondent were married on January 12, 1994 in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Cabanatuan City. 7 In their application for a marriage license, respondent was declared as "single" and "Filipino." 8 Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. While the two were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.9 On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage10 in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her on January 12, 1994. She claimed that she learned of respondent's marriage to Editha Samson only in November, 1997. In his Answer, respondent averred that, as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage andits subsequent dissolution.11 He contended that his first marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australian in 1989; 12 thus, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994.1wphi1.nt On July 7, 1998 or about five years after the couple's wedding and while the suit for the declaration of nullity was pending respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney, Australia because the "marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down." 13 Respondent prayed in his Answer that the Complained be dismissed on the ground that it stated no cause of action.14 The Office of the Solicitor General agreed with respondent.15 The court marked and admitted the documentary evidence of both parties. 16 After they submitted their respective memoranda, the case was submitted for resolution.17 Thereafter, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision and Order. Ruling of the Trial Court The trial court declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Philippines. It deemed the marriage ended, but not on the basis of any defect in an essential element of the marriage; that is, respondent's alleged lack of legal capacity to remarry. Rather, it based its Decision on the divorce decree obtained by respondent. The Australian divorce had ended the marriage; thus, there was no more martial union to nullify or annual. Hence, this Petition.18 Issues Petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration: "I The trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorce decree obtained in Australia by the respondent ipso facto terminated his first marriage to Editha Samson thereby capacitating him to contract a second marriage with the petitioner. "2 The failure of the respondent, who is now a naturalized Australian, to present a certificate of legal capacity to marry constitutes absence of a substantial requisite voiding the petitioner' marriage to the respondent. "3 The trial court seriously erred in the application of Art. 26 of the Family Code in this case. "4 The trial court patently and grievously erred in disregarding Arts. 11, 13, 21, 35, 40, 52 and 53 of the Family Code as the applicable provisions in this case. "5

The trial court gravely erred in pronouncing that the divorce gravely erred in pronouncing that the divorce decree obtained by the respondent in Australia ipso facto capacitated the parties to remarry, without first securing a recognition of the judgment granting the divorce decree before our courts."19 The Petition raises five issues, but for purposes of this Decision, we shall concentrate on two pivotal ones: (1) whether the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven, and (2) whether respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner. Because of our ruling on these two, there is no more necessity to take up the rest. The Court's Ruling The Petition is partly meritorious. First Issue: Proving the Divorce Between Respondent and Editha Samson Petitioner assails the trial court's recognition of the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson. Citing Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee,20 petitioner argues that the divorce decree, like any other foreign judgment, may be given recognition in this jurisdiction only upon proof of the existence of (1) the foreign law allowing absolute divorce and (2) the alleged divorce decree itself. She adds that respondent miserably failed to establish these elements. Petitioner adds that, based on the first paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, marriages solemnized abroad are governed by the law of the place where they were celebrated (the lex loci celebrationist). In effect, the Code requires the presentation of the foreign law to show the conformity of the marriage in question to the legal requirements of the place where the marriage was performed. At the outset, we lay the following basic legal principles as the take-off points for our discussion. Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it.21 A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Articles 1522 and 1723 of the Civil Code.24 In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 2625 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry."26 A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.27 A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that "aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law."28 Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.29 Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Divorce as a Question of Fact Petitioner insists that before a divorce decree can be admitted in evidence, it must first comply with the registration requirements under Articles 11, 13 and 52 of the Family Code. These articles read as follows: "ART. 11. Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for such license with the proper local civil registrar which shall specify the following: xxx xxx xxx

"(5) If previously married, how, when and where the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled; xxx xxx xxx

"ART. 13. In case either of the contracting parties has been previously married, the applicant shall be required to furnish, instead of the birth of baptismal certificate required in the last preceding article, the death certificate of the deceased spouse or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage. x x x. "ART. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect their persons." Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the Australian divorce decree is a public document a written official act of an Australian family court. Therefore, it requires no further proof of its authenticity and due execution. Respondent is getting ahead of himself. Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence.30 A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself.31 The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an officially body or tribunal of a foreign country. 32 Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested33 by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. 34 The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an Australian family court. 35 However, appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the aforemetioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated. Fortunately for respondent's cause, when the divorce decree of May 18, 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City. 36 The trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject to petitioner's qualification.37Hence, it was admitted in evidence and accorded weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioner's failure to object properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Australia. 38 Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary; respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992.39 Naturalization is the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the political and civil rights belonging to a citizen.40 Naturalized citizens, freed from the protective cloak of their former states, don the attires of their adoptive countries. By becoming an Australian, respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal laws. Burden of Proving Australian Law Respondent contends that the burden to prove Australian divorce law falls upon petitioner, because she is the party challenging the validity of a foreign judgment. He contends that petitioner was satisfied with the original of the divorce decree and was cognizant of the marital laws of Australia, because she had lived and worked in that country for quite a long time. Besides, the Australian divorce law is allegedly known by Philippine courts: thus, judges may take judicial notice of foreign laws in the exercise of sound discretion.

We are not persuaded. The burden of proof lies with "the party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action."41 In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint when those are denied by the answer; and defendants have the burden of proving the material allegations in their answer when they introduce new matters.42 Since the divorce was a defense raised by respondent, the burden of proving the pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.43 Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters that judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function. 44 The power of judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative. Second Issue: Respondent's Legal Capacity to Remarry Petitioner contends that, in view of the insufficient proof of the divorce, respondent was legally incapacitated to marry her in 1994. Hence, she concludes that their marriage was void ab initio. Respondent replies that the Australian divorce decree, which was validly admitted in evidence, adequately established his legal capacity to marry under Australian law. Respondent's contention is untenable. In its strict legal sense, divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage. But divorces are of different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. 45 There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent. Respondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce. It is in effect the same as a separation from bed and board, although an absolute divorce may follow after the lapse of the prescribed period during which no reconciliation is effected.46 Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes and practices, still restrict remarriage. Under some other jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited by statute; thus, the guilty party in a divorce which was granted on the ground of adultery may be prohibited from remarrying again. The court may allow a remarriage only after proof of good behavior. 47 On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads: "1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy."48 This quotation bolsters our contention that the divorce obtained by respondent may have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Hence, we find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that the Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent's capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter. We also reject the claim of respondent that the divorce decree raises a disputable presumption or presumptive evidence as to his civil status based on Section 48, Rule 3949 of the Rules of Court, for the simple reason that no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the divorce decree obtained under Australian laws. Significance of the Certificate of Legal Capacity Petitioner argues that the certificate of legal capacity required by Article 21 of the Family Code was not submitted together with the application for a marriage license. According to her, its absence is proof that respondent did not have legal capacity to remarry. We clarify. To repeat, the legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned. The certificate mentioned in Article 21 of the Family Code would have been sufficient to establish the legal capacity of respondent, had he duly presented it in court. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license. 50 As it is, however, there is absolutely no evidence that proves respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner. A review of the records before this Court shows that only the following exhibits were presented before the lower court: (1) for petitioner: (a) Exhibit "A" Complaint;51 (b) Exhibit "B" Certificate of Marriage Between Rederick A. Recto (Filipino-Australian) and Grace J. Garcia (Filipino) on January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija;52(c) Exhibit "C" Certificate of Marriage Between Rederick A. Recio (Filipino) and Editha D. Samson (Australian) on March 1, 1987 in Malabon, Metro Manila;53 (d) Exhibit "D" Office of the City Registrar of Cabanatuan City Certification that no information of annulment between Rederick A. Recto and Editha D. Samson was in its records;54 and (e) Exhibit "E" Certificate of Australian Citizenship of Rederick A. Recto; 55 (2) for respondent: (Exhibit "1" Amended Answer;56 (b) Exhibit "S" Family Law Act 1975 Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage in the Family Court of Australia; 57 (c) Exhibit "3" Certificate of Australian Citizenship of Rederick A. Recto; 58 (d) Exhibit "4" Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage in the Family Court of Australia Certificate;59 and Exhibit "5" Statutory Declaration of the Legal Separation Between Rederick A. Recto and Grace J. Garcia Recio since October 22, 1995.60 Based on the above records, we cannot conclude that respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994. We agree with petitioner's contention that the court a quo erred in finding that the divorce decree ipso facto clothed respondent with the legal capacity to remarry without requiring him to adduce sufficient evidence to show the Australian personal law governing his status; or at the very least, to prove his legal capacity to contract the second marriage. Neither can we grant petitioner's prayer to declare her marriage to respondent null and void on the ground of bigamy. After all, it may turn out that under Australian law, he was really capacitated to marry petitioner as a direct result of the divorce decree. Hence, we believe that the most judicious course is to remand this case to the trial court to receive evidence, if any, which show petitioner's legal capacity to marry petitioner. Failing in that, then the court a quo may declare a nullity of the parties' marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being already in evidence two existing marriage certificates, which were both obtained in the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro Manila dated March 1, 1987 and the other, in Cabanatuan City dated January 12, 1994. WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and substantial justice, we REMAND the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the parties' marriage void on the ground of bigamy, as above discussed. No costs. SO ORDERED. Melo, Puno, Vitug, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. L-19671

November 29, 1965

PASTOR B. TENCHAVEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTA F. ESCAO, ET AL., defendants-appellees. I. V. Binamira & F. B. Barria for plaintiff-appellant. Jalandoni & Jarnir for defendants-appellees. REYES, J.B.L., J.: Direct appeal, on factual and legal questions, from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in its Civil Case No. R-4177, denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant, Pastor B. Tenchavez, for legal separation and one million pesos in damages against his wife and parents-in-law, the defendantsappellees, Vicente, Mamerto and Mena,1 all surnamed "Escao," respectively.2 The facts, supported by the evidence of record, are the following: Missing her late afternoon classes on 24 February 1948 in the University of San Carlos, Cebu City, where she was then enrolled as a second year student of commerce, Vicenta Escao, 27 years of age (scion of a well-to-do and socially prominent Filipino family of Spanish ancestry and a "sheltered colegiala"), exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years of age, an engineer, ex-army officer and of undistinguished stock, without the knowledge of her parents, before a Catholic chaplain, Lt. Moises Lavares, in the house of one Juan Alburo in the said city. The marriage was the culmination of a previous love affair and was duly registered with the local civil register. Vicenta's letters to Pastor, and his to her, before the marriage, indicate that the couple were deeply in love. Together with a friend, Pacita Noel, their matchmaker and go-between, they had planned out their marital future whereby Pacita would be the governess of their first-born; they started saving money in a piggy bank. A few weeks before their secret marriage, their engagement was broken; Vicenta returned the engagement ring and accepted another suitor, Joseling Lao. Her love for Pastor beckoned; she pleaded for his return, and they reconciled. This time they planned to get married and then elope. To facilitate the elopement, Vicenta had brought some of her clothes to the room of Pacita Noel in St. Mary's Hall, which was their usual trysting place. Although planned for the midnight following their marriage, the elopement did not, however, materialize because when Vicente went back to her classes after the marriage, her mother, who got wind of the intended nuptials, was already waiting for her at the college. Vicenta was taken home where she admitted that she had already married Pastor. Mamerto and Mena Escao were surprised, because Pastor never asked for the hand of Vicente, and were disgusted because of the great scandal that the clandestine marriage would provoke (t.s.n., vol. III, pp. 1105-06). The following morning, the Escao spouses sought priestly advice. Father Reynes suggested a recelebration to validate what he believed to be an invalid marriage, from the standpoint of the Church, due to the lack of authority from the Archbishop or the parish priest for the officiating chaplain to celebrate the marriage. The recelebration did not take place, because on 26 February 1948 Mamerto Escao was handed by a maid, whose name he claims he does not remember, a letter purportedly coming from San Carlos college students and disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor Tenchavez and Pacita Noel; Vicenta translated the letter to her father, and thereafter would not agree to a new marriage. Vicenta and Pastor met that day in the house of Mrs. Pilar Mendezona. Thereafter, Vicenta continued living with her parents while Pastor returned to his job in Manila. Her letter of 22 March 1948 (Exh. "M"), while still solicitous of her husband's welfare, was not as endearing as her previous letters when their love was aflame. Vicenta was bred in Catholic ways but is of a changeable disposition, and Pastor knew it. She fondly accepted her being called a "jellyfish." She was not prevented by her parents from communicating with Pastor (Exh. "1-Escao"), but her letters became less frequent as the days passed. As of June, 1948 the newlyweds were already estranged (Exh. "2-Escao"). Vicenta had gone to Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, to escape from the scandal that her marriage stirred in Cebu society. There, a lawyer filed for her a petition, drafted by then Senator Emmanuel Pelaez, to annul her marriage. She did not sign the petition (Exh. "B-5"). The case was dismissed without prejudice because of her non-appearance at the hearing (Exh. "B-4"). On 24 June 1950, without informing her husband, she applied for a passport, indicating in her application that she was single, that her purpose was to study, and she was domiciled in Cebu City, and that she intended to return after two years. The application was approved, and she left for the United States. On 22 August 1950, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe, on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." On 21 October 1950, a decree of divorce, "final and absolute", was issued in open court by the said tribunal. In 1951 Mamerto and Mena Escao filed a petition with the Archbishop of Cebu to annul their daughter's marriage to Pastor (Exh. "D"). On 10 September 1954, Vicenta sought papal dispensation of her marriage (Exh. "D"-2). On 13 September 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada. She now lives with him in California, and, by him, has begotten children. She acquired American citizenship on 8 August 1958. But on 30 July 1955, Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and amended on 31 May 1956, against Vicenta F. Escao, her parents, Mamerto and Mena Escao, whom he charged with having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and alienating her affections, and against the Roman Catholic Church, for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal, decreed the annulment of the marriage, and asked for legal separation and one million pesos in damages. Vicenta claimed a valid divorce from plaintiff and an equally valid marriage to her present husband, Russell Leo Moran; while her parents denied that they had in any way influenced their daughter's acts, and counterclaimed for moral damages. The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation, but freed the plaintiff from supporting his wife and to acquire property to the exclusion of his wife. It allowed the counterclaim of Mamerto Escao and Mena Escao for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees against the plaintiffappellant, to the extent of P45,000.00, and plaintiff resorted directly to this Court. The appellant ascribes, as errors of the trial court, the following: 1. In not declaring legal separation; in not holding defendant Vicenta F. Escao liable for damages and in dismissing the complaint;. 2. In not holding the defendant parents Mamerto Escano and the heirs of Doa Mena Escao liable for damages;. 3 In holding the plaintiff liable for and requiring him to pay the damages to the defendant parents on their counterclaims; and. 4. In dismissing the complaint and in denying the relief sought by the plaintiff. That on 24 February 1948 the plaintiff-appellant, Pastor Tenchavez, and the defendant-appellee, Vicenta Escao, were validly married to each other, from the standpoint of our civil law, is clearly established by the record before us. Both parties were then above the age of majority, and otherwise qualified; and both consented to the marriage, which was performed by a Catholic priest (army chaplain Lavares) in the presence of competent witnesses. It is nowhere shown that said priest was not duly authorized under civil law to solemnize marriages. The chaplain's alleged lack of ecclesiastical authorization from the parish priest and the Ordinary, as required by Canon law, is irrelevant in our civil law, not only because of the separation of Church and State but also because Act 3613 of the Philippine Legislature (which was the marriage law in force at the time) expressly provided that

SEC. 1. Essential requisites. Essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contracting parties and consent. (Emphasis supplied) The actual authority of the solemnizing officer was thus only a formal requirement, and, therefore, not essential to give the marriage civil effects, 3 and this is emphasized by section 27 of said marriage act, which provided the following: SEC. 27. Failure to comply with formal requirements. No marriage shall be declared invalid because of the absence of one or several of the formal requirements of this Act if, when it was performed, the spouses or one of them believed in good faith that the person who solemnized the marriage was actually empowered to do so, and that the marriage was perfectly legal. The good faith of all the parties to the marriage (and hence the validity of their marriage) will be presumed until the contrary is positively proved (Lao vs. Dee Tim, 45 Phil. 739, 745; Francisco vs. Jason, 60 Phil. 442, 448). It is well to note here that in the case at bar, doubts as to the authority of the solemnizing priest arose only after the marriage, when Vicenta's parents consulted Father Reynes and the archbishop of Cebu. Moreover, the very act of Vicenta in abandoning her original action for annulment and subsequently suing for divorce implies an admission that her marriage to plaintiff was valid and binding. Defendant Vicenta Escao argues that when she contracted the marriage she was under the undue influence of Pacita Noel, whom she charges to have been in conspiracy with appellant Tenchavez. Even granting, for argument's sake, the truth of that contention, and assuming that Vicenta's consent was vitiated by fraud and undue influence, such vices did not render her marriage ab initio void, but merely voidable, and the marriage remained valid until annulled by a competent civil court. This was never done, and admittedly, Vicenta's suit for annulment in the Court of First Instance of Misamis was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is equally clear from the record that the valid marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escao remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine law, notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce that the wife sought and obtained on 21 October 1950 from the Second Judicial District Court of Washoe County, State of Nevada, on grounds of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." At the time the divorce decree was issued, Vicenta Escao, like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. 4 She was then subject to Philippine law, and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Rep. Act No. 386), already in force at the time, expressly provided: Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. The Civil Code of the Philippines, now in force, does not admit absolute divorce, quo ad vinculo matrimonii; and in fact does not even use that term, to further emphasize its restrictive policy on the matter, in contrast to the preceding legislation that admitted absolute divorce on grounds of adultery of the wife or concubinage of the husband (Act 2710). Instead of divorce, the present Civil Code only provides for legal separation (Title IV, Book 1, Arts. 97 to 108), and, even in that case, it expressly prescribes that "the marriage bonds shall not be severed" (Art. 106, subpar. 1). For the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a foreign decree of absolute divorce betiveen Filipino citizens could be a patent violation of the declared public policy of the state, specially in view of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code that prescribes the following: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, policy and good customs, shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. Even more, the grant of effectivity in this jurisdiction to such foreign divorce decrees would, in effect, give rise to an irritating and scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens, to the detriment of those members of our polity whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorces outside the Philippines. From this point of view, it is irrelevant that appellant Pastor Tenchavez should have appeared in the Nevada divorce court. Primarily because the policy of our law cannot be nullified by acts of private parties (Civil Code,Art. 17, jam quot.); and additionally, because the mere appearance of a non-resident consort cannot confer jurisdiction where the court originally had none (Area vs. Javier, 95 Phil. 579). From the preceding facts and considerations, there flows as a necessary consequence that in this jurisdiction Vicenta Escao's divorce and second marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid; for her previous union to plaintiff Tenchavez must be declared to be existent and undissolved. It follows, likewise, that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to the corresponding indemnity (Civil Code, Art. 2176). Neither an unsubstantiated charge of deceit nor an anonymous letter charging immorality against the husband constitute, contrary to her claim, adequate excuse. Wherefore, her marriage and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is technically "intercourse with a person not her husband" from the standpoint of Philippine Law, and entitles plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez to a decree of "legal separation under our law, on the basis of adultery" (Revised Penal Code, Art. 333). The foregoing conclusions as to the untoward effect of a marriage after an invalid divorce are in accord with the previous doctrines and rulings of this court on the subject, particularly those that were rendered under our laws prior to the approval of the absolute divorce act (Act 2710 of the Philippine Legislature). As a matter of legal history, our statutes did not recognize divorces a vinculo before 1917, when Act 2710 became effective; and the present Civil Code of the Philippines, in disregarding absolute divorces, in effect merely reverted to the policies on the subject prevailing before Act 2710. The rulings, therefore, under the Civil Code of 1889, prior to the Act above-mentioned, are now, fully applicable. Of these, the decision in Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil. 855, is of particular interest. Said this Court in that case: As the divorce granted by the French Court must be ignored, it results that the marriage of Dr. Mory and Leona Castro, celebrated in London in 1905, could not legalize their relations; and the circumstance that they afterwards passed for husband and wife in Switzerland until her death is wholly without legal significance. The claims of the very children to participate in the estate of Samuel Bishop must therefore be rejected. The right to inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated and acknowledged natural children. The children of adulterous relations are wholly excluded. The word "descendants" as used in Article 941 of the Civil Code cannot be interpreted to include illegitimates born of adulterous relations. (Emphasis supplied) Except for the fact that the successional rights of the children, begotten from Vicenta's marriage to Leo Moran after the invalid divorce, are not involved in the case at bar, the Gmur case is authority for the proposition that such union is adulterous in this jurisdiction, and, therefore, justifies an action for legal separation on the part of the innocent consort of the first marriage, that stands undissolved in Philippine law. In not so declaring, the trial court committed error. True it is that our ruling gives rise to anomalous situations where the status of a person (whether divorced or not) would depend on the territory where the question arises. Anomalies of this kind are not new in the Philippines, and the answer to them was given in Barretto vs. Gonzales, 58 Phil. 667: The hardship of the existing divorce laws in the Philippine Islands are well known to the members of the Legislature. It is the duty of the Courts to enforce the laws of divorce as written by Legislature if they are constitutional. Courts have no right to say that such laws are too strict or too liberal. (p. 72) The appellant's first assignment of error is, therefore, sustained. However, the plaintiff-appellant's charge that his wife's parents, Dr. Mamerto Escao and his wife, the late Doa Mena Escao, alienated the affections of their daughter and influenced her conduct toward her husband are not supported by credible evidence. The testimony of Pastor Tenchavez about the Escao's animosity toward him strikes us to be merely conjecture and exaggeration, and are belied by Pastor's own letters written before this suit was begun (Exh. "2-Escao" and "Vicenta," Rec. on App., pp. 270-274). In these letters he expressly apologized to the defendants for "misjudging them" and for the "great unhappiness" caused by his "impulsive blunders" and "sinful pride," "effrontery and audacity" [sic]. Plaintiff was admitted to the Escao

house to visit and court Vicenta, and the record shows nothing to prove that he would not have been accepted to marry Vicente had he openly asked for her hand, as good manners and breeding demanded. Even after learning of the clandestine marriage, and despite their shock at such unexpected event, the parents of Vicenta proposed and arranged that the marriage be recelebrated in strict conformity with the canons of their religion upon advice that the previous one was canonically defective. If no recelebration of the marriage ceremony was had it was not due to defendants Mamerto Escao and his wife, but to the refusal of Vicenta to proceed with it. That the spouses Escao did not seek to compel or induce their daughter to assent to the recelebration but respected her decision, or that they abided by her resolve, does not constitute in law an alienation of affections. Neither does the fact that Vicenta's parents sent her money while she was in the United States; for it was natural that they should not wish their daughter to live in penury even if they did not concur in her decision to divorce Tenchavez (27 Am. Jur. 130-132). There is no evidence that the parents of Vicenta, out of improper motives, aided and abetted her original suit for annulment, or her subsequent divorce; she appears to have acted independently, and being of age, she was entitled to judge what was best for her and ask that her decisions be respected. Her parents, in so doing, certainly cannot be charged with alienation of affections in the absence of malice or unworthy motives, which have not been shown, good faith being always presumed until the contrary is proved. SEC. 529. Liability of Parents, Guardians or Kin. The law distinguishes between the right of a parent to interest himself in the marital affairs of his child and the absence of rights in a stranger to intermeddle in such affairs. However, such distinction between the liability of parents and that of strangers is only in regard to what will justify interference. A parent isliable for alienation of affections resulting from his own malicious conduct, as where he wrongfully entices his son or daughter to leave his or her spouse, but he is not liable unless he acts maliciously, without justification and from unworthy motives. He is not liable where he acts and advises his child in good faith with respect to his child's marital relations in the interest of his child as he sees it, the marriage of his child not terminating his right and liberty to interest himself in, and be extremely solicitous for, his child's welfare and happiness, even where his conduct and advice suggest or result in the separation of the spouses or the obtaining of a divorce or annulment, or where he acts under mistake or misinformation, or where his advice or interference are indiscreet or unfortunate, although it has been held that the parent is liable for consequences resulting from recklessness. He may in good faith take his child into his home and afford him or her protection and support, so long as he has not maliciously enticed his child away, or does not maliciously entice or cause him or her to stay away, from his or her spouse. This rule has more frequently been applied in the case of advice given to a married daughter, but it is equally applicable in the case of advice given to a son. Plaintiff Tenchavez, in falsely charging Vicenta's aged parents with racial or social discrimination and with having exerted efforts and pressured her to seek annulment and divorce, unquestionably caused them unrest and anxiety, entitling them to recover damages. While this suit may not have been impelled by actual malice, the charges were certainly reckless in the face of the proven facts and circumstances. Court actions are not established for parties to give vent to their prejudices or spleen. In the assessment of the moral damages recoverable by appellant Pastor Tenchavez from defendant Vicente Escao, it is proper to take into account, against his patently unreasonable claim for a million pesos in damages, that (a) the marriage was celebrated in secret, and its failure was not characterized by publicity or undue humiliation on appellant's part; (b) that the parties never lived together; and (c) that there is evidence that appellant had originally agreed to the annulment of the marriage, although such a promise was legally invalid, being against public policy (cf. Art. 88, Civ. Code). While appellant is unable to remarry under our law, this fact is a consequence of the indissoluble character of the union that appellant entered into voluntarily and with open eyes rather than of her divorce and her second marriage. All told, we are of the opinion that appellant should recover P25,000 only by way of moral damages and attorney's fees. With regard to the P45,000 damages awarded to the defendants, Dr. Mamerto Escao and Mena Escao, by the court below, we opine that the same are excessive. While the filing of this unfounded suit must have wounded said defendants' feelings and caused them anxiety, the same could in no way have seriously injured their reputation, or otherwise prejudiced them, lawsuits having become a common occurrence in present society. What is important, and has been correctly established in the decision of the court below, is that said defendants were not guilty of any improper conduct in the whole deplorable affair. This Court, therefore, reduces the damages awarded to P5,000 only. Summing up, the Court rules: (1) That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386), is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country; (2) That the remarriage of divorced wife and her co-habitation with a person other than the lawful husband entitle the latter to a decree of legal separation conformably to Philippine law; (3) That the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by one consort entitles the other to recover damages; (4) That an action for alienation of affections against the parents of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of malice or unworthy motives on their part. WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is hereby modified as follows; (1) Adjudging plaintiff-appellant Pastor Tenchavez entitled to a decree of legal separation from defendant Vicenta F. Escao; (2) Sentencing defendant-appellee Vicenta Escao to pay plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez the amount of P25,000 for damages and attorneys' fees; (3) Sentencing appellant Pastor Tenchavez to pay the appellee, Mamerto Escao and the estate of his wife, the deceased Mena Escao, P5,000 by way of damages and attorneys' fees. Neither party to recover costs. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, Respondent. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law?

Before us is a case of first impression that behooves the Court to make a definite ruling on this apparently novel question, presented as a pure question of law. In this petition for review, the Solicitor General assails the Decision1 dated May 15, 2002, of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23 and its Resolution2 dated July 4, 2002 denying the motion for reconsideration. The court a quo had declared that herein respondent Cipriano Orbecido III is capacitated to remarry. The fallo of the impugned Decision reads: WHEREFORE, by virtue of the provision of the second paragraph of Art. 26 of the Family Code and by reason of the divorce decree obtained against him by his American wife, the petitioner is given the capacity to remarry under the Philippine Law. IT IS SO ORDERED.3 The factual antecedents, as narrated by the trial court, are as follows. On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido. In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen. Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her child by him currently live at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel, California. Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied. In this petition, the OSG raises a pure question of law: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE 4 The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien. The proper remedy, according to the OSG, is to file a petition for annulment or for legal separation.5 Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs respondents situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial determination.6 For his part, respondent admits that Article 26 is not directly applicable to his case but insists that when his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce decree which capacitated her to remarry, he is likewise capacitated by operation of law pursuant to Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.7 At the outset, we note that the petition for authority to remarry filed before the trial court actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. In this connection, Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides: RULE 63 DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES Section 1. Who may file petitionAny person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder. ... The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination.8 This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a marriage between two Filipino citizens where one later acquired alien citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried while in the U.S.A. The interests of the parties are also adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts its duty to protect the institution of marriage while respondent, a private citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to remarry. Respondent, praying for relief, has legal interest in the controversy. The issue raised is also ripe for judicial determination inasmuch as when respondent remarries, litigation ensues and puts into question the validity of his second marriage. Coming now to the substantive issue, does Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code apply to the case of respondent? Necessarily, we must dwell on how this provision had come about in the first place, and what was the intent of the legislators in its enactment? Brief Historical Background On July 6, 1987, then President Corazon Aquino signed into law Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the "Family Code," which took effect on August 3, 1988. Article 26 thereof states: All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35, 37, and 38. On July 17, 1987, shortly after the signing of the original Family Code, Executive Order No. 227 was likewise signed into law, amending Articles 26, 36, and 39 of the Family Code. A second paragraph was added to Article 26. As so amended, it now provides: ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied) On its face, the foregoing provision does not appear to govern the situation presented by the case at hand. It seems to apply only to cases where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an American citizen while residing in the U.S.A.

Noteworthy, in the Report of the Public Hearings9 on the Family Code, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) registered the following objections to Paragraph 2 of Article 26: 1. The rule is discriminatory. It discriminates against those whose spouses are Filipinos who divorce them abroad. These spouses who are divorced will not be able to re-marry, while the spouses of foreigners who validly divorce them abroad can. 2. This is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce even for Filipino citizens. For those whose foreign spouses validly divorce them abroad will also be considered to be validly divorced here and can re-marry. We propose that this be deleted and made into law only after more widespread consultation. (Emphasis supplied.) Legislative Intent Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. Interestingly, Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.10 The Van Dorn case involved a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Court held therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. Does the same principle apply to a case where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them obtains a foreign citizenship by naturalization? The jurisprudential answer lies latent in the 1998 case of Quita v. Court of Appeals.11 In Quita, the parties were, as in this case, Filipino citizens when they got married. The wife became a naturalized American citizen in 1954 and obtained a divorce in the same year. The Court therein hinted, by way of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer married under Philippine law and can thus remarry. Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. Where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A statute may therefore be extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent.12 If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Filipino spouse, then the instant case must be deemed as coming within the contemplation of Paragraph 2 of Article 26. In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. In this case, when Ciprianos wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and Cipriano. As fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the "divorced" Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry. We are also unable to sustain the OSGs theory that the proper remedy of the Filipino spouse is to file either a petition for annulment or a petition for legal separation. Annulment would be a long and tedious process, and in this particular case, not even feasible, considering that the marriage of the parties appears to have all the badges of validity. On the other hand, legal separation would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tie; hence, the legally separated Filipino spouse would still remain married to the naturalized alien spouse. However, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by respondent concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of respondents wife. It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.13 Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Likewise, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.14 Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged and proved.15 Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another marriage. Nevertheless, we are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry. However, considering that in the present petition there is no sufficient evidence submitted and on record, we are unable to declare, based on respondents bare allegations that his wife, who was naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an American, that respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration could only be made properly upon respondents submission of the aforecited evidence in his favor. ACCORDINGLY, the petition by the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated May 15, 2002, and Resolution dated July 4, 2002, of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, are hereby SET ASIDE. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice WE CONCUR: HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

Chief Justice Chairman CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. Chief Justice

G.R. No. 152577 September 21, 2005 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, vs. CRASUS L. IYOY, Respondent. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, prays for the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62539, dated 30 July 2001,1 affirming the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. CEB-20077, dated 30 October 1998,2 declaring the marriage between respondent Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy null and void on the basis of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The proceedings before the RTC commenced with the filing of a Complaint 3 for declaration of nullity of marriage by respondent Crasus on 25 March 1997. According to the said Complaint, respondent Crasus married Fely on 16 December 1961 at Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Avenue, Cebu City. As a result of their union, they had five children Crasus, Jr., Daphne, Debbie, Calvert, and Carlos who are now all of legal ages. After the celebration of their marriage, respondent Crasus discovered that Fely was "hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant." In 1984, Fely left the Philippines for the United States of America (U.S.A.), leaving all of their five children, the youngest then being only six years old, to the care of respondent Crasus. Barely a year after Fely left for the U.S.A., respondent Crasus received a letter from her requesting that he sign the enclosed divorce papers; he disregarded the said request. Sometime in 1985, respondent Crasus learned, through the letters sent by Fely to their children, that Fely got married to an American, with whom she eventually had a child. In 1987, Fely came back to the Philippines with her American family, staying at Cebu Plaza Hotel in Cebu City. Respondent Crasus did not bother to talk to Fely because he was afraid he might not be able to bear the sorrow and the pain she had caused him. Fely returned to the Philippines several times more: in 1990, for the wedding of their eldest child, Crasus, Jr.; in 1992, for the brain operation of their fourth child, Calvert; and in 1995, for unknown reasons. Fely continued to live with her American family in New Jersey, U.S.A. She had been openly using the surname of her American husband in the Philippines and in the U.S.A. For the wedding of Crasus, Jr., Fely herself had invitations made in which she was named as "Mrs. Fely Ada Micklus." At the time the Complaint was filed, it had been 13 years since Fely left and abandoned respondent Crasus, and there was no more possibility of reconciliation between them. Respondent Crasus finally alleged in his Complaint that Felys acts brought danger and dishonor to the family, and clearly demonstrated her psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage. Such incapacity, being incurable and continuing, constitutes a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36, in relation to Articles 68, 70, and 72, of the Family Code of the Philippines. Fely filed her Answer and Counterclaim 4 with the RTC on 05 June 1997. She asserted therein that she was already an American citizen since 1988 and was now married to Stephen Micklus. While she admitted being previously married to respondent Crasus and having five children with him, Fely refuted the other allegations made by respondent Crasus in his Complaint. She explained that she was no more hot-tempered than any normal person, and she may had been indignant at respondent Crasus on certain occasions but it was because of the latters drunkenness, womanizing, and lack of sincere effort to find employment and to contribute to the maintenance of their household. She could not have been extravagant since the family hardly had enough money for basic needs. Indeed, Fely left for abroad for financial reasons as respondent Crasus had no job and what she was then earning as the sole breadwinner in the Philippines was insufficient to support their family. Although she left all of her children with respondent Crasus, she continued to provide financial support to them, as well as, to respondent Crasus. Subsequently, Fely was able to bring her children to the U.S.A., except for one, Calvert, who had to stay behind for medical reasons. While she did file for divorce from respondent Crasus, she denied having herself sent a letter to respondent Crasus requesting him to sign the enclosed divorce papers. After securing a divorce from respondent Crasus, Fely married her American husband and acquired American citizenship. She argued that her marriage to her American husband was legal because now being an American citizen, her status shall be governed by the law of her present nationality. Fely also pointed out that respondent Crasus himself was presently living with another woman who bore him a child. She also accused respondent Crasus of misusing the amount of P90,000.00 which she advanced to him to finance the brain operation of their son, Calvert. On the basis of the foregoing, Fely also prayed that the RTC declare her marriage to respondent Crasus null and void; and that respondent Crasus be ordered to pay to Fely the P90,000.00 she advanced to him, with interest, plus, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and litigation expenses. After respondent Crasus and Fely had filed their respective Pre-Trial Briefs,5 the RTC afforded both parties the opportunity to present their evidence. Petitioner Republic participated in the trial through the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu. 6 Respondent Crasus submitted the following pieces of evidence in support of his Complaint: (1) his own testimony on 08 September 1997, in which he essentially reiterated the allegations in his Complaint; 7 (2) the Certification, dated 13 April 1989, by the Health Department of Cebu City, on the recording of the Marriage Contract between respondent Crasus and Fely in the Register of Deeds, such marriage celebration taking place on 16 December 1961;8 and (3) the invitation to the wedding of Crasus, Jr., their eldest son, wherein Fely openly used her American husbands surname, Micklus.9 Felys counsel filed a Notice,10 and, later on, a Motion,11 to take the deposition of witnesses, namely, Fely and her children, Crasus, Jr. and Daphne, upon written interrogatories, before the consular officers of the Philippines in New York and California, U.S.A, where the said witnesses reside. Despite the Orders12 and Commissions13 issued by the RTC to the Philippine Consuls of New York and California, U.S.A., to take the depositions of the witnesses upon written interrogatories, not a single deposition was ever submitted to the RTC. Taking into account that it had been over a year since respondent Crasus had presented his evidence and that Fely failed to exert effort to have the case progress, the RTC issued an Order, dated 05 October 1998,14 considering Fely to have waived her right to present her evidence. The case was thus deemed submitted for decision. Not long after, on 30 October 1998, the RTC promulgated its Judgment declaring the marriage of respondent Crasus and Fely null and void ab initio, on the basis of the following findings

The ground bearing defendants psychological incapacity deserves a reasonable consideration. As observed, plaintiffs testimony is decidedly credible. The Court finds that defendant had indeed exhibited unmistakable signs of psychological incapacity to comply with her marital duties such as striving for family unity, observing fidelity, mutual love, respect, help and support. From the evidence presented, plaintiff adequately established that the defendant practically abandoned him. She obtained a divorce decree in the United States of America and married another man and has establish [sic] another family of her own. Plaintiff is in an anomalous situation, wherein he is married to a wife who is already married to another man in another country. Defendants intolerable traits may not have been apparent or manifest before the marriage, the FAMILY CODE nonetheless allows the annulment of the marriage provided that these were eventually manifested after the wedding. It appears to be the case in this instance. Certainly defendants posture being an irresponsible wife erringly reveals her very low regard for that sacred and inviolable institution of marriage which is the foundation of human society throughout the civilized world. It is quite evident that the defendant is bereft of the mind, will and heart to comply with her marital obligations, such incapacity was already there at the time of the marriage in question is shown by defendants own attitude towards her marriage to plaintiff. In sum, the ground invoked by plaintiff which is defendants psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations which already existed at the time of the marriage in question has been satisfactorily proven. The evidence in herein case establishes the irresponsibility of defendant Fely Ada Rosal Iyoy, firmly. Going over plaintiffs testimony which is decidedly credible, the Court finds that the defendant had indeed exhibited unmistakable signs of such psychological incapacity to comply with her marital obligations. These are her excessive disposition to material things over and above the marital stability. That such incapacity was already there at the time of the marriage in question is shown by defendants own attitude towards her marriage to plaintiff. And for these reasons there is a legal ground to declare the marriage of plaintiff Crasus L. Iyoy and defendant Fely Ada Rosal Iyoy null and void ab initio.15 Petitioner Republic, believing that the afore-quoted Judgment of the RTC was contrary to law and evidence, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, though, in its Decision, dated 30 July 2001, affirmed the appealed Judgment of the RTC, finding no reversible error therein. It even offered additional ratiocination for declaring the marriage between respondent Crasus and Fely null and void, to wit Defendant secured a divorce from plaintiff-appellee abroad, has remarried, and is now permanently residing in the United States. Plaintiff-appellee categorically stated this as one of his reasons for seeking the declaration of nullity of their marriage Article 26 of the Family Code provides: "Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. "WHERE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FILIPINO CITIZEN AND A FOREIGNER IS VALIDLY CELEBRATED AND A DIVORCE IS THEREAFTER VALIDLY OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE ALIEN SPOUSE CAPACITATING HIM OR HER TO REMARRY, THE FILIPINO SPOUSE SHALL LIKEWISE HAVE CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW." The rationale behind the second paragraph of the above-quoted provision is to avoid the absurd and unjust situation of a Filipino citizen still being married to his or her alien spouse, although the latter is no longer married to the Filipino spouse because he or she has obtained a divorce abroad. In the case at bench, the defendant has undoubtedly acquired her American husbands citizenship and thus has become an alien as well. This Court cannot see why the benefits of Art. 26 aforequoted can not be extended to a Filipino citizen whose spouse eventually embraces another citizenship and thus becomes herself an alien. It would be the height of unfairness if, under these circumstances, plaintiff would still be considered as married to defendant, given her total incapacity to honor her marital covenants to the former. To condemn plaintiff to remain shackled in a marriage that in truth and in fact does not exist and to remain married to a spouse who is incapacitated to discharge essential marital covenants, is verily to condemn him to a perpetual disadvantage which this Court finds abhorrent and will not countenance. Justice dictates that plaintiff be given relief by affirming the trial courts declaration of the nullity of the marriage of the parties.16 After the Court of Appeals, in a Resolution, dated 08 March 2002, 17 denied its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner Republic filed the instant Petition before this Court, based on the following arguments/grounds I. Abandonment by and sexual infidelity of respondents wife do not per se constitute psychological incapacity. II. The Court of Appeals has decided questions of substance not in accord with law and jurisprudence considering that the Court of Appeals committed serious errors of law in ruling that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code is inapplicable to the case at bar. 18 In his Comment19 to the Petition, respondent Crasus maintained that Felys psychological incapacity was clearly established after a full-blown trial, and that paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines was indeed applicable to the marriage of respondent Crasus and Fely, because the latter had already become an American citizen. He further questioned the personality of petitioner Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, to institute the instant Petition, because Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines authorizes the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the trial court, not the Solicitor General, to intervene on behalf of the State, in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages. After having reviewed the records of this case and the applicable laws and jurisprudence, this Court finds the instant Petition to be meritorious. I The totality of evidence presented during trial is insufficient to support the finding of psychological incapacity of Fely. Article 36, concededly one of the more controversial provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines, reads ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Issues most commonly arise as to what constitutes psychological incapacity. In a series of cases, this Court laid down guidelines for determining its existence. In Santos v. Court of Appeals,20 the term psychological incapacity was defined, thus ". . . [P]sychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly

demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated21 The psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) Gravity It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (b) Juridical Antecedence It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and (c) Incurability It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. 22 More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines were handed down by this Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,23 which, although quite lengthy, by its significance, deserves to be reproduced below (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage. (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision. (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.24 A later case, Marcos v. Marcos,25 further clarified that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Such psychological incapacity, however, must be established by the totality of the evidence presented during the trial. Using the guidelines established by the afore-mentioned jurisprudence, this Court finds that the totality of evidence presented by respondent Crasus failed miserably to establish the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife Fely; therefore, there is no basis for declaring their marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The only substantial evidence presented by respondent Crasus before the RTC was his testimony, which can be easily put into question for being selfserving, in the absence of any other corroborating evidence. He submitted only two other pieces of evidence: (1) the Certification on the recording with the Register of Deeds of the Marriage Contract between respondent Crasus and Fely, such marriage being celebrated on 16 December 1961; and (2) the invitation to the wedding of Crasus, Jr., their eldest son, in which Fely used her American husbands surname. Even considering the admissions made by Fely herself in her Answer to respondent Crasuss Complaint filed with the RTC, the evidence is not enough to convince this Court that Fely had such a grave mental illness that prevented her from assuming the essential obligations of marriage. It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.26 Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article.27 As has already been stressed by this Court in previous cases, Article 36 "is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume." 28 The evidence may have proven that Fely committed acts that hurt and embarrassed respondent Crasus and the rest of the family. Her hot-temper, nagging, and extravagance; her abandonment of respondent Crasus; her marriage to an American; and even her flaunting of her American family and her American surname, may indeed be manifestations of her alleged incapacity to comply with her marital obligations; nonetheless, the root cause for such was not identified. If the root cause of the incapacity was not identified, then it cannot be satisfactorily established as a psychological or mental defect that is serious or grave; neither could it be proven to be in existence at the time of celebration of the marriage; nor that it is incurable. While the personal examination of Fely by a psychiatrist or psychologist is no longer mandatory for the declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, by virtue of this Courts ruling in Marcos v. Marcos,29 respondent Crasus must still have complied with the requirement laid down in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina30 that the root cause of the incapacity be identified as a psychological illness and that its incapacitating nature be fully explained.

In any case, any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. 31 No less than the Constitution of 1987 sets the policy to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. 32 II Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines is not applicable to the case at bar. According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the couple getting married is a Filipino citizen and the other a foreigner at the time the marriage was celebrated. By its plain and literal interpretation, the said provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not established, Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in 1984, after which she married her American husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that she had been an American citizen since 1988. At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses. Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus. III The Solicitor General is authorized to intervene, on behalf of the Republic, in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages. Invoking Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines, respondent Crasus argued that only the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the RTC may intervene on behalf of the State in proceedings for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages; hence, the Office of the Solicitor General had no personality to file the instant Petition on behalf of the State. Article 48 provides ART. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. That Article 48 does not expressly mention the Solicitor General does not bar him or his Office from intervening in proceedings for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages. Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, appoints the Solicitor General as the principal law officer and legal defender of the Government. 33 His Office is tasked to represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of lawyers. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers. 34 The intent of Article 48 of the Family Code of the Philippines is to ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the parties, or the fabrication or suppression of evidence; and, bearing in mind that the Solicitor General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the land, then his intervention in such proceedings could only serve and contribute to the realization of such intent, rather than thwart it. Furthermore, the general rule is that only the Solicitor General is authorized to bring or defend actions on behalf of the People or the Republic of the Philippines once the case is brought before this Court or the Court of Appeals. 35 While it is the prosecuting attorney or fiscal who actively participates, on behalf of the State, in a proceeding for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General takes over when the case is elevated to the Court of Appeals or this Court. Since it shall be eventually responsible for taking the case to the appellate courts when circumstances demand, then it is only reasonable and practical that even while the proceeding is still being held before the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General can already exercise supervision and control over the conduct of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal therein to better guarantee the protection of the interests of the State. In fact, this Court had already recognized and affirmed the role of the Solicitor General in several cases for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages that were appealed before it, summarized as follows in the case of Ancheta v. Ancheta36 In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [268 SCRA 198 (1997)], this Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 48 of the Family Code, one of which concerns the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State: (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. [Id., at 213] This Court in the case of Malcampo-Sin v. Sin [355 SCRA 285 (2001)] reiterated its pronouncement in Republic v. Court of Appeals [Supra.] regarding the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State 37 Finally, the issuance of this Court of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,38 which became effective on 15 March 2003, should dispel any other doubts of respondent Crasus as to the authority of the Solicitor General to file the instant Petition on behalf of the State. The Rule recognizes the authority of the Solicitor General to intervene and take part in the proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages before the RTC and on appeal to higher courts. The pertinent provisions of the said Rule are reproduced below Sec. 5. Contents and form of petition. (4) It shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five days from the date of its filing and submit to the court proof of such service within the same period. Sec. 18. Memoranda. The court may require the parties and the public prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their respective memoranda in support of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated. It may require the Office of the Solicitor General to file its own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to the State. No other pleadings or papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of the period herein provided, the case will be considered submitted for decision, with or without the memoranda. Sec. 19. Decision.

(2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public prosecutor, shall be served with copies of the decision personally or by registered mail. If the respondent summoned by publication failed to appear in the action, the dispositive part of the decision shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. (3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days from notice to the parties. Entry of judgment shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial, or appeal is filed by any of the parties, the public prosecutor, or the Solicitor General. Sec. 20. Appeal. (2) Notice of Appeal. An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties. Given the foregoing, this Court arrives at a conclusion contrary to those of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, and sustains the validity and existence of the marriage between respondent Crasus and Fely. At most, Felys abandonment, sexual infidelity, and bigamy, give respondent Crasus grounds to file for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code of the Philippines, but not for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the same Code. While this Court commiserates with respondent Crasus for being continuously shackled to what is now a hopeless and loveless marriage, this is one of those situations where neither law nor society can provide the specific answer to every individual problem. 39 WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62539, dated 30 July 2001, affirming the Judgment of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. CEB-20077, dated 30 October 1998, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of respondent Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy remains valid and subsisting. SO ORDERED. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice Chairman MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice

DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice Chairman, Second Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairmans Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. Chief Justice

G.R. No. 155635

November 7, 2008

MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT, respondents. x-------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 163979 November 7, 2008

MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT, petitioner, vs. VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT, respondent. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: The Case Before us are these two petitions interposed by petitioner Maria Rebecca Makapugay Bayot impugning certain issuances handed out by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 68187. In the first, a petition for certiorari1 under Rule 65 and docketed as G.R. No. 155635, Rebecca assails and seeks to nullify the April 30, 2002 Resolution2 of the CA, as reiterated in another Resolution of September 2, 2002, 3 granting a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of private respondent Vicente Madrigal Bayot staving off the trial court's grant of support pendente lite to Rebecca. The second, a petition for review under Rule 45,4 docketed G.R. No. 163979, assails the March 25, 2004 Decision5 of the CA, (1) dismissing Civil Case No. 01-094, a suit for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage with application for support commenced by Rebecca against Vicente before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Muntinlupa City; and (2) setting aside certain orders and a resolution issued by the RTC in the said case. Per its Resolution of August 11, 2004, the Court ordered the consolidation of both cases. The Facts Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20, 1979 in Sanctuario de San Jose, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. On its face, the Marriage Certificate6 identified Rebecca, then 26 years old, to be an American citizen7 born in Agaa, Guam, USA to Cesar Tanchiong Makapugay, American, and Helen Corn Makapugay, American. On November 27, 1982 in San Francisco, California, Rebecca gave birth to Marie Josephine Alexandra or Alix. From then on, Vicente and Rebecca's marital relationship seemed to have soured as the latter, sometime in 1996, initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. Before the Court of the First Instance of the Judicial District of Santo Domingo, Rebecca personally appeared, while Vicente was duly represented by counsel. On February 22, 1996, the Dominican court issued Civil Decree No. 362/96,8ordering the dissolution of the couple's marriage and "leaving them to remarry after completing the legal requirements," but giving them joint custody and guardianship over Alix. Over a year later, the same court would issue Civil Decree No. 406/97,9 settling the couple's property relations pursuant to an Agreement 10 they executed on December 14, 1996. Said agreement specifically stated that the "conjugal property which they acquired during their marriage consist[s] only of the real property and all the improvements and personal properties therein contained at 502 Acacia Avenue, Alabang, Muntinlupa."11 Meanwhile, on March 14, 1996, or less than a month from the issuance of Civil Decree No. 362/96, Rebecca filed with the Makati City RTC a petition12 dated January 26, 1996, with attachments, for declaration of nullity of marriage, docketed as Civil Case No. 96-378. Rebecca, however, later moved13and secured approval14 of the motion to withdraw the petition. On May 29, 1996, Rebecca executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment 15 stating under oath that she is an American citizen; that, since 1993, she and Vicente have been living separately; and that she is carrying a child not of Vicente. On March 21, 2001, Rebecca filed another petition, this time before the Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage16 on the ground of Vicente's alleged psychological incapacity. Docketed as Civil Case No. 01-094 and entitled as Maria Rebecca Makapugay Bayot v. Vicente Madrigal Bayot, the petition was eventually raffled to Branch 256 of the court. In it, Rebecca also sought the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains with application for support pendente lite for her and Alix. Rebecca also prayed that Vicente be ordered to pay a permanent monthly support for their daughter Alix in the amount of PhP 220,000. On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss 17 on, inter alia, the grounds of lack of cause of action and that the petition is barred by the prior judgment of divorce. Earlier, on June 5, 2001, Rebecca filed and moved for the allowance of her application for support pendente lite. To the motion to dismiss, Rebecca interposed an opposition, insisting on her Filipino citizenship, as affirmed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and that, therefore, there is no valid divorce to speak of. Meanwhile, Vicente, who had in the interim contracted another marriage, and Rebecca commenced several criminal complaints against each other. Specifically, Vicente filed adultery and perjury complaints against Rebecca. Rebecca, on the other hand, charged Vicente with bigamy and concubinage. Ruling of the RTC on the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Support Pendente Lite On August 8, 2001, the RTC issued an Order18 denying Vicente's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 01-094 and granting Rebecca's application for support pendente lite, disposing as follows: Wherefore, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the respondent is DENIED. Petitioner's Application in Support of the Motion for Support Pendente Lite is hereby GRANTED. Respondent is hereby ordered to remit the amount of TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 220,000.00) a month to Petitioner as support for the duration of the proceedings relative to the instant Petition. SO ORDERED.19 The RTC declared, among other things, that the divorce judgment invoked by Vicente as bar to the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is a matter of defense best taken up during actual trial. As to the grant of support pendente lite, the trial court held that a mere allegation of adultery against Rebecca does not operate to preclude her from receiving legal support.

Following the denial20 of his motion for reconsideration of the above August 8, 2001 RTC order, Vicente went to the CA on a petition for certiorari, with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction. 21 His petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 68187. Grant of Writ of Preliminary Injunction by the CA On January 9, 2002, the CA issued the desired TRO. 22 On April 30, 2002, the appellate court granted, via a Resolution, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the decretal portion of which reads: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, pending final resolution of the petition at bar, let the Writ of Preliminary Injunction be ISSUED in this case, enjoining the respondent court from implementing the assailed Omnibus Order dated August 8, 2001 and the Order dated November 20, 2001, and from conducting further proceedings in Civil Case No. 01-094, upon the posting of an injunction bond in the amount of P250,000.00. SO ORDERED.23 Rebecca moved24 but was denied reconsideration of the aforementioned April 30, 2002 resolution. In the meantime, on May 20, 2002, the preliminary injunctive writ25 was issued. Rebecca also moved for reconsideration of this issuance, but the CA, by Resolution dated September 2, 2002, denied her motion. The adverted CA resolutions of April 30, 2002 and September 2, 2002 are presently being assailed in Rebecca's petition for certiorari, docketed under G.R. No. 155635. Ruling of the CA Pending resolution of G.R. No. 155635, the CA, by a Decision dated March 25, 2004, effectively dismissed Civil Case No. 01-094, and set aside incidental orders the RTC issued in relation to the case. The fallo of the presently assailed CA Decision reads: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The Omnibus Order dated August 8, 2001 and the Order dated November 20, 2001 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING Civil Case No. 01-094, for failure to state a cause of action. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.26 To the CA, the RTC ought to have granted Vicente's motion to dismiss on the basis of the following premises: (1) As held in China Road and Bridge Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the hypothetical-admission rule applies in determining whether a complaint or petition states a cause of action.27 Applying said rule in the light of the essential elements of a cause of action,28 Rebecca had no cause of action against Vicente for declaration of nullity of marriage. (2) Rebecca no longer had a legal right in this jurisdiction to have her marriage with Vicente declared void, the union having previously been dissolved on February 22, 1996 by the foreign divorce decree she personally secured as an American citizen. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, such divorce restored Vicente's capacity to contract another marriage. (3) Rebecca's contention about the nullity of a divorce, she being a Filipino citizen at the time the foreign divorce decree was rendered, was dubious. Her allegation as to her alleged Filipino citizenship was also doubtful as it was not shown that her father, at the time of her birth, was still a Filipino citizen. The Certification of Birth of Rebecca issued by the Government of Guam also did not indicate the nationality of her father. (4) Rebecca was estopped from denying her American citizenship, having professed to have that nationality status and having made representations to that effect during momentous events of her life, such as: (a) during her marriage; (b) when she applied for divorce; and (c) when she applied for and eventually secured an American passport on January 18, 1995, or a little over a year before she initiated the first but later withdrawn petition for nullity of her marriage (Civil Case No. 96-378) on March 14, 1996. (5) Assuming that she had dual citizenship, being born of a purportedly Filipino father in Guam, USA which follows the jus soli principle, Rebecca's representation and assertion about being an American citizen when she secured her foreign divorce precluded her from denying her citizenship and impugning the validity of the divorce. Rebecca seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration of the above Decision, but this recourse was denied in the equally assailed June 4, 2004 Resolution.29 Hence, Rebecca's Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, docketed under G.R. No. 163979. The Issues In G.R. No. 155635, Rebecca raises four (4) assignments of errors as grounds for the allowance of her petition, all of which converged on the proposition that the CA erred in enjoining the implementation of the RTC's orders which would have entitled her to support pending final resolution of Civil Case No. 01-094. In G.R. No. 163979, Rebecca urges the reversal of the assailed CA decision submitting as follows: I THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT MENTIONING AND NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION IN ITS APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS THE FACT OF PETITIONER'S FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP AS CATEGORICALLY STATED AND ALLEGED IN HER PETITION BEFORE THE COURT A QUO. II THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING ONLY ON ANNEXES TO THE PETITION IN RESOLVING THE MATTERS BROUGHT BEFORE IT. III THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THAT HIS MARRIAGE TO PETITIONER HAD ALREADY BEEN DISSOLVED BY VIRTUE OF HIS SUBSEQUENT AND CONCURRENT ACTS. IV THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT, MUCH LESS A GRAVE ABUSE.30

We shall first address the petition in G.R. No. 163979, its outcome being determinative of the success or failure of the petition in G.R. No. 155635. Three legal premises need to be underscored at the outset. First, a divorce obtained abroad by an alien married to a Philippine national may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the decree of divorce is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.31 Second, the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the divorcing parties at birth or at the time of marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad. And third, an absolute divorce secured by a Filipino married to another Filipino is contrary to our concept of public policy and morality and shall not be recognized in this jurisdiction.32 Given the foregoing perspective, the determinative issue tendered in G.R. No. 155635, i.e., the propriety of the granting of the motion to dismiss by the appellate court, resolves itself into the questions of: first, whether petitioner Rebecca was a Filipino citizen at the time the divorce judgment was rendered in the Dominican Republic on February 22, 1996; and second, whether the judgment of divorce is valid and, if so, what are its consequent legal effects? The Court's Ruling The petition is bereft of merit. Rebecca an American Citizen in the Purview of This Case There can be no serious dispute that Rebecca, at the time she applied for and obtained her divorce from Vicente, was an American citizen and remains to be one, absent proof of an effective repudiation of such citizenship. The following are compelling circumstances indicative of her American citizenship: (1) she was born in Agaa, Guam, USA; (2) the principle of jus soli is followed in this American territory granting American citizenship to those who are born there; and (3) she was, and may still be, a holder of an American passport. 33 And as aptly found by the CA, Rebecca had consistently professed, asserted, and represented herself as an American citizen, particularly: (1) during her marriage as shown in the marriage certificate; (2) in the birth certificate of Alix; and (3) when she secured the divorce from the Dominican Republic. Mention may be made of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment34 in which she stated being an American citizen. It is true that Rebecca had been issued by the Bureau of Immigration (Bureau) of Identification (ID) Certificate No. RC 9778 and a Philippine Passport. On its face, ID Certificate No. RC 9778 would tend to show that she has indeed been recognized as a Filipino citizen. It cannot be over-emphasized, however, that such recognition was given only on June 8, 2000 upon the affirmation by the Secretary of Justice of Rebecca's recognition pursuant to the Order of Recognition issued by Bureau Associate Commissioner Edgar L. Mendoza. For clarity, we reproduce in full the contents of ID Certificate No. RC 9778: To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that *MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT* whose photograph and thumbprints are affixed hereto and partially covered by the seal of this Office, and whose other particulars are as follows: Place of Birth: Sex: female brown Guam, USA Date of Birth: Civil Status: March 5, 1953 married Color of Hair: none brown

Color of Eyes:

Distinguishing marks on face:

was - r e c o g n i z e d - as a citizen of the Philippines as per pursuant to Article IV, Section 1, Paragraph 3 of the 1935 Constitution per order of Recognition JBL 95-213 signed by Associate Commissioner Jose B. Lopez dated October 6, 1995, and duly affirmed by Secretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuquero in his 1st Indorsement dated June 8, 2000. Issued for identification purposes only. NOT VALID for travel purposes. Given under my hand and seal this 11th day of October, 1995

(SGD) EDGAR L. MENDOZA ASSO. COMMISSIONER Official Receipt No. 5939988 issued at Manila dated Oct. 10, 1995 for P 2,000

From the text of ID Certificate No. RC 9778, the following material facts and dates may be deduced: (1) Bureau Associate Commissioner Jose B. Lopez issued the Order of Recognition on October 6, 1995; (2) the 1st Indorsement of Secretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuquero affirming Rebecca's recognition as a Filipino citizen was issued on June 8, 2000 or almost five years from the date of the order of recognition; and (3) ID Certificate No. RC 9778 was purportedly issued on October 11, 1995 after the payment of the PhP 2,000 fee on October 10, 1995 per OR No. 5939988. What begs the question is, however, how the above certificate could have been issued by the Bureau on October 11, 1995 when the Secretary of Justice issued the required affirmation only on June 8, 2000. No explanation was given for this patent aberration. There seems to be no error with the date of the issuance of the 1st Indorsement by Secretary of Justice Tuquero as this Court takes judicial notice that he was the Secretary of Justice from February 16, 2000 to January 22, 2001. There is, thus, a strong valid reason to conclude that the certificate in question must be spurious. Under extant immigration rules, applications for recognition of Filipino citizenship require the affirmation by the DOJ of the Order of Recognition issued by the Bureau. Under Executive Order No. 292, also known as the 1987 Administrative Code, specifically in its Title III, Chapter 1, Sec. 3(6), it is the DOJ which is tasked to "provide immigration and naturalization regulatory services and implement the laws governing citizenship and the admission and stay of aliens." Thus, the confirmation by the DOJ of any Order of Recognition for Filipino citizenship issued by the Bureau is required. Pertinently, Bureau Law Instruction No. RBR-99-00235 on Recognition as a Filipino Citizen clearly provides: The Bureau [of Immigration] through its Records Section shall automatically furnish the Department of Justice an official copy of its Order of Recognition within 72 days from its date of approval by the way of indorsement for confirmation of the Order by the Secretary of Justice pursuant to Executive Order No. 292. No Identification Certificate shall be issued before the date of confirmation by the Secretary of Justice and any Identification Certificate issued by the Bureau pursuant to an Order of Recognition shall prominently indicate thereon the date of confirmation by the Secretary of Justice. (Emphasis ours.) Not lost on the Court is the acquisition by Rebecca of her Philippine passport only on June 13, 2000, or five days after then Secretary of Justice Tuquero issued the 1st Indorsement confirming the order of recognition. It may be too much to attribute to coincidence this unusual sequence of close events which, to us, clearly suggests that prior to said affirmation or confirmation, Rebecca was not yet recognized as a Filipino citizen. The same sequence

would also imply that ID Certificate No. RC 9778 could not have been issued in 1995, as Bureau Law Instruction No. RBR-99-002 mandates that no identification certificate shall be issued before the date of confirmation by the Secretary of Justice. Logically, therefore, the affirmation or confirmation of Rebecca's recognition as a Filipino citizen through the 1st Indorsement issued only on June 8, 2000 by Secretary of Justice Tuquero corresponds to the eventual issuance of Rebecca's passport a few days later, or on June 13, 2000 to be exact. When Divorce Was Granted Rebecca, She Was not a Filipino Citizen and Was not Yet Recognized as One The Court can assume hypothetically that Rebecca is now a Filipino citizen. But from the foregoing disquisition, it is indubitable that Rebecca did not have that status of, or at least was not yet recognized as, a Filipino citizen when she secured the February 22, 1996 judgment of divorce from the Dominican Republic. The Court notes and at this juncture wishes to point out that Rebecca voluntarily withdrew her original petition for declaration of nullity (Civil Case No. 96-378 of the Makati City RTC) obviously because she could not show proof of her alleged Filipino citizenship then. In fact, a perusal of that petition shows that, while bearing the date January 26, 1996, it was only filed with the RTC on March 14, 1996 or less than a month after Rebecca secured, on February 22, 1996, the foreign divorce decree in question. Consequently, there was no mention about said divorce in the petition. Significantly, the only documents appended as annexes to said original petition were: the Vicente-Rebecca Marriage Contract (Annex "A") and Birth Certificate of Alix (Annex "B"). If indeed ID Certificate No. RC 9778 from the Bureau was truly issued on October 11, 1995, is it not but logical to expect that this piece of document be appended to form part of the petition, the question of her citizenship being crucial to her case? As may be noted, the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage under Civil Case No. 01-094, like the withdrawn first petition, also did not have the ID Certificate from the Bureau as attachment. What were attached consisted of the following material documents: Marriage Contract (Annex "A") and Divorce Decree. It was only through her Opposition (To Respondent's Motion to Dismiss dated 31 May 2001)36 did Rebecca attach as Annex "C" ID Certificate No. RC 9778. At any rate, the CA was correct in holding that the RTC had sufficient basis to dismiss the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage as said petition, taken together with Vicente's motion to dismiss and Rebecca's opposition to motion, with their respective attachments, clearly made out a case of lack of cause of action, which we will expound later. Validity of Divorce Decree Going to the second core issue, we find Civil Decree Nos. 362/96 and 406/97 valid. First, at the time of the divorce, as above elucidated, Rebecca was still to be recognized, assuming for argument that she was in fact later recognized, as a Filipino citizen, but represented herself in public documents as an American citizen. At the very least, she chose, before, during, and shortly after her divorce, her American citizenship to govern her marital relationship. Second, she secured personally said divorce as an American citizen, as is evident in the text of the Civil Decrees, which pertinently declared: IN THIS ACTION FOR DIVORCE in which the parties expressly submit to the jurisdiction of this court, by reason of the existing incompatibility of temperaments x x x. The parties MARIA REBECCA M. BAYOT, of United States nationality, 42 years of age, married, domiciled and residing at 502 Acacia Ave., Ayala Alabang, Muntin Lupa, Philippines, x x x, who personally appeared before this court, accompanied by DR. JUAN ESTEBAN OLIVERO, attorney, x x x and VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT, of Philippine nationality, of 43 years of age, married and domiciled and residing at 502 Acacia Ave., Ayala Alabang, Muntin Lupa, Filipino, appeared before this court represented by DR. ALEJANDRO TORRENS, attorney, x x x, revalidated by special power of attorney given the 19th of February of 1996, signed before the Notary Public Enrico L. Espanol of the City of Manila, duly legalized and authorizing him to subscribe all the acts concerning this case. 37 (Emphasis ours.) Third, being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce. Fourth, the property relations of Vicente and Rebecca were properly adjudicated through their Agreement 38 executed on December 14, 1996 after Civil Decree No. 362/96 was rendered on February 22, 1996, and duly affirmed by Civil Decree No. 406/97 issued on March 4, 1997. Veritably, the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca was valid. To be sure, the Court has taken stock of the holding in Garcia v. Recio that a foreign divorce can be recognized here, provided the divorce decree is proven as a fact and as valid under the national law of the alien spouse. 39 Be this as it may, the fact that Rebecca was clearly an American citizen when she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized and allowed in any of the States of the Union, 40 the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing said decree is, as here, sufficient. It bears to stress that the existence of the divorce decree has not been denied, but in fact admitted by both parties. And neither did they impeach the jurisdiction of the divorce court nor challenge the validity of its proceedings on the ground of collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of fact or law, albeit both appeared to have the opportunity to do so. The same holds true with respect to the decree of partition of their conjugal property. As this Court explained in Roehr v. Rodriguez: Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment [of divorce] x x x, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), to wit: SEC. 50. Effect of foreign judgments.--The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows: (a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing; (b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment |merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.41 As the records show, Rebecca, assisted by counsel, personally secured the foreign divorce while Vicente was duly represented by his counsel, a certain Dr. Alejandro Torrens, in said proceedings. As things stand, the foreign divorce decrees rendered and issued by the Dominican Republic court are valid and, consequently, bind both Rebecca and Vicente. Finally, the fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognized as a Filipino citizen by force of the June 8, 2000 affirmation by Secretary of Justice Tuquero of the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition will not, standing alone, work to nullify or invalidate the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American citizen on February 22, 1996. For as we stressed at the outset, in determining whether or not a divorce secured abroad would come within the pale of the country's policy against absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.42 Legal Effects of the Valid Divorce

Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by Rebecca, the same shall be given a res judicataeffect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the divorce decree obtained, the marital vinculumbetween Rebecca and Vicente is considered severed; they are both freed from the bond of matrimony. In plain language, Vicente and Rebecca are no longer husband and wife to each other. As the divorce court formally pronounced: "[T]hat the marriage between MARIA REBECCA M. BAYOT and VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT is hereby dissolved x x x leaving them free to remarry after completing the legal requirements."43 Consequent to the dissolution of the marriage, Vicente could no longer be subject to a husband's obligation under the Civil Code. He cannot, for instance, be obliged to live with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to Rebecca. 44 The divorce decree in question also brings into play the second paragraph of Art. 26 of the Family Code, providing as follows: Art. 26. x x x x Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by E.O. 227) In Republic v. Orbecido III, we spelled out the twin elements for the applicability of the second paragraph of Art. 26, thus: x x x [W]e state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.45 Both elements obtain in the instant case. We need not belabor further the fact of marriage of Vicente and Rebecca, their citizenship when they wed, and their professed citizenship during the valid divorce proceedings. Not to be overlooked of course is the fact that Civil Decree No. 406/97 and the Agreement executed on December 14, 1996 bind both Rebecca and Vicente as regards their property relations. The Agreement provided that the ex-couple's conjugal property consisted only their family home, thus: 9. That the parties stipulate that the conjugal property which they acquired during their marriage consists only of the real property and all the improvements and personal properties therein contained at 502 Acacia Avenue, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa, covered by TCT No. 168301 dated Feb. 7, 1990 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati, Metro Manila registered in the name of Vicente M. Bayot, married to Rebecca M. Bayot, x x x.46 (Emphasis ours.) This property settlement embodied in the Agreement was affirmed by the divorce court which, per its second divorce decree, Civil Decree No. 406/97 dated March 4, 1997, ordered that, "THIRD: That the agreement entered into between the parties dated 14 th day of December 1996 in Makati City, Philippines shall survive in this Judgment of divorce by reference but not merged and that the parties are hereby ordered and directed to comply with each and every provision of said agreement."47 Rebecca has not repudiated the property settlement contained in the Agreement. She is thus estopped by her representation before the divorce court from asserting that her and Vicente's conjugal property was not limited to their family home in Ayala Alabang. 48 No Cause of Action in the Petition for Nullity of Marriage Upon the foregoing disquisitions, it is abundantly clear to the Court that Rebecca lacks, under the premises, cause of action. Philippine Bank of Communications v. Trazo explains the concept and elements of a cause of action, thus: A cause of action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal right of the other. A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint. The allegations in a complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants if, hypothetically admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer therein. A cause of action exists if the followingelements are present, namely: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages.49 One thing is clear from a perusal of Rebecca's underlying petition before the RTC, Vicente's motion to dismiss and Rebecca's opposition thereof, with the documentary evidence attached therein: The petitioner lacks a cause of action for declaration of nullity of marriage, a suit which presupposes the existence of a marriage. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the movant must show that the claim for relief does not exist rather than that a claim has been defectively stated or is ambiguous, indefinite, or uncertain.50 With the valid foreign divorce secured by Rebecca, there is no more marital tie binding her to Vicente. There is in fine no more marriage to be dissolved or nullified. The Court to be sure does not lose sight of the legal obligation of Vicente and Rebecca to support the needs of their daughter, Alix. The records do not clearly show how he had discharged his duty, albeit Rebecca alleged that the support given had been insufficient. At any rate, we do note that Alix, having been born on November 27, 1982, reached the majority age on November 27, 2000, or four months before her mother initiated her petition for declaration of nullity. She would now be 26 years old. Hence, the issue of back support, which allegedly had been partly shouldered by Rebecca, is best litigated in a separate civil action for reimbursement. In this way, the actual figure for the support of Alix can be proved as well as the earning capacity of both Vicente and Rebecca. The trial court can thus determine what Vicente owes, if any, considering that support includes provisions until the child concerned shall have finished her education. Upon the foregoing considerations, the Court no longer need to delve into the issue tendered in G.R. No. 155635, that is, Rebecca's right to support pendente lite. As it were, her entitlement to that kind of support hinges on the tenability of her petition under Civil Case No. 01-094 for declaration of nullity of marriage. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 01-094 by the CA veritably removed any legal anchorage for, and effectively mooted, the claim for support pendente lite. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 155635 is hereby DISMISSED on the ground of mootness, while the petition for review in G.R. No. 163979 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the March 25, 2004 Decision and June 4, 2004 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 68187 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice

ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

G.R. No. 133778

March 14, 2000

ENGRACE NIAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the minors BABYLINE NIAL, INGRID NIAL, ARCHIE NIAL & PEPITO NIAL, JR., petitioners, vs. NORMA BAYADOG, respondent. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death? Pepito Nial was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. Out of their marriage were born herein petitioners. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. One year and 8 months thereafter or on December 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After their father's death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. The case was filed under the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioner's successional rights. Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among the persons who could file an action for "annulment of marriage" under Article 47 of the Family Code. Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 59, dismissed the petition after finding that the Family Code is "rather silent, obscure, insufficient" to resolve the following issues: (1) Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action against defendant in asking for the declaration of the nullity of marriage of their deceased father, Pepito G. Nial, with her specially so when at the time of the filing of this instant suit, their father Pepito G. Nial is already dead; (2) Whether or not the second marriage of plaintiffs' deceased father with defendant is null and void ab initio; (3) Whether or not plaintiffs are estopped from assailing the validity of the second marriage after it was dissolved due to their father's death. 1 Thus, the lower court ruled that petitioners should have filed the action to declare null and void their father's marriage to respondent before his death, applying by analogy Article 47 of the Family Code which enumerates the time and the persons who could initiate an action for annulment of marriage. 2 Hence, this petition for review with this Court grounded on a pure question of law. This petition was originally dismissed for non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and because "the verification failed to state the basis of petitioner's averment that the allegations in the petition are "true and correct"." It was thus treated as an unsigned pleading which produces no legal effect under Section 3, Rule 7, of the 1997 Rules. 3 However, upon motion of petitioners, this Court reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the petition for review. 4 The two marriages involved herein having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code (FC), the applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of their celebration. 5 A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, 6 the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) 7 in relation to Article 58. 8 The requirement and issuance of marriage license is the State's demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested. 9 This interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State recognizes the sanctity of family life and of affording protection to the family as a basic "autonomous social institution." 10 Specifically, the Constitution considers marriage as an "inviolable social institution," and is the

foundation of family life which shall be protected by the State. 11 This is why the Family Code considers marriage as "a special contract of permanent union" 12 and case law considers it "not just an adventure but a lifetime commitment." 13 However, there are several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a marriage license is dispensed with, one of which is that provided in Article 76, 14 referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage. The rationale why no license is required in such case is to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicant's name for a marriage license. The publicity attending the marriage license may discourage such persons from legitimizing their status. 15 To preserve peace in the family, avoid the peeping and suspicious eye of public exposure and contain the source of gossip arising from the publication of their names, the law deemed it wise to preserve their privacy and exempt them from that requirement. There is no dispute that the marriage of petitioners' father to respondent Norma was celebrated without any marriage license. In lieu thereof, they executed an affidavit stating that "they have attained the age of majority, and, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, and that we now desire to marry each other." 16 The only issue that needs to be resolved pertains to what nature of cohabitation is contemplated under Article 76 of the Civil Code to warrant the counting of the five year period in order to exempt the future spouses from securing a marriage license. Should it be a cohabitation wherein both parties are capacitated to marry each other during the entire five-year continuous period or should it be a cohabitation wherein both parties have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife during the entire five-year continuous period regardless of whether there is a legal impediment to their being lawfully married, which impediment may have either disappeared or intervened sometime during the cohabitation period? Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years without the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as "husband and wife" where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity meaning no third party was involved at anytime within the 5 years and continuity that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse. Marriage being a special relationship must be respected as such and its requirements must be strictly observed. The presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife is based on the approximation of the requirements of the law. The parties should not be afforded any excuse to not comply with every single requirement and later use the same missing element as a pre-conceived escape ground to nullify their marriage. There should be no exemption from securing a marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of the exception. It should be noted that a license is required in order to notify the public that two persons are about to be united in matrimony and that anyone who is aware or has knowledge of any impediment to the union of the two shall make it known to the local civil registrar. 17 The Civil Code provides: Art. 63: . . . This notice shall request all persons having knowledge of any impediment to the marriage to advice the local civil registrar thereof. ... Art. 64: Upon being advised of any alleged impediment to the marriage, the local civil registrar shall forthwith make an investigation, examining persons under oath. . . . This is reiterated in the Family Code thus: Art. 17 provides in part: . . . This notice shall request all persons having knowledge of any impediment to the marriage to advise the local civil registrar thereof. . . . Art. 18 reads in part: . . . In case of any impediment known to the local civil registrar or brought to his attention, he shall note down the particulars thereof and his findings thereon in the application for a marriage license. . . . This is the same reason why our civil laws, past or present, absolutely prohibited the concurrence of multiple marriages by the same person during the same period. Thus, any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void, 18 subject only to the exception in cases of absence or where the prior marriage was dissolved or annulled. The Revised Penal Code complements the civil law in that the contracting of two or more marriages and the having of extramarital affairs are considered felonies, i.e., bigamy and concubinage and adultery. 19 The law sanctions monogamy. In this case, at the time of Pepito and respondent's marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least five years prior to their wedding day. From the time Pepito's first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with respondent, only about twenty months had elapsed. Even assuming that Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and respondent had started living with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. It should be in the nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract. Pepito had a subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with respondent. It is immaterial that when they lived with each other, Pepito had already been separated in fact from his lawful spouse. The subsistence of the marriage even where there was actual severance of the filial companionship between the spouses cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being one as "husband and wife". Having determined that the second marriage involved in this case is not covered by the exception to the requirement of a marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the absence of such element. The next issue to be resolved is: do petitioners have the personality to file a petition to declare their father's marriage void after his death? Contrary to respondent judge's ruling, Article 47 of the Family Code 20 cannot be applied even by analogy to petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. The second ground for annulment of marriage relied upon by the trial court, which allows "the sane spouse" to file an annulment suit "at anytime before the death of either party" is inapplicable. Article 47 pertains to the grounds, periods and persons who can file an annulment suit, not a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage. The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage. Voidable and void marriages are not identical. A marriage that is annulable is valid until otherwise declared by the court; whereas a marriage that is void ab initio is considered as having never to have taken place21 and cannot be the source of rights. The first can be generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription while the other can never be ratified. A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding while a void marriage can be attacked collaterally. Consequently, void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid. 22 That is why the action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike voidable marriages where the action prescribes. Only the parties to a voidable marriage can assail it but any proper interested party may attack a void marriage. Void marriages have no legal effects except those declared by law concerning the properties of the alleged spouses, regarding co-ownership or ownership through actual joint contribution, 23 and its effect on the children born to such void marriages as provided in Article 50 in relation to Article 43 and 44 as well as Article 51, 53 and 54 of the Family Code. On the contrary, the property regime governing voidable marriages is generally conjugal partnership and the children conceived before its annulment are legitimate. Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the death of petitioner's father extinguished the alleged marital bond between him and respondent. The conclusion is erroneous and proceeds from a wrong premise that there was a marriage bond that was dissolved between the two. It should be noted that their marriage was void hence it is deemed as if it never existed at all and the death of either extinguished nothing. Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no judicial decree is necessary in order to establish the nullity of a marriage. 24 "A void marriage does not require a judicial decree to restore the parties to their original rights or to make the marriage void but though no sentence of avoidance be absolutely necessary, yet as well for the sake of good order of society as for the peace of mind of all concerned, it is expedient that the nullity of the marriage should be ascertained and declared by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction." 25 "Under ordinary circumstances, the effect of a void marriage,

so far as concerns the conferring of legal rights upon the parties, is as though no marriage had ever taken place. And therefore, being good for no legal purpose, its invalidity can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil court between any parties at any time, whether before or after the death of either or both the husband and the wife, and upon mere proof of the facts rendering such marriage void, it will be disregarded or treated as non-existent by the courts." It is not like a voidable marriage which cannot be collaterally attacked except in direct proceeding instituted during the lifetime of the parties so that on the death of either, the marriage cannot be impeached, and is made good ab initio. 26 But Article 40 of the Family Code expressly provides that there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter into a second marriage 27 and such absolute nullity can be based only on a final judgment to that effect. 28 For the same reason, the law makes either the action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage imprescriptible. 29 Corollarily, if the death of either party would extinguish the cause of action or the ground for defense, then the same cannot be considered imprescriptible. However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity.1wphi1 For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause "on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void" in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order of the Regional Trial Court, Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 59, dismissing Civil Case No. T639, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The said case is ordered REINSTATED.1wphi1.nt SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Pardo, J., on official business abroad.

G.R. No. 173614

September 28, 2007

LOLITA D. ENRICO, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF SPS. EULOGIO B. MEDINACELI AND TRINIDAD CATLI-MEDINACELI, REPRESENTED BY VILMA M. ARTICULO, Respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: The instant Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assails the Order,1 dated 3 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, in Civil Case No. II-4057, granting reconsideration of its Order,2 dated 11 October 2005, and reinstating respondents Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. On 17 March 2005, respondents, heirs of Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli (Eulogio) and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli (Trinidad) filed with the RTC, an action for declaration of nullity of marriage of Eulogio and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico. Substantially, the complaint alleged, inter alia, that Eulogio and Trinidad were married on 14 June 1962, in Lal-lo, Cagayan.3 They begot seven children, herein respondents, namely: Eduardo, Evelyn, Vilma, Mary Jane, Haizel, Michelle and Joseph Lloyd.4 On 1 May 2004, Trinidad died.5 On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married petitioner before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan.6 Six months later, or on 10 February 2005, Eulogio passed away.7 In impugning petitioners marriage to Eulogio, respondents averred that the same was entered into without the requisite marriage license. They argued that Article 348 of the Family Code, which exempts a man and a woman who have been living together for at least five years without any legal impediment from securing a marriage license, was not applicable to petitioner and Eulogio because they could not have lived together under the circumstances required by said provision. Respondents posited that the marriage of Eulogio to Trinidad was dissolved only upon the latters death, or on 1 May 2004, which was barely three months from the date of marriage of Eulogio to petitioner. Therefore, petitioner and Eulogio could not have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. To further their cause, respondents raised the additional ground of lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogios serious illness which made its performance impossible. In her Answer, petitioner maintained that she and Eulogio lived together as husband and wife under one roof for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they were exempted from the requirement of a marriage license. From their union were born Elvin Enrico and Marco Enrico, all surnamed Medinaceli, on 28 October 1988 and 30 October 1991, respectively. She further contended that the marriage ceremony was performed in the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and solemnized by the Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative defense, she sought the dismissal of the action on the ground that it is only the contracting parties while living who can file an action for declaration of nullity of marriage. On 11 October 2005, the RTC issued an Order,9 granting the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of cause of action. It cited A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,10 dated 7 March 2003, promulgated by the Supreme Court En Banc as basis. The RTC elucidated on its position in the following manner: The Complaint should be dismissed. 1) Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10-SC promulgated by the Supreme Court which took effect on March 15, 2003 provides in Section 2, par. (a) 11 that a petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The language of this rule is plain and simple which states that such a petition may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The rule is clear and unequivocal that only the husband or the wife may file the petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage. The reading of this Court is that the right to bring such petition is exclusive and this right solely belongs to them. Consequently, the heirs of the deceased spouse cannot substitute their late father in bringing the action to declare the marriage null and void.12 (Emphasis supplied.) The dispositive portion of the Order, thus, reads: WHEREFORE, [the] Motion to Dismiss raised as an affirmative defense in the answer is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Complaint filed by the [respondents] is hereby DISMISSED with costs de officio. 13 Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof. Following the filing by petitioner of her Comment to the said motion, the RTC rendered an Order14 dated 3 May 2006, reversing its Order of 11 October 2005. Hence, the RTC reinstated the complaint on the ratiocination that the assailed Order ignored the ruling in Nial v. Bayadog,15 which was on the authority for holding that the heirs of a deceased spouse have the standing to assail a void marriage even after the death of the latter. It held that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-20-SC, which provides that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, applies only where both parties to a void marriage are still living. 16 Where one or both parties are deceased, the RTC held that the heirs may file a petition to declare the marriage void. The RTC expounded on its stance, thus: The questioned Order disregarded the case of Nial vs. Bayadog, 328 SCRA 122 (March 14, 2000) in which the Supreme Court, First Division, held that the heirs of a deceased person may file a petition for the declaration of his marriage after his death. The Order subject of this motion for reconsideration held that the case of Nial vs. Bayadog is now superseded by the new Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriages (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) because the Supreme Court has rejected the case of Nial vs. Bayadog by approving the Rule on Nullity of Void Marriages. The Order further held that it is only the husband or the wife who is (sic) the only parties allowed to file an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage and such right is purely personal and is not transmissible upon the death of the parties.

It is admitted that there seems to be a conflict between the case of Nial vs. Bayadog and Section 2(a) of the Rule. In view of this, the Court shall try to reconcile the case of Nial vs. Bayadog and the Rule. To reconcile, the Court will have to determine [the] basic rights of the parties. The rights of the legitimate heirs of a person who entered into a void marriage will be prejudiced particularly with respect to their successional rights. During the lifetime of the parent[,] the heirs have only an inchoate right over the property of the said parents. Hence, during the lifetime of the parent, it would be proper that it should solely be the parent who should be allowed to file a petition to declare his marriage void. However, upon the death of the parent his heirs have already a vested right over whatever property left by the parent. Such vested right should not be frustrated by any rules of procedure such as the Rule. Rules of Procedure cannot repeal rights granted by substantive law. The heirs, then, have a legal standing in Court. If the heirs are prohibited from questioning the void marriage entered by their parent, especially when the marriage is illegal and feloniously entered into, it will give premium to such union because the guilty parties will seldom, if ever at all, ask for the annulment of the marriage. Such void marriage will be given a semblance of validity if the heirs will not be allowed to file the petition after the death of the parent. For these reasons, this Court believes that Sec. 2(a) of the Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage is applicable only when both parties to a (sic) void marriage are still living. Upon the death of anyone of the guilty party to the void marriage, his heirs may file a petition to declare the the (sic) marriage void, but the Rule is not applicable as it was not filed b the husband or the wife. It shall be the ordinary rule of civil procedure which shall be applicable.17 Perforce, the decretal portion of the RTC Order of 3 May 2006 states: In view of the foregoing, the Court grants the motion for reconsideration dated October 31, 2005 and reinstate this case. 18 Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Order; however, on 1 June 2006, the RTC denied the said motion on the ground that no new matter was raised therein.19 Hence, the instant Petition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on the sole question of whether the case law as embodied in Nial, or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, as specified in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC of the Supreme Court applies to the case at bar. At the outset, we note that petitioner took an abbreviated route to this Court, countenancing the hierarchy of courts. We have earlier emphasized that while the Supreme Court has the concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the RTCs (for writs enforceable within their respective regions), to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the litigants are well advised against taking a direct recourse to this Court.20 Instead, they should initially seek the proper relief from the lower courts. As a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first instance. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is concurrently within the competence of the Court of Appeals or the RTC, litigants must observe the principle of hierarchy of courts. 21 However, it cannot be gainsaid that this Court has the discretionary power to brush aside procedural lapses if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction.22 Moreover, notwithstanding the dismissibility of the instant Petition for its failure to observe the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts, this Court will proceed to entertain the case grounded as it is on a pure question of law. Petitioner maintains that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs the instant case. A contrario, respondents posit that it is Nial which is applicable, whereby the heirs of the deceased person were granted the right to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death. We grant the Petition. In reinstating respondents Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. While it is true that Nial in no uncertain terms allowed therein petitioners to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of their fathers marriage to therein respondent after the death of their father, we cannot, however, apply its ruling for the reason that the impugned marriage therein was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The Court in Nial recognized that the applicable law to determine the validity of the two marriages involved therein is the Civil Code, which was the law in effect at the time of their celebration. 23 What we have before us belongs to a different milieu, i.e., the marriage sought to be declared void was entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code. As can be gleaned from the facts, petitioners marriage to Eulogio was celebrated in 2004.1wphi1 The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is explicit in its scope, to wit: Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. (Emphasis supplied.) The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on 3 August 1988. 24 Moreover, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took effect on 15 March 2003, following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, contrary to the opinion of the RTC, there is no need to reconcile the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC with the ruling in Nial, because they vary in scope and application. As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August 2004, and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Hence, in resolving the issue before us, we resort to Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which provides: Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. (a) Who may file. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. (n) (Emphasis supplied.) There is no ambiguity in the Rule. Absolute sententil expositore non indiget. When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required. Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage. The Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders explicates on Section 2(a) in the following manner, viz: 1. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petitions cannot be filed by the compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. [Section 2; Section 3, paragraph a] Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence can only question the

validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution. 25 (Emphasis supplied.) Respondents clearly have no cause of action before the court a quo. Nonetheless, all is not lost for respondents. While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are already without any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity, but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Civil Case No. II-4057 filed before the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, is ORDERED DISMISSED without prejudice to challenging the validity of the marriage of Lolita D. Enrico to Eulogio B. Medinaceli in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the latter. No costs. SO ORDERED. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

G.R. No. 179922

December 16, 2008

JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS, petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD SANDOVAL, also known as FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE CARLOS or FELICIDAD SANDOVAL CARLOS or FELICIDAD SANDOVAL VDA. DE CARLOS, and TEOFILO CARLOS II, respondents. DECISION REYES, R.T., J.: ONLY a spouse can initiate an action to sever the marital bond for marriages solemnized during the effectivity of the Family Code, except cases commenced prior to March 15, 2003. The nullity and annulment of a marriage cannot be declared in a judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment. We pronounce these principles as We review on certiorari the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed and set aside the summary judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in an action for declaration of nullity of marriage, status of a child, recovery of property, reconveyance, sum of money, and damages. The Facts The events that led to the institution of the instant suitare unveiled as follows: Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. They left six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. The lots are particularly described as follows: Parcel No. 1 Lot No. 162 of the MUNTINLUPA ESTATE SUBDIVISION, Case No. 6137 of the Court of Land Registration. Exemption from the provisions of Article 567 of the Civil Code is specifically reserved. Area: 1 hectare, 06 ares, 07 centares. Parcel No. 2

A parcel of land (Lot No. 159-B), being a portion of Lot 159, situated in the Bo. of Alabang, Municipality of Muntinlupa, Province of Rizal, x x x containing an area of Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred Forty One (13,441) square meters. Parcel No. 3 A parcel of land (Lot 159-B-2 of the subd. plan [LRC] Psd-325903, approved as a non-subd. project), being a portion of Lot 159-B [LRC] Psd- Alabang, Mun. of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the NE, points 2 to 4 by Lot 155, Muntinlupa Estate; on the SE, point 4 to 5 by Lot 159B-5; on the S, points 5 to 1 by Lot 159-B-3; on the W, points 1 to 2 by Lot 159-B-1 (Road widening) all of the subd. plan, containing an area of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY (130) SQ. METERS, more or less. PARCEL No. 4 A parcel of land (Lot 28-C of the subd. plan Psd-13-007090, being a portion of Lot 28, Muntinlupa Estate, L.R.C. Rec. No. 6137), situated in the Bo. of Alabang, Mun. of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. Bounded on the NE, along lines 1-2 by Lot 27, Muntinlupa Estate; on the East & SE, along lines 2 to 6 by Mangangata River; and on the West., along line 6-1, by Lot 28-B of the subd. plan x x x containing an area of ONE THUSAND AND SEVENTY-SIX (1,076) SQUARE METERS. PARCEL No. 5 PARCELA DE TERRENO No. 50, Manzana No. 18, de la subd. de Solocan. Linda por el NW, con la parcela 49; por el NE, con la parcela 36; por el SE, con la parcela 51; y por el SW, con la calle Dos Castillas. Partiendo de un punto marcado 1 en el plano, el cual se halla a S. gds. 01'W, 72.50 mts. Desde el punto 1 de esta manzana, que es un mojon de concreto de la Ciudad de Manila, situado on el esquina E. que forman las Calles Laong Laan y Dos. Castillas, continiendo un extension superficial de CIENTO CINCUENTA (150) METROS CUADRADOS. PARCEL No. 6 PARCELA DE TERRENO No. 51, Manzana No. 18, de la subd. De Solocon. Linda por el NW, con la parcela 50; por el NE, con la parcela 37; por el SE, con la parcela 52; por el SW, con la Calle Dos Castillas. Partiendo de un punto Marcado 1 en el plano, el cual se halla at S. 43 gds. 01'E, 82.50 mts. Desde el punto 1 de esta manzana, que es un mojon de concreto de la Ciudad de Manila, situado on el esquina E. que forman las Calles Laong Laan y Dos. Castillas, continiendo una extension superficial de CIENTO CINCUENTA (150) METROS CUADRADOS. 3 During the lifetime of Felix Carlos, he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo. The agreement was made in order to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to deliver and turn over the share of the other legal heir, petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. Eventually, the first three (3) parcels of land were transferred and registered in the name of Teofilo. These three (3) lots are now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 234824 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Makati City; TCT No. 139061 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Makati City; and TCT No. 139058 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Makati City. Parcel No. 4 was registered in the name of petitioner. The lot is now covered by TCT No. 160401 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Makati City. On May 13, 1992, Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad and their son, Teofilo Carlos II (Teofilo II). Upon Teofilo's death, Parcel Nos. 5 & 6 were registered in the name of respondent Felicidad and co-respondent, Teofilo II. The said two (2) parcels of land are covered by TCT Nos. 219877 and 210878, respectively, issued by the Registry of Deeds of Manila. In 1994, petitioner instituted a suit against respondents before the RTC in Muntinlupa City, docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1964. In the said case, the parties submitted and caused the approval of a partial compromise agreement. Under the compromise, the parties acknowledged their respective shares in the proceeds from the sale of a portion of the first parcel of land. This includes the remaining 6,691-square-meter portion of said land. On September 17, 1994, the parties executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, dividing the remaining land of the first parcel between them. Meanwhile, in a separate case entitled Rillo v. Carlos,4 2,331 square meters of the second parcel of land were adjudicated in favor of plaintiffs Rillo. The remaining 10,000-square meter portion was later divided between petitioner and respondents. The division was incorporated in a supplemental compromise agreement executed on August 17, 1994, with respect to Civil Case No. 94-1964. The parties submitted the supplemental compromise agreement, which was approved accordingly. Petitioner and respondents entered into two more contracts in August 1994. Under the contracts, the parties equally divided between them the third and fourth parcels of land. In August 1995, petitioner commenced an action, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-135, against respondents before the court a quo with the following causes of action: (a) declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) sum of money and damages. The complaint was raffled to Branch 256 of the RTC in Muntinlupa. In his complaint, petitioner asserted that the marriage between his late brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage license. He likewise maintained that his deceased brother was neither the natural nor the adoptive father of respondent Teofilo Carlos II. Petitioner likewise sought the avoidance of the contracts he entered into with respondent Felicidad with respect to the subject real properties. He also prayed for the cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the name of respondents. He argued that the properties covered by such certificates of title, including the sums received by respondents as proceeds, should be reconveyed to him. Finally, petitioner claimed indemnification as and by way of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit. On October 16, 1995, respondents submitted their answer. They denied the material averments of petitioner's complaint. Respondents contended that the dearth of details regarding the requisite marriage license did not invalidate Felicidad's marriage to Teofilo. Respondents declared that Teofilo II was the illegitimate child of the deceased Teofilo Carlos with another woman. On the grounds of lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, respondents prayed for the dismissal of the case before the trial court. They also asked that their counterclaims for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, be granted. But before the parties could even proceed to pre-trial, respondents moved for summary judgment. Attached to the motion was the affidavit of the justice of the peace who solemnized the marriage. Respondents also submitted the Certificate of Live Birth of respondent Teofilo II. In the certificate, the late Teofilo Carlos and respondent Felicidad were designated as parents. On January 5, 1996, petitioner opposed the motion for summary judgment on the ground of irregularity of the contract evidencing the marriage. In the same breath, petitioner lodged his own motion for summary judgment. Petitioner presented a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Calumpit, Bulacan, certifying that there is no record of birth of respondent Teofilo II.

Petitioner also incorporated in the counter-motion for summary judgment the testimony of respondent Felicidad in another case. Said testimony was made in Civil Case No. 89-2384, entitled Carlos v. Gorospe, before the RTC Branch 255, Las Pias. In her testimony, respondent Felicidad narrated that co-respondent Teofilo II is her child with Teofilo.5 Subsequently, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa submitted to the trial court its report and manifestation, discounting the possibility of collusion between the parties. RTC and CA Dispositions On April 8, 1996, the RTC rendered judgment, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant's (respondent's) Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied. Plaintiff's (petitioner's) CounterMotion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted and summary judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff as follows: 1. Declaring the marriage between defendant Felicidad Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos solemnized at Silang, Cavite on May 14, 1962, evidenced by the Marriage Certificate submitted in this case, null and void ab initio for lack of the requisite marriage license; 2. Declaring that the defendant minor, Teofilo S. Carlos II, is not the natural, illegitimate, or legally adopted child of the late Teofilo E. Carlos; 3. Ordering defendant Sandoval to pay and restitute to plaintiff the sum of P18,924,800.00 together with the interest thereon at the legal rate from date of filing of the instant complaint until fully paid; 4. Declaring plaintiff as the sole and exclusive owner of the parcel of land, less the portion adjudicated to plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 11975, covered by TCT No. 139061 of the Register of Deeds of Makati City, and ordering said Register of Deeds to cancel said title and to issue another title in the sole name of plaintiff herein; 5. Declaring the Contract, Annex "K" of complaint, between plaintiff and defendant Sandoval null and void, and ordering the Register of Deeds of Makati City to cancel TCT No. 139058 in the name of Teofilo Carlos, and to issue another title in the sole name of plaintiff herein; 6. Declaring the Contract, Annex M of the complaint, between plaintiff and defendant Sandoval null and void; 7. Ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 210877 in the names of defendant Sandoval and defendant minor Teofilo S. Carlos II and ordering the Register of Deeds of Manila to issue another title in the exclusive name of plaintiff herein; 8. Ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 210878 in the name of defendant Sandoval and defendant Minor Teofilo S. Carlos II and ordering the Register of Deeds of Manila to issue another title in the sole name of plaintiff herein. Let this case be set for hearing for the reception of plaintiff's evidence on his claim for moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, appearance fees, and litigation expenses on June 7, 1996 at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. SO ORDERED.6 Dissatisfied, respondents appealed to the CA. In the appeal, respondents argued, inter alia, that the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering summary judgment annulling the marriage of Teofilo, Sr. and Felicidad and in declaring Teofilo II as not an illegitimate child of Teofilo, Sr. On October 15, 2002, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC ruling, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, the summary judgment appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof, a new one is entered REMANDING the case to the court of origin for further proceedings. SO ORDERED.7 The CA opined: We find the rendition of the herein appealed summary judgment by the court a quo contrary to law and public policy as ensconced in the aforesaid safeguards. The fact that it was appellants who first sought summary judgment from the trial court, did not justify the grant thereof in favor of appellee. Not being an action "to recover upon a claim" or "to obtain a declaratory relief," the rule on summary judgment apply (sic) to an action to annul a marriage. The mere fact that no genuine issue was presented and the desire to expedite the disposition of the case cannot justify a misinterpretation of the rule. The first paragraph of Article 88 and 101 of the Civil Code expressly prohibit the rendition of decree of annulment of a marriage upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment. Yet, the affidavits annexed to the petition for summary judgment practically amount to these methods explicitly proscribed by the law. We are not unmindful of appellee's argument that the foregoing safeguards have traditionally been applied to prevent collusion of spouses in the matter of dissolution of marriages and that the death of Teofilo Carlos on May 13, 1992 had effectively dissolved the marriage herein impugned. The fact, however, that appellee's own brother and appellant Felicidad Sandoval lived together as husband and wife for thirty years and that the annulment of their marriage is the very means by which the latter is sought to be deprived of her participation in the estate left by the former call for a closer and more thorough inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the case. Rather that the summary nature by which the court a quo resolved the issues in the case, the rule is to the effect that the material facts alleged in the complaint for annulment of marriage should always be proved. Section 1, Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: "Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. - Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. But in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved." (Underscoring supplied) Moreover, even if We were to sustain the applicability of the rules on summary judgment to the case at bench, Our perusal of the record shows that the finding of the court a quo for appellee would still not be warranted. While it may be readily conceded that a valid marriage license is among the formal requisites of marriage, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58 of the Civil Code the failure to reflect the serial number of the marriage license on the marriage contract evidencing the marriage between Teofilo Carlos and appellant Felicidad Sandoval, although irregular, is not as fatal as appellee represents it to be. Aside from the dearth of evidence to the contrary, appellant Felicidad Sandoval's affirmation of the existence of said marriage license is corroborated by the following statement in the affidavit executed by Godofredo Fojas, then Justice of the Peace who officiated the impugned marriage, to wit: "That as far as I could remember, there was a marriage license issued at Silang, Cavite on May 14, 1962 as basis of the said marriage contract executed by Teofilo Carlos and Felicidad Sandoval, but the number of said marriage license was inadvertently not placed in the marriage contract for the reason that it was the Office Clerk who filled up the blanks in the Marriage Contract who in turn, may have overlooked the same." Rather than the inferences merely drawn by the trial court, We are of the considered view that the veracity and credibility of the foregoing statement as well as the motivations underlying the same should be properly threshed out in a trial of the case on the merits.

If the non-presentation of the marriage contract - the primary evidence of marriage - is not proof that a marriage did not take place, neither should appellants' non-presentation of the subject marriage license be taken as proof that the same was not procured. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage, it must be emphasized, rests upon the plaintiff and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. Considering that the burden of proof also rests on the party who disputes the legitimacy of a particular party, the same may be said of the trial court's rejection of the relationship between appellant Teofilo Carlos II and his putative father on the basis of the inconsistencies in appellant Felicidad Sandoval's statements. Although it had effectively disavowed appellant's prior claims regarding the legitimacy of appellant Teofilo Carlos II, the averment in the answer that he is the illegitimate son of appellee's brother, to Our mind, did not altogether foreclose the possibility of the said appellant's illegitimate filiation, his right to prove the same or, for that matter, his entitlement to inheritance rights as such. Without trial on the merits having been conducted in the case, We find appellee's bare allegation that appellant Teofilo Carlos II was merely purchased from an indigent couple by appellant Felicidad Sandoval, on the whole, insufficient to support what could well be a minor's total forfeiture of the rights arising from his putative filiation. Inconsistent though it may be to her previous statements, appellant Felicidad Sandoval's declaration regarding the illegitimate filiation of Teofilo Carlos II is more credible when considered in the light of the fact that, during the last eight years of his life, Teofilo Carlos allowed said appellant the use of his name and the shelter of his household. The least that the trial court could have done in the premises was to conduct a trial on the merits in order to be able to thoroughly resolve the issues pertaining to the filiation of appellant Teofilo Carlos II.8 On November 22, 2006, petitioner moved for reconsideration and for the inhibition of the ponente, Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador. The CA denied the twin motions. Issues In this petition under Rule 45, petitioner hoists the following issues: 1. That, in reversing and setting aside the Summary Judgment under the Decision, Annex A hereof, and in denying petitioner's Motion for reconsideration under the Resolution, Annex F hereof, with respect to the nullity of the impugned marriage, petitioner respectfully submits that the Court of Appeals committed a grave reversible error in applying Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code, despite the fact that the circumstances of this case are different from that contemplated and intended by law, or has otherwise decided a question of substance not theretofore decided by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a manner probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of this Honorable Court; 2. That in setting aside and reversing the Summary Judgment and, in lieu thereof, entering another remanding the case to the court of origin for further proceedings, petitioner most respectfully submits that the Court of Appeals committed a serious reversible error in applying Section 1, Rule 19 (now Section 1, Rule 34) of the Rules of Court providing for judgment on the pleadings, instead of Rule 35 governing Summary Judgments; 3. That in reversing and setting aside the Summary Judgment and, in lieu thereof, entering another remanding the case to the court of origin for further proceedings, petitioner most respectfully submits that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion, disregarded judicial admissions, made findings on ground of speculations, surmises, and conjectures, or otherwise committed misapplications of the laws and misapprehension of the facts.9 (Underscoring supplied) Essentially, the Court is tasked to resolve whether a marriage may be declared void ab initio through a judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment and without the benefit of a trial. But there are other procedural issues, including the capacity of one who is not a spouse in bringing the action for nullity of marriage. Our Ruling I. The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be proved. Neither judgment on the pleadings nor summary judgment is allowed. So is confession of judgment disallowed. Petitioner faults the CA in applying Section 1, Rule 1910 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides: SECTION 1. Judgment on the pleadings. - Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. But in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. He argues that the CA should have applied Rule 35 of the Rules of Court governing summary judgment, instead of the rule on judgment on the pleadings. Petitioner is misguided. The CA did not limit its finding solely within the provisions of the Rule on judgment on the pleadings. In disagreeing with the trial court, the CA likewise considered the provisions on summary judgments, to wit: Moreover, even if We are to sustain the applicability of the rules on summary judgment to the case at bench, Our perusal of the record shows that the finding of the court a quo for appellee would still not be warranted. x x x11 But whether it is based on judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, the CA was correct in reversing the summary judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and summary judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in annulment of marriage. With the advent of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, known as "Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages," the question on the application of summary judgments or even judgment on the pleadings in cases of nullity or annulment of marriage has been stamped with clarity. The significant principle laid down by the said Rule, which took effect on March 15, 2003 12 is found in Section 17, viz.: SEC. 17. Trial. - (1) The presiding judge shall personally conduct the trial of the case. No delegation of evidence to a commissioner shall be allowed except as to matters involving property relations of the spouses. (2) The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. No judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed. (Underscoring supplied) Likewise instructive is the Court's pronouncement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan.13 In that case, We excluded actions for nullity or annulment of marriage from the application of summary judgments. Prescinding from the foregoing discussion, save for annulment of marriage or declaration of its nullity or for legal separation, summary judgment is applicable to all kinds of actions.14 (Underscoring supplied) By issuing said summary judgment, the trial court has divested the State of its lawful right and duty to intervene in the case. The participation of the State is not terminated by the declaration of the public prosecutor that no collusion exists between the parties. The State should have been given the opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered. 15

Both the Civil Code and the Family Code ordain that the court should order the prosecuting attorney to appear and intervene for the State. It is at this stage when the public prosecutor sees to it that there is no suppression of evidence. Concomitantly, even if there is no suppression of evidence, the public prosecutor has to make sure that the evidence to be presented or laid down before the court is not fabricated. To further bolster its role towards the preservation of marriage, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages reiterates the duty of the public prosecutor, viz.: SEC. 13. Effect of failure to appear at the pre-trial. - (a) x x x (b) x x x If there is no collusion, the court shall require the public prosecutor to intervene for the State during the trial on the merits to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence. (Underscoring supplied) Truly, only the active participation of the public prosecutor or the Solicitor General will ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing the fabrication or suppression of evidence. 16 II. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code. Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the marriage. The Rule made it exclusively a right of the spouses by stating: SEC. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. (a) Who may file. - A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. (Underscoring supplied) Section 2(a) of the Rule makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage. The rationale of the Rule is enlightening, viz.: Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution. 17 (Underscoring supplied) The new Rule recognizes that the husband and the wife are the sole architects of a healthy, loving, peaceful marriage. They are the only ones who can decide when and how to build the foundations of marriage. The spouses alone are the engineers of their marital life. They are simultaneously the directors and actors of their matrimonial true-to-life play. Hence, they alone can and should decide when to take a cut, but only in accordance with the grounds allowed by law. The innovation incorporated in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC sets forth a demarcation line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code. The Rule extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.18 The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse. But the Rule never intended to deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their successional rights. While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. 19 It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 20 is prospective in its application. Thus, the Court held in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli,21 viz.: As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application.22 (Underscoring supplied) Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case against respondent Felicidad in 1995. The marriage in controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law would govern depends upon when the marriage took place. 23 The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration.24 But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage? We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.25 Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.26 Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere incidental interest. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action. When plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.27 Illuminating on this point is Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals,28 where the Court held: True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or even in the Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however, only a party who can demonstrate "proper interest" can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of action. Thus, in Nial v. Badayog, the Court held that the children have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights. xxxx In fine, petitioner's personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained because of the absence of the divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it. Hence, a remand of the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence is necessary to determine whether

respondent Orlando was granted a divorce decree and whether the foreign law which granted the same allows or restricts remarriage. If it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow respondent Orlando's remarriage, then the trial court should declare respondent's marriage as bigamous and void ab initio but reduced the amount of moral damages from P300,000.00 to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages from P200,000.00 to P25,000.00. On the contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same.29 (Underscoring supplied) III. The case must be remanded to determine whether or not petitioner is a real-party-in-interest to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage in controversy. In the case at bench, the records reveal that when Teofilo died intestate in 1992, his only surviving compulsory heirs are respondent Felicidad and their son, Teofilo II. Under the law on succession, successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent and the compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law.30 Upon Teofilo's death in 1992, all his property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance are transmitted to his compulsory heirs. These heirs were respondents Felicidad and Teofilo II, as the surviving spouse and child, respectively. Article 887 of the Civil Code outlined who are compulsory heirs, to wit: (1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants; (2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and descendants; (3) The widow or widower; (4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction; (5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 of the Civil Code. 31 Clearly, a brother is not among those considered as compulsory heirs. But although a collateral relative, such as a brother, does not fall within the ambit of a compulsory heir, he still has a right to succeed to the estate. Articles 1001 and 1003 of the New Civil Code provide: ART. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half. ART. 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles. (Underscoring supplied) Indeed, only the presence of descendants, ascendants or illegitimate children excludes collateral relatives from succeeding to the estate of the decedent. The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased precludes succession by collateral relatives.32 Conversely, if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the decedent.33 If respondent Teofilo II is declared and finally proven not to be the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo, petitioner would then have a personality to seek the nullity of marriage of his deceased brother with respondent Felicidad. This is so, considering that collateral relatives, like a brother and sister, acquire successional right over the estate if the decedent dies without issue and without ascendants in the direct line. The records reveal that Teofilo was predeceased by his parents. He had no other siblings but petitioner. Thus, if Teofilo II is finally found and proven to be not a legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo, petitioner succeeds to the other half of the estate of his brother, the first half being allotted to the widow pursuant to Article 1001 of the New Civil Code. This makes petitioner a real-party-interest to seek the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of his deceased brother with respondent Felicidad. If the subject marriage is found to be void ab initio, petitioner succeeds to the entire estate. It bears stressing, however, that the legal personality of petitioner to bring the nullity of marriage case is contingent upon the final declaration that Teofilo II is not a legitimate, adopted, or illegitimate son of Teofilo. If Teofilo II is proven to be a legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted son of Teofilo, then petitioner has no legal personality to ask for the nullity of marriage of his deceased brother and respondent Felicidad. This is based on the ground that he has no successional right to be protected, hence, does not have proper interest. For although the marriage in controversy may be found to be void from the beginning, still, petitioner would not inherit. This is because the presence of descendant, illegitimate, 34 or even an adopted child35 excludes the collateral relatives from inheriting from the decedent. Thus, the Court finds that a remand of the case for trial on the merits to determine the validity or nullity of the subject marriage is called for. But the RTC is strictly instructed to dismiss the nullity of marriage case for lack of cause of action if it is proven by evidence that Teofilo II is a legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted son of Teofilo Carlos, the deceased brother of petitioner. IV. Remand of the case regarding the question of filiation of respondent Teofilo II is proper and in order. There is a need to vacate the disposition of the trial court as to the other causes of action before it. Petitioner did not assign as error or interpose as issue the ruling of the CA on the remand of the case concerning the filiation of respondent Teofilo II. This notwithstanding, We should not leave the matter hanging in limbo. This Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case.36 We agree with the CA that without trial on the merits having been conducted in the case, petitioner's bare allegation that respondent Teofilo II was adopted from an indigent couple is insufficient to support a total forfeiture of rights arising from his putative filiation. However, We are not inclined to support its pronouncement that the declaration of respondent Felicidad as to the illegitimate filiation of respondent Teofilo II is more credible. For the guidance of the appellate court, such declaration of respondent Felicidad should not be afforded credence. We remind the CA of the guaranty provided by Article 167 of the Family Code to protect the status of legitimacy of a child, to wit: ARTICLE 167. The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. (Underscoring supplied) It is stressed that Felicidad's declaration against the legitimate status of Teofilo II is the very act that is proscribed by Article 167 of the Family Code. The language of the law is unmistakable. An assertion by the mother against the legitimacy of her child cannot affect the legitimacy of a child born or conceived within a valid marriage.37 Finally, the disposition of the trial court in favor of petitioner for causes of action concerning reconveyance, recovery of property, and sum of money must be vacated. This has to be so, as said disposition was made on the basis of its finding that the marriage in controversy was null and void ab initio.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is MODIFIED as follows: 1. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court in regard to the action on the status and filiation of respondent Teofilo Carlos II and the validity or nullity of marriage between respondent Felicidad Sandoval and the late Teofilo Carlos; 2. If Teofilo Carlos II is proven to be the legitimate, or illegitimate, or legally adopted son of the late Teofilo Carlos, the RTC is strictly INSTRUCTED to DISMISS the action for nullity of marriage for lack of cause of action; 3. The disposition of the RTC in Nos. 1 to 8 of the fallo of its decision is VACATED AND SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to conduct trial on the merits with dispatch and to give this case priority in its calendar. No costs. SO ORDERED. RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice

ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

A.C. No. 6573

July 9, 2007

IGNACIO J. SALMINGO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RODNEY K. RUBICA, Respondent. DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: The following facts spawned the filing of the administrative complaint at bar, for disbarment against Atty. Rodney K. Rubica (respondent), by herein complainant Ignacio J. Salmingo which he transmitted to the Chief Justice by letter of September 27, 2004. Respondent filed on January 9, 2003 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental a complaint for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Liza Jane Estao1 (Liza Jane). The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 2243-40. The summons for Liza Jane at her given address at Blk. 25, Lot 36 Josefina St., Eroreco Subdivision, Bacolod City 2 was returned unserved as allegedly no one could be found there.3 Respondent thereupon filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Effect Service of Summons by Publication, 4 which was granted.5 Summons was thus published in the Visayan Post, a weekly newspaper of general circulation in Negros Occidental. 6 Nothing was heard from Liza Jane, however; hence, respondent presented evidence ex parte7 before Branch 40 of the Silay RTC, without the participation of the City Prosecutor.8

By Decision9 dated May 23, 2003, the trial court declared the marriage between respondent and Liza Jane null and void, as the evidence showed that there was a previous valid and existing marriage between Liza Jane and one Rene Jose T. Mojica. 10 The judgment was entered as final on July 17, 2003.11 In his present complaint,12 the complainant alleges that in prosecuting the annulment case, respondent deliberately concealed Liza Janes address so that she could not be served with summons, thus enabling him to present evidence ex parte;13 that respondent caused the publication of summons only in a newspaper of local circulation;14 that respondent did not serve a copy of his petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor;15 and that he did not cause the registration of the decree of nullity in the Civil Registry. 16 Complainant thus prayed: WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this Court that: 1. An order be issued directing: a. The setting aside [of] the Decision in Civil Case No. 2253-40; b. The reopening of the case in a separate sala where the City Prosecutor shall represent the State; c. Deleting the name of Rodney K. Rubica from the Roll of Attorneys and ordering him to pay for the Cost of Retrial. 2. For other relief and remedies just and equitable under the premises. 17 (Underscoring supplied) Respondent denied knowing Liza Janes real address.18 He denied too having failed to comply with the procedural requirements in the declaration of nullity case.19 He in fact questioned complainants standing to contest the decision of the trial court in the said case. 20 This Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.21 The IBP investigating commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended for three months for gross misconduct. 22 The IBP Board of Governors resolved to dismiss the case, however, for lack of sufficient evidence. 23 This Court upholds the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. It is settled that: x x x In view of the nature and consequences of a disciplinary proceeding, observance of due process, as in other JUDICIAL determinations, is imperative along with a presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyer. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the complainant to overcome such presumption and establish his charges by clear preponderance of evidence.24 (Underscoring supplied) To prove that respondent knew Liza Janes true whereabouts all along, complainant alleged that respondent had been sending allowances to Liza Jane and their children at her residence.25 Respondent countered, however, that he had been sending allowances by depositing the same in a bank in Bacolod City through an automated teller machine (ATM) account, which deposit could be withdrawn at any ATM machine within the Philippines. 26 This complainant failed to controvert. On respondents alleged non-compliance with the following provisions of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages which took effect on March 15, 2003:27 xxxx Sec. 5. Contents and form of petition. x x x (4) It shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five days from the date of its filing and submit to the court proof of such service within the same period. Failure to comply with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate dismissal of the petition. xxxx Sec. 6. Summons.The service of summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and by the following rules: (1) Where the respondent cannot be located at his given address or his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and in such places as the court may order. In addition, a copy of the summons shall be served on the respondent at his last known address by registered mail or any other means the court may deem sufficient. Sec. 8. Answer. x x x (3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the court shall order the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties. x x x Sec. 19. Decision xxxx (2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public prosecutor, shall be served with copies of the decision personally or by registered mail. If the respondent summoned by publication failed to appear in the action, the dispositive part of the decision shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. xxxx Sec. 23. Registration and publication of the decree; decree as best evidence. (a) The prevailing party shall cause the registration of the Decree in the Civil Registry where the marriage was registered, the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is situated, and in the National Census and Statistics Office. He shall report to the court compliance with this requirement within thirty days from receipt of the copy of the Decree.

(b) In case service of summons was made by publication, the parties shall cause the publication of the Decree once in a newspaper of general circulation. (c) The registered Decree shall be the best evidence to prove the declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage and shall serve as notice to third persons concerning the properties of petitioner and respondent as well as the properties or presumptive legitimes delivered to their common children. (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original) The requirements in the above-cited Rule that the petitioner should serve copies of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General and that of the Public Prosecutor; that service of summons by publication on a respondent whose whereabouts are unknown be in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines; and that the prevailing party cause the registration and publication of the decree took effect only May 15, 2003, after respondent filed the declaration of nullity case on January 9, 2003. At the time respondent filed his petition for declaration of the nullity of marriage, what applied was the Rules of Court under which he was not required to file his petition in six copies and to serve copies on the Office of the Solicitor General and that of the City or Provincial Prosecutor. Neither was he required to cause the registration and publication of the decree of nullity. Respondent did comply with the procedure in the Rules of Court on service by publication on a respondent whose whereabouts are unknown, which procedure requires only "publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order,"28 as opposed to "a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and in such places as the court may order" required by the above-quoted Section 6 (1) of the Rule On Declaration Of Absolute Nullity Of Void Marriages And Annulment Of Voidable Marriages. The requirement that the trial court order the prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists in case the defendant in the declaration of nullity case files no answer is addressed to the said court, not to the parties to the case nor to their counsel, absent any showing of respondents involvement in the lapse in the prescribed procedure, he cannot be faulted therefor.1avvphi1 Respecting complainants claim that respondent did not cause the registration of the decree of nullity of the marriage, he offered no proof, in accordance with Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which states: SEC. 28. Proof of lack of record. A written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official record or by his deputy that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry. (Underscoring supplied), in support thereof. As for complainants prayer for the setting aside of the decision in Civil Case No. 2243-40 and the reopening of the case, the same may not be considered, not in the present case anyway. He is, parenthetically, not even a real party in interest to the said case. His invocation of the States interest in protecting the sanctity of marriage29 does not give him the standing to question the decision. By law, it is the prosecuting attorney or fiscal or the Solicitor General who represents the interest of the State in proceedings for the annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage.30 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The dismissal of the complaint by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is upheld. SO ORDERED. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

(ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING* Associate Justice CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

G.R. No. 104818 September 17, 1993 ROBERTO DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DELIA SOLEDAD AVERA represented by her Attorney-in-Fact MOISES R. AVERA, respondents. Jose P.O. Aliling IV for petitioner. De Guzman, Meneses & Associates for private respondent.

ROMERO, J.: The instant petition seeks the reversal of respondent court's ruling finding no grave abuse of discretion in the lower court's order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property. On May 29, 1991, private respondent Delia Soledad A. Domingo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig entitled "Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property" against petitioner Roberto Domingo. The petition which was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 1989-J alleged among others that: they were married on November 29, 1976 at the YMCA Youth Center Bldg., as evidenced by a Marriage Contract Registry No. 1277K-76 with Marriage License No. 4999036 issued at Carmona, Cavite; unknown to her, he had a previous marriage with one Emerlina dela Paz on April 25, 1969 which marriage is valid and still existing; she came to know of the prior marriage only sometime in 1983 when Emerlina dela Paz sued them for bigamy; from January 23 1979 up to the present, she has been working in Saudi Arabia and she used to come to the Philippines only when she would avail of the one-month annual vacation leave granted by her foreign employer since 1983 up to the present, he has been unemployed and completely dependent upon her for support and subsistence; out of her personal earnings, she purchased real and personal properties with a total amount of approximately P350,000.00, which are under the possession and administration of Roberto; sometime in June 1989, while on her one-month vacation, she discovered that he was cohabiting with another woman; she further discovered that he had been disposing of some of her properties without her knowledge or consent; she confronted him about this and thereafter appointed her brother Moises R. Avera as her attorney-in-fact to take care of her properties; he failed and refused to turn over the possession and administration of said properties to her brother/attorney-in-fact; and he is not authorized to administer and possess the same on account of the nullity of their marriage. The petition prayed that a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining Roberto from exercising any act of administration and ownership over said properties; their marriage be declared null and void and of no force and effect; and Delia Soledad be declared the sole and exclusive owner of all properties acquired at the time of their void marriage and such properties be placed under the proper management and administration of the attorney-in-fact. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petition stated no cause of action. The marriage being void ab initio, the petition for the declaration of its nullity is, therefore, superfluous and unnecessary. It added that private respondent has no property which is in his possession. On August 20, 1991, Judge Maria Alicia M. Austria issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. She explained: Movant argues that a second marriage contracted after a first marriage by a man with another woman is illegal and void (citing the case of Yap v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 229) and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage (citing the cases of People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033; People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845). Indeed, under the Yap case there is no dispute that the second marriage contracted by respondent with herein petitioner after a first marriage with another woman is illegal and void. However, as to whether or not the second marriage should first be judicially declared a nullity is not an issue in said case. In the case of Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS, the Supreme Court ruled in explicit terms, thus: And with respect to the right of the second wife, this Court observed that although the second marriage can be presumed to be void ab initio as it was celebrated while the first marriage was still subsisting, still there is need for judicial declaration of its nullity. (37 SCRA 316, 326) The above ruling which is of later vintage deviated from the previous rulings of the Supreme Court in the aforecited cases of Aragon and Mendoza. Finally, the contention of respondent movant that petitioner has no property in his possession is an issue that may be determined only after trial on the merits. 1 A motion for reconsideration was filed stressing the erroneous application of Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS 2 and the absence of justiciable controversy as to the nullity of the marriage. On September 11, 1991, Judge Austria denied the motion for reconsideration and gave petitioner fifteen (15) days from receipt within which to file his answer. Instead of filing the required answer, petitioner filed a special civil action of certiorari and mandamus on the ground that the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss. On February 7, 1992, the Court of Appeals 3 dismissed the petition. It explained that the case of Yap v. CA 4 cited by petitioner and that of Consuegra v. GSIS relied upon by the lower court do not have relevance in the case at bar, there being no identity of facts because these cases dealt with the successional rights of the second wife while the instant case prays for separation of property corollary with the declaration of nullity of marriage. It observed that the separation and subsequent distribution of the properties acquired during the union can be had only upon proper determination of the status of the marital relationship between said parties, whether or not the validity of the first marriage is denied by petitioner. Furthermore, in order to avoid duplication and multiplicity of suits, the declaration of nullity of marriage may be invoked in this proceeding together with the partition and distribution of the properties involved. Citing Articles 48, 50 and 52 of the Family Code, it held that private respondent's prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage may be raised together with other incidents of their marriage such as the separation of their properties. Lastly, it noted that since the Court has jurisdiction, the alleged error in refusing to grant the motion to dismiss is merely one of law for which the remedy ordinarily would have been to file an answer, proceed with the trial and in case of an adverse decision, reiterate the issue on appeal. The motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied for lack of merit. 5 Hence, this petition. The two basic issues confronting the Court in the instant case are the following. First, whether or not a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary. If in the affirmative, whether the same should be filed only for purposes of remarriage. Second, whether or not SP No. 1989-J is the proper remedy of private respondent to recover certain real and personal properties allegedly belonging to her exclusively. Petitioner, invoking the ruling in People v. Aragon 6 and People v. Mendoza, 7 contends that SP. No. 1989-J for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property filed by private respondent must be dismissed for being unnecessary and superfluous. Furthermore, under his own interpretation of Article 40 of the Family Code, he submits that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is required only for purposes of remarriage. Since the petition in SP No. 1989-J contains no allegation of private respondent's intention to remarry, said petition should therefore, be dismissed.

On the other hand, private respondent insists on the necessity of a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage, not for purposes of remarriage, but in order to provide a basis for the separation and distribution of the properties acquired during coverture. There is no question that the marriage of petitioner and private respondent celebrated while the former's previous marriage with one Emerlina de la Paz was still subsisting, is bigamous. As such, it is from the beginning. 8 Petitioner himself does not dispute the absolute nullity of their marriage. 9 The cases of People v. Aragon and People v. Mendoza relied upon by petitioner are cases where the Court had earlier ruled that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void, bigamous marriage. It is noteworthy to observe that Justice Alex Reyes, however, dissented on these occasions stating that: Though the logician may say that where the former marriage was void there would be nothing to dissolve, still it is not for the spouses to judge whether that marriage was void or not. That judgment is reserved to the courts. . . . 10 This dissenting opinion was adopted as the majority position in subsequent cases involving the same issue. Thus, in Gomez v. Lipana, 11 the Court abandoned its earlier ruling in the Aragon and Mendoza cases. In reversing the lower court's order forfeiting the husband's share of the disputed property acquired during the second marriage, the Court stated that "if the nullity, or annulment of the marriage is the basis for the application of Article 1417, there is need for a judicial declaration thereof, which of course contemplates an action for that purpose." Citing Gomez v. Lipana, the Court subsequently held in Vda. de Consuegra v. Government Service Insurance System, that "although the second marriage can be presumed to be void ab initio as it was celebrated while the first marriage was still subsisting, still there is need for judicial declaration of such nullity." In Tolentino v. Paras, 12 however, the Court turned around and applied the Aragon and Mendoza ruling once again. In granting the prayer of the first wife asking for a declaration as the lawful surviving spouse and the correction of the death certificate of her deceased husband, it explained that "(t)he second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage." However, in the more recent case of Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy 13 the Court reverted to the Consuegra case and held that there was "no need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage of her first husband at the time they married each other, for then such a marriage though void still needs according to this Court a judicial declaration of such fact and for all legal intents and purposes she would still be regarded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel." Came the Family Code which settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. 14 Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. 15 The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code Revision Committee 16 which drafted what is now the Family Code of the Philippines took the position that parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again. This is borne out by the following minutes of the 152nd Joint Meeting of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees where the present Article 40, then Art. 39, was discussed. B. Article 39. The absolute nullity of a marriage may be invoked only on the basis of a final judgment declaring the marriage void, except as provided in Article 41. Justice Caguioa remarked that the above provision should include not only void but also voidable marriages. He then suggested that the above provision be modified as follows: The validity of a marriage may be invoked only . . . Justice Reyes (J.B.L. Reyes), however, proposed that they say: The validity or invalidity of a marriage may be invoked only . . . On the other hand, Justice Puno suggested that they say: The invalidity of a marriage may be invoked only . . . Justice Caguioa explained that his idea is that one cannot determine for himself whether or not his marriage is valid and that a court action is needed. Justice Puno accordingly proposed that the provision be modified to read: The invalidity of a marriage may be invoked only on the basis of a final judgment annulling the marriage or declaring the marriage void, except as provided in Article 41. Justice Caguioa remarked that in annulment, there is no question. Justice Puno, however, pointed out that, even if it is a judgment of annulment, they still have to produce the judgment. Justice Caguioa suggested that they say: The invalidity of a marriage may be invoked only on the basis of a final judgment declaring the marriage invalid, except as provided in Article 41. Justice Puno raised the question: When a marriage is declared invalid, does it include the annulment of a marriage and the declaration that the marriage is void? Justice Caguioa replied in the affirmative. Dean Gupit added that in some judgments, even if the marriage is annulled, it is declared void. Justice Puno suggested that this matter be made clear in the provision. Prof. Baviera remarked that the original idea in the provision is to require first a judicial declaration of a void marriage and not annullable marriages, with which the other members concurred. Judge Diy added that annullable marriages are presumed valid until a direct action is filed to annul it, which the other members affirmed. Justice Puno remarked that if this is so, then the phrase "absolute nullity" can stand since it might result in confusion if they change the phrase to "invalidity" if what they are referring to in the provision is the declaration that the marriage is void. Prof. Bautista commented that they will be doing away with collateral defense as well as collateral attack. Justice Caguioa explained that the idea in the provision is that there should be a final judgment declaring the marriage void and a party should not declare for himself whether or not the marriage is void, while the other members affirmed. Justice Caguioa added that they are, therefore, trying

to avoid a collateral attack on that point. Prof. Bautista stated that there are actions which are brought on the assumption that the marriage is valid. He then asked: Are they depriving one of the right to raise the defense that he has no liability because the basis of the liability is void? Prof. Bautista added that they cannot say that there will be no judgment on the validity or invalidity of the marriage because it will be taken up in the same proceeding. It will not be a unilateral declaration that, it is a void marriage. Justice Caguioa saw the point of Prof. Bautista and suggested that they limit the provision to remarriage. He then proposed that Article 39 be reworded as follows: The absolute nullity of a marriage for purposes of remarriage may be invoked only on the basis of final judgment . . . Justice Puno suggested that the above be modified as follows: The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of establishing the validity of a subsequent marriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void, except as provided in Article 41. Justice Puno later modified the above as follows: For the purpose of establishing the validity of a subsequent marriage, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may only be invoked on the basis of a final judgment declaring such nullity, except as provided in Article 41. Justice Caguioa commented that the above provision is too broad and will not solve the objection of Prof. Bautista. He proposed that they say: For the purpose of entering into a subsequent marriage, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may only be invoked on the basis of a final judgment declaring such nullity, except as provided in Article 41. Justice Caguioa explained that the idea in the above provision is that if one enters into a subsequent marriage without obtaining a final judgment declaring the nullity of a previous marriage, said subsequent marriage is void ab initio. After further deliberation, Justice Puno suggested that they go back to the original wording of the provision as follows: The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void, except as provided in Article 41. 17 In fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, the person who marries again cannot be charged with bigamy. 18 Just over a year ago, the Court made the pronouncement that there is a necessity for a declaration of absolute nullity of a prior subsisting marriage before contracting another in the recent case of Terre v. Terre. 19 The Court, in turning down the defense of respondent Terre who was charged with grossly immoral conduct consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman other than complainant while his prior marriage with the latter remained subsisting, said that "for purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential." As regards the necessity for a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, petitioner submits that the same can be maintained only if it is for the purpose of remarriage. Failure to allege this purpose, according to petitioner's theory, will warrant dismissal of the same. Article 40 of the Family Code provides: Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. (n) Crucial to the proper interpretation of Article 40 is the position in the provision of the word "solely." As it is placed, the same shows that it is meant to qualify "final judgment declaring such previous marriage void." Realizing the need for careful craftsmanship in conveying the precise intent of the Committee members, the provision in question, as it finally emerged, did not state "The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked solely for purposes of remarriage . . .," in which case "solely" would clearly qualify the phrase "for purposes of remarriage." Had the phraseology been such, the interpretation of petitioner would have been correct and, that is, that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked solely for purposes of remarriage, thus rendering irrelevant the clause "on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void." That Article 40 as finally formulated included the significant clause denotes that such final judgment declaring the previous marriage void need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage. Undoubtedly, one can conceive of other instances where a party might well invoke the absolute nullity of a previous marriage for purposes other than remarriage, such as in case of an action for liquidation, partition, distribution and separation of property between the erstwhile spouses, as well as an action for the custody and support of their common children and the delivery of the latters' presumptive legitimes. In such cases, evidence needs must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity. These need not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void. Hence, in the instance where a party who has previously contracted a marriage which remains subsisting desires to enter into another marriage which is legally unassailable, he is required by law to prove that the previous one was an absolute nullity. But this he may do on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. This leads us to the question: Why the distinction? In other words, for purposes of remarriage, why should the only legally acceptable basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute nullity be a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void? Whereas, for purposes other than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable? Marriage, a sacrosanct institution, declared by the Constitution as an "inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family;" as such, it "shall be protected by the State." 20 In more explicit terms, the Family Code characterizes it as "a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal, and family life." 21 So crucial are marriage and the family to the stability and peace of the nation that their "nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation . . ." 22 As a matter of policy, therefore, the nullification of a marriage for the purpose of contracting another cannot be accomplished merely on the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that their union is so defective with respect to the essential requisites of a contract of marriage as to render it void ipso jure and with no legal effect and nothing more. Were this so, this inviolable social institution would be reduced to a mockery and would rest on very shaky foundations indeed. And the grounds for nullifying marriage would be as diverse and far-ranging as human ingenuity and fancy could conceive. For such a social significant institution, an official state pronouncement through the courts, and nothing less, will satisfy the exacting norms of society. Not only would such an open and public declaration by the courts definitively confirm the nullity of the contract of marriage, but the same would be easily verifiable through records accessible to everyone. That the law seeks to ensure that a prior marriage is no impediment to a second sought to be contracted by one of the parties may be gleaned from new information required in the Family Code to be included in the application for a marriage license, viz, "If previously married, how, when and where the previous marriage was dissolved and annulled." 23

Reverting to the case before us, petitioner's interpretation of Art. 40 of the Family Code is, undoubtedly, quite restrictive. Thus, his position that private respondent's failure to state in the petition that the same is filed to enable her to remarry will result in the dismissal of SP No. 1989-J is untenable. His misconstruction of Art. 40 resulting from the misplaced emphasis on the term "solely" was in fact anticipated by the members of the Committee. Dean Gupit commented the word "only" may be misconstrued to refer to "for purposes of remarriage." Judge Diy stated that "only" refers to "final judgment." Justice Puno suggested that they say "on the basis only of a final judgment." Prof. Baviera suggested that they use the legal term "solely" instead of "only," which the Committee approved. 24 (Emphasis supplied) Pursuing his previous argument that the declaration for absolute nullity of marriage is unnecessary, petitioner suggests that private respondent should have filed an ordinary civil action for the recovery of the properties alleged to have been acquired during their union. In such an eventuality, the lower court would not be acting as a mere special court but would be clothed with jurisdiction to rule on the issues of possession and ownership. In addition, he pointed out that there is actually nothing to separate or partition as the petition admits that all the properties were acquired with private respondent's money. The Court of Appeals disregarded this argument and concluded that "the prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be raised together with the other incident of their marriage such as the separation of their properties." When a marriage is declared void ab initio, the law states that the final judgment therein shall provide for "the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings." 25 Other specific effects flowing therefrom, in proper cases, are the following: Art. 43. xxx xxx xxx (2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or, in default of children, the innocent spouse; (3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law; (4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as a beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable; and (5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession. (n) Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary disposition made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. (n) 26 Based on the foregoing provisions, private respondent's ultimate prayer for separation of property will simply be one of the necessary consequences of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage. Thus, petitioner's suggestion that in order for their properties to be separated, an ordinary civil action has to be instituted for that purpose is baseless. The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations governing them. It stands to reason that the lower court before whom the issue of nullity of a first marriage is brought is likewise clothed with jurisdiction to decide the incidental questions regarding the couple's properties. Accordingly, the respondent court committed no reversible error in finding that the lower court committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss SP No. 1989-J. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of respondent Court dated February 7, 1992 and the Resolution dated March 20, 1992 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Bidin and Melo, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., is on leave.

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents.

VITUG, J.: Concededly a highly, if not indeed the most likely, controversial provision introduced by the Family Code is Article 36 (as amended by E.O. No. 227 dated 17 July 1987), which declares: Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. The present petition for review on certiorari, at the instance of Leouel Santos ("Leouel"), brings into fore the above provision which is now invoked by him. Undaunted by the decisions of the court a quo 1 and the Court of Appeal, 2 Leouel persists in beseeching its application in his attempt to have his marriage with herein private respondent, Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos ("Julia"), declared a nullity. It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then held the rank of First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met Julia. The meeting later proved to be an eventful day for Leouel and Julia. On 20 September 1986, the two exchanged vows before Municipal Trial Court Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City, followed, shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. Leouel and Julia lived with the latter's parents at the J. Bedia Compound, La Paz, Iloilo City. On 18 July 1987, Julia gave birth to a baby boy, and he was christened Leouel Santos, Jr. The ecstasy, however, did not last long. It was bound to happen, Leouel averred, because of the frequent interference by Julia's parents into the young spouses family affairs. Occasionally, the couple would also start a "quarrel" over a number of other things, like when and where the couple should start living independently from Julia's parents or whenever Julia would express resentment on Leouel's spending a few days with his own parents.

On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United Sates of America to work as a nurse despite Leouel's pleas to so dissuade her. Seven months after her departure, or on 01 January 1989, Julia called up Leouel for the first time by long distance telephone. She promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989. She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the United States, where he underwent a training program under the auspices of the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 01 April up to 25 August 1990, he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail. Having failed to get Julia to somehow come home, Leouel filed with the regional trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a complaint for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code" (docketed, Civil Case No. 9814). Summons was served by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Negros Oriental. On 31 May 1991, respondent Julia, in her answer (through counsel), opposed the complaint and denied its allegations, claiming, in main, that it was the petitioner who had, in fact, been irresponsible and incompetent. A possible collusion between the parties to obtain a decree of nullity of their marriage was ruled out by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (in its report to the court). On 25 October 1991, after pre-trial conferences had repeatedly been set, albeit unsuccessfully, by the court, Julia ultimately filed a manifestation, stating that she would neither appear nor submit evidence. On 06 November 1991, the court a quo finally dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. 3 Leouel appealed to the Court of Appeal. The latter affirmed the decision of the trial court. 4 The petition should be denied not only because of its non-compliance with Circular 28-91, which requires a certification of non-shopping, but also for its lack of merit. Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life. In his own words, Leouel asserts: . . . (T)here is no leave, there is no affection for (him) because respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos failed all these years to communicate with the petitioner. A wife who does not care to inform her husband about her whereabouts for a period of five years, more or less, is psychologically incapacitated. The family Code did not define the term "psychological incapacity." The deliberations during the sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee, which has drafted the Code, can, however, provide an insight on the import of the provision. Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: xxx xxx xxx Art. 36. . . . (7) Those marriages contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was wanting in the sufficient use of reason or judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage or was psychologically or mentally incapacitated to discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such lack of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration. On subparagraph (7), which as lifted from the Canon Law, Justice (Jose B.L.) Reyes suggested that they say "wanting in sufficient use," but Justice (Eduardo) Caguioa preferred to say "wanting in the sufficient use." On the other hand, Justice Reyes proposed that they say "wanting in sufficient reason." Justice Caguioa, however, pointed out that the idea is that one is not lacking in judgment but that he is lacking in the exercise of judgment. He added that lack of judgment would make the marriage voidable. Judge (Alicia Sempio-) Diy remarked that lack of judgment is more serious than insufficient use of judgment and yet the latter would make the marriage null and void and the former only voidable. Justice Caguioa suggested that subparagraph (7) be modified to read: "That contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such lack of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration." Justice Caguioa explained that the phrase "was wanting in sufficient use of reason of judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage" refers to defects in the mental faculties vitiating consent, which is not the idea in subparagraph (7), but lack of appreciation of one's marital obligations. Judge Diy raised the question: Since "insanity" is also a psychological or mental incapacity, why is "insanity" only a ground for annulment and not for declaration or nullity? In reply, Justice Caguioa explained that in insanity, there is the appearance of consent, which is the reason why it is a ground for voidable marriages, while subparagraph (7) does not refer to consent but to the very essence of marital obligations. Prof. (Araceli) Baviera suggested that, in subparagraph (7), the word "mentally" be deleted, with which Justice Caguioa concurred. Judge Diy, however, prefers to retain the word "mentally." Justice Caguioa remarked that subparagraph (7) refers to psychological impotence. Justice (Ricardo) Puno stated that sometimes a person may be psychologically impotent with one but not with another. Justice (Leonor Ines-) Luciano said that it is called selective impotency. Dean (Fortunato) Gupit stated that the confusion lies in the fact that in inserting the Canon Law annulment in the Family Code, the Committee used a language which describes a ground for voidable marriages under the Civil Code. Justice Caguioa added that in Canon Law, there are voidable marriages under the Canon Law, there are no voidable marriages Dean Gupit said that this is precisely the reason why they should make a distinction. Justice Puno remarked that in Canon Law, the defects in marriage cannot be cured. Justice Reyes pointed out that the problem is: Why is "insanity" a ground for void ab initio marriages? In reply, Justice Caguioa explained that insanity is curable and there are lucid intervals, while psychological incapacity is not. On another point, Justice Puno suggested that the phrase "even if such lack or incapacity is made manifest" be modified to read "even if such lack or incapacity becomes manifest." Justice Reyes remarked that in insanity, at the time of the marriage, it is not apparent.

Justice Caguioa stated that there are two interpretations of the phrase "psychological or mentally incapacitated" in the first one, there is vitiation of consent because one does not know all the consequences of the marriages, and if he had known these completely, he might not have consented to the marriage. xxx xxx xxx Prof. Bautista stated that he is in favor of making psychological incapacity a ground for voidable marriages since otherwise it will encourage one who really understood the consequences of marriage to claim that he did not and to make excuses for invalidating the marriage by acting as if he did not understand the obligations of marriage. Dean Gupit added that it is a loose way of providing for divorce. xxx xxx xxx Justice Caguioa explained that his point is that in the case of incapacity by reason of defects in the mental faculties, which is less than insanity, there is a defect in consent and, therefore, it is clear that it should be a ground for voidable marriage because there is the appearance of consent and it is capable of convalidation for the simple reason that there are lucid intervals and there are cases when the insanity is curable. He emphasized that psychological incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do with consent; it refers to obligations attendant to marriage. xxx xxx xxx On psychological incapacity, Prof. (Flerida Ruth P.) Romero inquired if they do not consider it as going to the very essence of consent. She asked if they are really removing it from consent. In reply, Justice Caguioa explained that, ultimately, consent in general is effected but he stressed that his point is that it is not principally a vitiation of consent since there is a valid consent. He objected to the lumping together of the validity of the marriage celebration and the obligations attendant to marriage, which are completely different from each other, because they require a different capacity, which is eighteen years of age, for marriage but in contract, it is different. Justice Puno, however, felt that psychological incapacity is still a kind of vice of consent and that it should not be classified as a voidable marriage which is incapable of convalidation; it should be convalidated but there should be no prescription. In other words, as long as the defect has not been cured, there is always a right to annul the marriage and if the defect has been really cured, it should be a defense in the action for annulment so that when the action for annulment is instituted, the issue can be raised that actually, although one might have been psychologically incapacitated, at the time the action is brought, it is no longer true that he has no concept of the consequence of marriage. Prof. (Esteban) Bautista raised the question: Will not cohabitation be a defense? In response, Justice Puno stated that even the bearing of children and cohabitation should not be a sign that psychological incapacity has been cured. Prof. Romero opined that psychological incapacity is still insanity of a lesser degree. Justice Luciano suggested that they invite a psychiatrist, who is the expert on this matter. Justice Caguioa, however, reiterated that psychological incapacity is not a defect in the mind but in the understanding of the consequences of marriage, and therefore, a psychiatrist will not be a help. Prof. Bautista stated that, in the same manner that there is a lucid interval in insanity, there are also momentary periods when there is an understanding of the consequences of marriage. Justice Reyes and Dean Gupit remarked that the ground of psychological incapacity will not apply if the marriage was contracted at the time when there is understanding of the consequences of marriage. 5 xxx xxx xxx Judge Diy proposed that they include physical incapacity to copulate among the grounds for void marriages. Justice Reyes commented that in some instances the impotence that in some instances the impotence is only temporary and only with respect to a particular person. Judge Diy stated that they can specify that it is incurable. Justice Caguioa remarked that the term "incurable" has a different meaning in law and in medicine. Judge Diy stated that "psychological incapacity" can also be cured. Justice Caguioa, however, pointed out that "psychological incapacity" is incurable. Justice Puno observed that under the present draft provision, it is enough to show that at the time of the celebration of the marriage, one was psychologically incapacitated so that later on if already he can comply with the essential marital obligations, the marriage is still void ab initio. Justice Caguioa explained that since in divorce, the psychological incapacity may occur after the marriage, in void marriages, it has to be at the time of the celebration of marriage. He, however, stressed that the idea in the provision is that at the time of the celebration of the marriage, one is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, which incapacity continues and later becomes manifest. Justice Puno and Judge Diy, however, pointed out that it is possible that after the marriage, one's psychological incapacity become manifest but later on he is cured. Justice Reyes and Justice Caguioa opined that the remedy in this case is to allow him to remarry. 6 xxx xxx xxx Justice Puno formulated the next Article as follows: Art. 37. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated, to comply with the essential obligations of marriage shall likewise be void from the beginning even if such incapacity becomes manifest after its solemnization. Justice Caguioa suggested that "even if" be substituted with "although." On the other hand, Prof. Bautista proposed that the clause "although such incapacity becomes manifest after its solemnization" be deleted since it may encourage one to create the manifestation of psychological incapacity. Justice Caguioa pointed out that, as in other provisions, they cannot argue on the basis of abuse. Judge Diy suggested that they also include mental and physical incapacities, which are lesser in degree than psychological incapacity. Justice Caguioa explained that mental and physical incapacities are vices of consent while psychological incapacity is not a species of vice or consent. Dean Gupit read what Bishop Cruz said on the matter in the minutes of their February 9, 1984 meeting: "On the third ground, Bishop Cruz indicated that the phrase "psychological or mental impotence" is an invention of some churchmen who are moralists but not canonists, that is why it is considered a weak phrase. He said that the Code of Canon Law would rather express it as "psychological or mental incapacity to discharge . . ." Justice Caguioa remarked that they deleted the word "mental" precisely to distinguish it from vice of consent. He explained that "psychological incapacity" refers to lack of understanding of the essential obligations of marriage. Justice Puno reminded the members that, at the last meeting, they have decided not to go into the classification of "psychological incapacity" because there was a lot of debate on it and that this is precisely the reason why they classified it as a special case.

At this point, Justice Puno, remarked that, since there having been annulments of marriages arising from psychological incapacity, Civil Law should not reconcile with Canon Law because it is a new ground even under Canon Law. Prof. Romero raised the question: With this common provision in Civil Law and in Canon Law, are they going to have a provision in the Family Code to the effect that marriages annulled or declared void by the church on the ground of psychological incapacity is automatically annulled in Civil Law? The other members replied negatively. Justice Puno and Prof. Romero inquired if Article 37 should be retroactive or prospective in application. Justice Diy opined that she was for its retroactivity because it is their answer to the problem of church annulments of marriages, which are still valid under the Civil Law. On the other hand, Justice Reyes and Justice Puno were concerned about the avalanche of cases. Dean Gupit suggested that they put the issue to a vote, which the Committee approved. The members voted as follows: (1) Justice Reyes, Justice Puno and Prof. Romero were for prospectivity. (2) Justice Caguioa, Judge Diy, Dean Gupit, Prof. Bautista and Director Eufemio were for retroactivity. (3) Prof. Baviera abstained. Justice Caguioa suggested that they put in the prescriptive period of ten years within which the action for declaration of nullity of the marriage should be filed in court. The Committee approved the suggestion. 7 It could well be that, in sum, the Family Code Revision Committee in ultimately deciding to adopt the provision with less specificity than expected, has in fact, so designed the law as to allow some resiliency in its application. Mme. Justice Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, a member of the Code Committee, has been quoted by Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo in Salita vs. Hon. Magtolis (G.R. No. 106429, 13 June 1994); thus: 8 The Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. Rather, the Committee would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law. A part of the provision is similar to Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, 9 which reads: Canon 1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage: 1. who lack sufficient use of reason; 2. who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning essentila matrimonial rights and duties, to be given and accepted mutually; 3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. (Emphasis supplied.) Accordingly, although neither decisive nor even perhaps all that persuasive for having no juridical or secular effect, the jurisprudence under Canon Law prevailing at the time of the code's enactment, nevertheless, cannot be dismissed as impertinent for its value as an aid, at least, to the interpretation or construction of the codal provision. One author, Ladislas Orsy, S.J., in his treaties,
10

giving an account on how the third paragraph of Canon 1095 has been framed, states:

The history of the drafting of this canon does not leave any doubt that the legislator intended, indeed, to broaden the rule. A strict and narrow norm was proposed first: Those who cannot assume the essential obligations of marriage because of a grave psycho-sexual anomaly (ob gravem anomaliam psychosexualem) are unable to contract marriage (cf. SCH/1975, canon 297, a new canon, novus); then a broader one followed: . . . because of a grave psychological anomaly (ob gravem anomaliam psychicam) . . . (cf. SCH/1980, canon 1049); then the same wording was retained in the text submitted to the pope (cf. SCH/1982, canon 1095, 3); finally, a new version was promulgated: because of causes of a psychological nature (ob causas naturae psychiae). So the progress was from psycho-sexual to psychological anomaly, then the term anomaly was altogether eliminated. it would be, however, incorrect to draw the conclusion that the cause of the incapacity need not be some kind of psychological disorder; after all, normal and healthy person should be able to assume the ordinary obligations of marriage. Fr. Orsy concedes that the term "psychological incapacity" defies any precise definition since psychological causes can be of an infinite variety. In a book, entitled "Canons and Commentaries on Marriage," written by Ignatius Gramunt, Javier Hervada and LeRoy Wauck, the following explanation appears: This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage. Some psychosexual disorders and other disorders of personality can be the psychic cause of this defect, which is here described in legal terms. This particular type of incapacity consists of a real inability to render what is due by the contract. This could be compared to the incapacity of a farmer to enter a binding contract to deliver the crops which he cannot possibly reap; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; (c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality. The mere difficulty of assuming these obligations, which could be overcome by normal effort, obviously does not constitute incapacity. The

canon contemplates a true psychological disorder which incapacitates a person from giving what is due (cf. John Paul II, Address to R. Rota, Feb. 5, 1987). However, if the marriage is to be declared invalid under this incapacity, it must be proved not only that the person is afflicted by a psychological defect, but that the defect did in fact deprive the person, at the moment of giving consent, of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and consequently of the possibility of being bound by these duties. Justice Sempio-Diy 11 cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (Branch 1), who opines that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. It should be obvious, looking at all the foregoing disquisitions, including, and most importantly, the deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee itself, that the use of the phrase "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Code has not been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances (cited in Fr. Artemio Baluma's "Void and Voidable Marriages in the Family Code and their Parallels in Canon Law," quoting from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder by the American Psychiatric Association; Edward Hudson's "Handbook II for Marriage Nullity Cases"). Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus correlated, "psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter intensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This pschologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be "legitimate." The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity. Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are established, every circumstance that may have some bearing on the degree, extent, and other conditions of that incapacity must, in every case, be carefully examined and evaluated so that no precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily decreed. The well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable. Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment. We should continue to be reminded that innate in our society, then enshrined in our Civil Code, and even now still indelible in Article 1 of the Family Code, is that Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (Emphasis supplied.) Our Constitution is no less emphatic: Sec. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. (Article XV, 1987 Constitution). The above provisions express so well and so distinctly the basic nucleus of our laws on marriage and the family, and they are doubt the tenets we still hold on to. The factual settings in the case at bench, in no measure at all, can come close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage. Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Feliciano, J., is on leave.

G.R. No. 173294

February 27, 2008

RENNE ENRIQUE BIER, petitioner, vs. MA. LOURDES A. BIER and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. DECISION CORONA, J.: This petition for review on certiorari1 seeks to set aside the March 20, 2006 decision2 and July 3, 2006 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 66952. Petitioner Renne Enrique E. Bier met respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Bier through his sister. Their courtship, which blossomed as a result of the exchange of long distance calls between them, lasted six months. Back then, petitioner observed respondent to be a very sweet and thoughtful person. This, he said, made him fall in love with her. On July 26, 1992, six months after their first meeting, they were married at the UST Santissimo Rosario Parish Church. Everything went well for the first three years of their marriage. Respondent was everything petitioner could hope for in a wife sweet, loving and caring. She also took good care of the house. As petitioner was based in Saudi Arabia as an electronics technician at Saudia Airlines, the parties decided to maintain two residences, one in the Philippines and another in Saudi Arabia. They took turns shuttling between the two countries just so they could spend time together. The couple started experiencing marital problems after three years of marriage. According to petitioner, respondent ceased to be the person he knew and married. She started becoming aloof towards him and began to spend more time with her friends than with him, refusing even to have sexual relations with him for no apparent reason. She became an alcoholic and a chain-smoker. She also started neglecting her husband's needs and the upkeep of their home, and became an absentee wife. After being gone from their home for days on end, she would return without bothering to account for her absence. As a result, they frequently quarreled. Finally, on April 10, 1997, respondent suddenly left for the United States. Petitioner has not heard from her since. On April 1, 1998, petitioner instituted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89, a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to petitioner. It was docketed as Civil Case No. Q98-33993. Per sheriff's return, summons was served through substituted service as personal service proved futile. Respondent, however, did not file an answer. Thereafter, the RTC ordered Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo T. Paragua to investigate if there was collusion between the parties and to intervene for the State to see to it that evidence was not fabricated. Assistant City Prosecutor Paragua manifested that, since both parties failed to appear before him, he was unable to make a ruling on the issue of collusion and determine if the evidence was fabricated. After petitioner filed his pre-trial brief, Prosecutor Paragua filed a second manifestation stating that petitioner had appeared before him and that, after investigation, he was convinced that there was no collusion between the parties and that the evidence was not fabricated. At pre-trial, only petitioner appeared. As respondent failed to attend the same, the RTC declared her to have waived the pre-trial. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. Again, respondent did not take part in the proceedings. Petitioner filed a written offer of exhibits which was admitted by the trial court. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a certification and manifested its disfavor towards declaring the marriage null and void. It argued that no persuasive evidence was presented warranting the grant of the petition, specially since petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in Republic v. CA and Molina4 (Molina). After trial, the trial court rendered judgment5 granting the petition: WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring as VOID, based upon the respondent's psychological incapacity, the marriage contracted on July 26, 1992 between Renne Enrique E. Bier and Ma. Lourdes A. Bier. As such, their property relations shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership pursuant to Article 147 of the Family Code. Henceforth, their property relations shall be governed by the regime of complete separation of property. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Civil Registrar General, National Census and Statistics Office and the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, ordering them to attach a copy of this Decision to the Marriage Contract of herein petitioner and respondent on file with respective office. With costs against the respondent. SO ORDERED. Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 66952. The CA held that petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in Molina as the root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity was not medically or clinically identified. Worse, the same was not even alleged in the petition filed in the court a quo. As such, it granted the appeal and reversed the decision of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision 6 read: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 06 March 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89 in Civil Case No. Q-98-33993, which declared as void the marriage between appellee and respondent, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Renne Enrique E. Bier and respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Bier remains valid and subsisting. No costs. SO ORDERED. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CA decision. The same was denied. Hence, this recourse. Petitioner contends that the guidelines enunciated in Molina, specifically its directive that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained, and that it must be proven to be existing at the inception of the marriage, need not be strictly complied with as Molina itself stated the guidelines were merely "handed down for the guidance of the bench and bar" and were not meant to be a checklist of requirements in deciding cases involving psychological incapacity. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the Molina doctrine should be applied, the RTC erred in ruling that he failed to comply therewith. The petition must fail.

Preliminarily, we must pass upon petitioners argument that the finding of the trial court on the existence or non-existence of psychological incapacity is final and binding on us absent any showing that its factual findings and evaluation of the evidence were clearly and manifestly erroneous.7 Petitioners position is of course the general rule. In the instant case, however, it is the exception to the general rule which must be applied; the court a quo clearly erred in granting the petition. It stated in the body of its decision that: While this Court agrees with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that the juridical antecedence of the psychological disorder and its root cause were not established, the same will not serve as a hindrance for the Court to declare that respondent is indeed suffering from a psychological incapacity. The failure of the Psychological Report to identify the root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity is not a fatal flaw that will prevent the Court from declaring a marriage a nullity based on psychological incapacity. (Emphasis supplied) The trial court apparently overlooked the fact that this Court has been consistent in holding that if a petition for nullity based on psychological incapacity is to be given due course, its gravity, root cause, incurability and the fact that it existed prior to or at the time of celebration of the marriage must always be proved.8 As early as Santos v. CA, et al.,9 we already held that: [P]sychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. xxx This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. xxx (Emphasis supplied) These must be strictly complied with as the granting of a petition for nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity must be confined only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.10 This is specially so since the Family Code does not define psychological incapacity. The determination thereof is left solely to the discretion of the courts and must be made on a case-to-case basis.11 Also, even if Molina was never meant to be a checklist of the requirements in deciding cases involving Article 36 (psychological incapacity) of the Family Code, a showing of the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of the party's psychological incapacity and its existence at the inception of the marriage cannot be dispensed with. In Marcos v. Marcos (Marcos),12 a case cited by petitioner to support his argument that the totality of evidence presented was enough to prove the existence of respondent's psychological incapacity, this Court reiterated that: The [Molina] guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals: "psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be "medically or clinically identified." What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. For indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. xxx xxx xxx

[t]he totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his "defects" were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. (Emphasis supplied) Furthermore, the 2005 case of Republic v. Iyoy 13 held that even if Marcos (2000) relaxed the rules such that the personal examination of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated by a psychiatrist or psychologist is no longer mandatory for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, the totality of evidence must still prove the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of the alleged psychological incapacity. Failure in this regard will spell the failure of the petition. From the foregoing, one can conclude that petitioner's insistence that Marcos effectively overturned the need to present evidence on the aforesaid requirements has no merit. Thus, unless the law itself or the Court provides otherwise, these requirements must be established before a petition for nullity of the marriage based on psychological incapacity can be granted. We hold that the trial court's decision to declare the parties' marriage void ab initio by reason of respondent's psychological incapacity was clearly and manifestly erroneous as it overlooked the need to show the gravity, root cause and incurability of respondent's psychological incapacity and that it was already present at the inception of the marriage. Be that as it may, the main question that begs to be answered in the instant case is whether the totality of the evidence presented was enough to establish that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. We rule in the negative. Petitioner had the burden of proving the nullity of his marriage with respondent.14 He failed to discharge it. The evidence for petitioner consisted of his own testimony and that of his brother, Roderico Bier. He also presented as evidence a psychological report written by Dr. Nedy Tayag, a clinical psychologist, who also testified on the matters contained therein. Dr. Tayag's report, which found respondent to be suffering from psychological incapacity, particularly a narcissistic personality disorder, relied only on the information fed by petitioner. This was admitted by petitioner in his petition for review on certiorari and memorandum filed in this Court. In both instances, petitioner reasoned out that the personal examination of respondent was impossible as her whereabouts were unknown despite diligent efforts on his part to find her. Consequently, Dr. Tayag's report was really hearsay evidence since she had no personal knowledge of the alleged facts she was testifying on. Her testimony should have thus been dismissed for being unscientific and unreliable. 15 Furthermore, as already stated, the report also failed to identify the root cause of respondent's narcissistic personality disorder and to prove that it existed at the inception of the marriage. It merely concluded that: This extremely egocentric attitude manifest a person suffering Narcissistic Personality Disorder that is considered to be severe, incurable and deeply rooted with her functioning. Thus, making herself psychologically incapacitated so as to comply with the essential marital functions. Although there is no requirement that a party to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or a psychologist (as a condition sine qua non), there is nevertheless still a need to prove the psychological incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging said disorder.16 In the case at bar, petitioner was able to establish that respondent was remiss in her duties as a wife and had become a happy-go-lucky woman who failed to attend to her husband's needs and who eventually abandoned him. However, the totality of her acts, as testified to by petitioner and his brother, was not tantamount to a psychological incapacity, as petitioner would have us believe. Habitual alcoholism, chain-smoking, failure or refusal to meet one's duties and responsibilities as a married person and eventual abandonment of a spouse do not suffice to nullify a marriage on the basis of psychological incapacity, if not shown to be due to some psychological (as opposed to physical) illness.17 The undeniable fact is that the marriage, according to petitioner's own evidence, was off to a good start. According to him, respondent used to be a sweet, loving and caring wife who took good care of him and their home. She even willingly consented to the difficult living arrangement of taking turns in going back and forth between the Philippines and Saudi Arabia just so they could be together. Perhaps it was this unusual arrangement which took a heavy toll on their relationship. They barely saw and spent time with each other. Respondent could have gotten used to petitioners absence. And

although absence can indeed make the heart grow fonder, the opposite can just as well be true: out of sight, out of mind. The couple drifted apart and respondent obviously fell out of love with petitioner. Nevertheless, we agree with the CA that the change in respondent's feelings towards petitioner could hardly be described as a psychological illness. It was not enough that respondent, the party adverted to as psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, had difficulty or was unwilling to perform the same. Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor, an adverse integral element in respondent's personality structure that effectively incapacitated her from complying with her essential marital obligations, 18 had to be shown. This petitioner failed to do. Consequently, we are unconvinced that respondent's condition was rooted in some incapacitating or debilitating disorder. Even if we assume the correctness of petitioner's contention that the Molina guidelines are not set in stone, there is still no reason to disavow the same as the facts and circumstances in this case do not warrant a deviation therefrom. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The March 20, 2006 decision and July 3, 2006 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66952 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice Chairperson ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

G.R. No. 166738

August 14, 2009

ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA, Petitioner, vs. EDWARD RUMBAUA, Respondent. DECISION BRION, J.: Petitioner Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua (petitioner) challenges, through her petition for review on certiorari, 1 the decision dated June 25, 20042 and the resolution dated January 18, 20053 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 75095. The challenged decision reversed the decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent Edward Rumbaua (respondent) null and void on the ground of the latters psychological incapacity. The assailed resolution, on the other hand, denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration. ANTECEDENT FACTS The present petition traces its roots to the petitioners complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage against the respondent before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 767. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage as shown by the following circumstances: the respondent reneged on his promise to live with her under one roof after finding work; he failed to extend financial support to her; he blamed her for his mothers death; he represented himself as single in his transactions; and he pretended to be working in Davao, although he was cohabiting with another woman in Novaliches, Quezon City. Summons was served on the respondent through substituted service, as personal service proved futile. 5 The RTC ordered the provincial prosecutor to investigate if collusion existed between the parties and to ensure that no fabrication or suppression of evidence would take place.6 Prosecutor Melvin P. Tiongsons report negated the presence of collusion between the parties. 7 The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the petition.8 The OSG entered its appearance and deputized the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Vizcaya to assist in all hearings of the case. 9 The petitioner presented testimonial and documentary evidence to substantiate her charges. The petitioner related that she and the respondent were childhood neighbors in Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya. Sometime in 1987, they met again and became sweethearts but the respondents family did not approve of their relationship. After graduation from college in 1991, the respondent promised to marry the petitioner as soon as he found a job. The job came in 1993, when the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) accepted the respondent as a computer engineer. The respondent proposed to the petitioner that they first have a "secret marriage" in order not to antagonize his parents. The petitioner agreed; they were married in Manila on February 23, 1993. The petitioner and the respondent, however, never lived together; the petitioner stayed with her sister in Fairview, Quezon City, while the respondent lived with his parents in Novaliches.

The petitioner and respondent saw each other every day during the first six months of their marriage. At that point, the respondent refused to live with the petitioner for fear that public knowledge of their marriage would affect his application for a PAL scholarship. Seven months into their marriage, the couples daily meetings became occasional visits to the petitioners house in Fairview; they would have sexual trysts in motels. Later that year, the respondent enrolled at FEATI University after he lost his employment with PAL.10 In 1994, the parties respective families discovered their secret marriage. The respondents mother tried to convince him to go to the United States, but he refused. To appease his mother, he continued living separately from the petitioner. The respondent forgot to greet the petitioner during her birthday in 1992 and likewise failed to send her greeting cards on special occasions. The respondent indicated as well in his visa application that he was single. In April 1995, the respondents mother died. The respondent blamed the petitioner, associating his mothers death to the pain that the discovery of his secret marriage brought. Pained by the respondents action, the petitioner severed her relationship with the respondent. They eventually reconciled through the help of the petitioners father, although they still lived separately. In 1997, the respondent informed the petitioner that he had found a job in Davao. A year later, the petitioner and her mother went to the respondents house in Novaliches and found him cohabiting with one Cynthia Villanueva (Cynthia). When she confronted the respondent about it, he denied having an affair with Cynthia.11 The petitioner apparently did not believe the respondents and moved to to Nueva Vizcaya to recover from the pain and anguish that her discovery brought.12 The petitioner disclosed during her cross-examination that communication between her and respondent had ceased. Aside from her oral testimony, the petitioner also presented a certified true copy of their marriage contract; 13 and the testimony, curriculum vitae,14 and psychological report15 of clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag (Dr. Tayag). Dr. Tayag declared on the witness stand that she administered the following tests on the petitioner: a Revised Beta Examination; a Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test; a Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test; a Draw a Person Test; a Sachs Sentence Completion Test; and MMPI. 16 She thereafter prepared a psychological report with the following findings: TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATION Psychometric tests data reveal petitioner to operate in an average intellectual level. Logic and reasoning remained intact. She is seen to be the type of woman who adjusts fairly well into most situations especially if it is within her interests. She is pictured to be faithful to her commitments and had reservations from negative criticisms such that she normally adheres to social norms, behavior-wise. Her age speaks of maturity, both intellectually and emotionally. Her one fault lies in her compliant attitude which makes her a subject for manipulation and deception such that of respondent. In all the years of their relationship, she opted to endure his irresponsibility largely because of the mere belief that someday things will be much better for them. But upon the advent of her husbands infidelity, she gradually lost hope as well as the sense of self-respect, that she has finally taken her tool to be assertive to the point of being aggressive and very cautious at times so as to fight with the frustration and insecurity she had especially regarding her failed marriage. Respondent in this case, is revealed to operate in a very self-centered manner as he believes that the world revolves around him. His egocentrism made it so easy for him to deceitfully use others for his own advancement with an extreme air of confidence and dominance. He would do actions without any remorse or guilt feelings towards others especially to that of petitioner. REMARKS Love happens to everyone. It is dubbed to be boundless as it goes beyond the expectations people tagged with it. In love, "age does matter." People love in order to be secure that one will share his/her life with another and that he/she will not die alone. Individuals who are in love had the power to let love grow or let love die it is a choice one had to face when love is not the love he/she expected. In the case presented by petitioner, it is very apparent that love really happened for her towards the young respondent who used "love" as a disguise or deceptive tactic for exploiting the confidence she extended towards him. He made her believe that he is responsible, true, caring and thoughtful only to reveal himself contrary to what was mentioned. He lacked the commitment, faithfulness, and remorse that he was able to engage himself to promiscuous acts that made petitioner look like an innocent fool. His character traits reveal him to suffer Narcissistic Personality Disorder - declared to be grave, severe and incurable.17 [Emphasis supplied.] The RTC Ruling The RTC nullified the parties marriage in its decision of April 19, 2002. The trial court saw merit in the testimonies of the petitioner and Dr. Tayag, and concluded as follows: xxxx Respondent was never solicitous of the welfare and wishes of his wife. Respondent imposed limited or block [sic] out communication with his wife, forgetting special occasions, like petitioners birthdays and Valentines Day; going out only on occasions despite their living separately and to go to a motel to have sexual intercourse. It would appear that the foregoing narration are the attendant facts in this case which show the psychological incapacity of respondent, at the time of the celebration of the marriage of the parties, to enter into lawful marriage and to discharge his marital responsibilities (See Articles 68 to 71, Family Code). This incapacity is "declared grave, severe and incurable." WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the marriage between petitioner Rowena Padilla Rumbaua and respondent Edwin Rumbaua is hereby declared annulled. SO ORDERED.18 The CA Decision The Republic, through the OSG, appealed the RTC decision to the CA. 19 The CA decision of June 25, 2004 reversed and set aside the RTC decision, and denied the nullification of the parties marriage.20 In its ruling, the CA observed that Dr. Tayags psychiatric report did not mention the cause of the respondents so-called "narcissistic personality disorder;" it did not discuss the respondents childhood and thus failed to give the court an insight into the respondents developmental years. Dr. Tayag likewise failed to explain why she came to the conclusion that the respondents incapacity was "deep-seated" and "incurable." The CA held that Article 36 of the Family Code requires the incapacity to be psychological, although its manifestations may be physical. Moreover, the evidence presented must show that the incapacitated party was mentally or physically ill so that he or she could not have known the marital obligations assumed, knowing them, could not have assumed them. In other words, the illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect, or difficulty to perform the essential obligations of marriage. In the present case, the petitioner suffered because the respondent adamantly refused to live with her because of his parents objection to their marriage. The petitioner moved to reconsider the decision, but the CA denied her motion in its resolution of January 18, 2005. 21

The Petition and the Issues The petitioner argues in the present petition that 1. the OSG certification requirement under Republic v. Molina22 (the Molina case) cannot be dispensed with because A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which relaxed the requirement, took effect only on March 15, 2003; 2. vacating the decision of the courts a quo and remanding the case to the RTC to recall her expert witness and cure the defects in her testimony, as well as to present additional evidence, would temper justice with mercy; and 3. Dr. Tayags testimony in court cured the deficiencies in her psychiatric report. The petitioner prays that the RTCs and the CAs decisions be reversed and set aside, and the case be remanded to the RTC for further proceedings; in the event we cannot grant this prayer, that the CAs decision be set aside and the RTCs decision be reinstated. The Republic maintained in its comment that: (a) A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC was applicable although it took effect after the promulgation of Molina; (b) invalidating the trial courts decision and remanding the case for further proceedings were not proper; and (c) the petitioner failed to establish respondents psychological incapacity.23 The parties simply reiterated their arguments in the memoranda they filed. THE COURTS RULING We resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is applicable In Molina, the Court emphasized the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the OSG; they are to appear as counsel for the State in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages: (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. [Emphasis supplied.] A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC24 -- which this Court promulgated on March 15, 2003 and duly published -- is geared towards the relaxation of the OSG certification that Molina required. Section 18 of this remedial regulation provides: SEC. 18. Memoranda. The court may require the parties and the public prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their respective memoranda in support of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated.lawphil.net It may require the Office of the Solicitor General to file its own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to the State. No other pleadings or papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of the period herein provided, the case will be considered submitted for decision, with or without the memoranda. The petitioner argues that the RTC decision of April 19, 2002 should be vacated for prematurity, as it was rendered despite the absence of the required OSG certification specified in Molina. According to the petitioner, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which took effect only on March 15, 2003, cannot overturn the requirements of Molina that was promulgated as early as February 13, 1997. The petitioners argument lacks merit. The amendment introduced under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is procedural or remedial in character; it does not create or remove any vested right, but only operates as a remedy in aid of or confirmation of already existing rights. The settled rule is that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect,25 as we held in De Los Santos v. Vda. de Mangubat:26 Procedural Laws do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statues - they may be given retroactive effect on actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and this will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, as a remedial measure, removed the mandatory nature of an OSG certification and may be applied retroactively to pending matters. In effect, the measure cures in any pending matter any procedural lapse on the certification prior to its promulgation. Our rulings in Antonio v. Reyes27 and Navales v. Navales28 have since confirmed and clarified that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC has dispensed with the Molina guideline on the matter of certification, although Article 48 mandates the appearance of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal to ensure that no collusion between the parties would take place. Thus, what is important is the presence of the prosecutor in the case, not the remedial requirement that he be certified to be present. From this perspective, the petitioners objection regarding the Molina guideline on certification lacks merit. A Remand of the Case to the RTC is Improper The petitioner maintains that vacating the lower courts decisions and the remand of the case to the RTC for further reception of evidence are procedurally permissible. She argues that the inadequacy of her evidence during the trial was the fault of her former counsel, Atty. Richard Tabago, and asserts that remanding the case to the RTC would allow her to cure the evidentiary insufficiencies. She posits in this regard that while mistakes of counsel bind a party, the rule should be liberally construed in her favor to serve the ends of justice. We do not find her arguments convincing. A remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings amounts to the grant of a new trial that is not procedurally proper at this stage. Section 1 of Rule 37 provides that an aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside a judgment or final order already rendered and to grant a new trial within the period for taking an appeal. In addition, a motion for new trial may be filed only on the grounds of (1) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence that could not have been guarded against by ordinary prudence, and by reason of which the aggrieved partys rights have probably been impaired; or (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, the aggrieved party could not have discovered and produced at the trial, and that would probably alter the result if presented. In the present case, the petitioner cites the inadequacy of the evidence presented by her former counsel as basis for a remand. She did not, however, specify the inadequacy. That the RTC granted the petition for declaration of nullity prima facie shows that the petitioners counsel had not been negligent in handling the case. Granting arguendo that the petitioners counsel had been negligent, the negligence that would justify a new trial must be excusable, i.e. one that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against. The negligence that the petitioner apparently adverts to is that cited in Uy v. First Metro Integrated Steel Corporation where we explained: 29

Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to be admitted as valid reasons for re-opening cases, there would never be an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned. This will put a premium on the willful and intentional commission of errors by counsel, with a view to securing new trials in the event of conviction, or an adverse decision, as in the instant case. Thus, we find no justifiable reason to grant the petitioners requested remand. Petitioner failed to establish the respondents psychological incapacity A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is anchored on Article 36 of the Family Code which provides that "a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of its celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." In Santos v. Court of Appeals,30 the Court first declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. The defect should refer to "no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage." It must be confined to "the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage." We laid down more definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code in Republic v. Court of Appeals where we said: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. x x x (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage. (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision. (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. These Guidelines incorporate the basic requirements we established in Santos. To reiterate, psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. 31 These requisites must be strictly complied with, as the grant of a petition for nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity must be confined only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Furthermore, since the Family Code does not define "psychological incapacity," fleshing out its terms is left to us to do so on a case-to-case basis through jurisprudence.32 We emphasized this approach in the recent case of Ting v. Velez-Ting33 when we explained: It was for this reason that we found it necessary to emphasize in Ngo Te that each case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own attendant facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals. In the present case and using the above standards and approach, we find the totality of the petitioners evidence insufficient to prove that the respondent is psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a husband. a. Petitioners testimony did not prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of respondents condition The petitioners evidence merely showed that the respondent: (a) reneged on his promise to cohabit with her; (b) visited her occasionally from 1993 to 1997; (c) forgot her birthday in 1992, and did not send her greeting cards during special occasions; (d) represented himself as single in his visa application; (e) blamed her for the death of his mother; and (f) told her he was working in Davao when in fact he was cohabiting with another woman in 1997. These acts, in our view, do not rise to the level of the "psychological incapacity" that the law requires, and should be distinguished from the "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations that characterize some marriages. In Bier v. Bier, 34 we ruled that it was not enough that respondent, alleged to be psychologically incapacitated, had difficulty in complying with his marital obligations, or was unwilling to

perform these obligations. Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor an adverse integral element in the respondent's personality structure that effectively incapacitated him from complying with his essential marital obligations had to be shown and was not shown in this cited case. In the present case, the respondents stubborn refusal to cohabit with the petitioner was doubtlessly irresponsible, but it was never proven to be rooted in some psychological illness. As the petitioners testimony reveals, respondent merely refused to cohabit with her for fear of jeopardizing his application for a scholarship, and later due to his fear of antagonizing his family. The respondents failure to greet the petitioner on her birthday and to send her cards during special occasions, as well as his acts of blaming petitioner for his mothers death and of representing himself as single in his visa application, could only at best amount to forgetfulness, insensitivity or emotional immaturity, not necessarily psychological incapacity. Likewise, the respondents act of living with another woman four years into the marriage cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. In fact, petitioner herself admitted that respondent was caring and faithful when they were going steady and for a time after their marriage; their problems only came in later. To be sure, the respondent was far from perfect and had some character flaws. The presence of these imperfections, however, does not necessarily warrant a conclusion that he had a psychological malady at the time of the marriage that rendered him incapable of fulfilling his duties and obligations. To use the words of Navales v. Navales:35 Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations. Mere "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of marital obligations or "ill will" on the part of the spouse is different from "incapacity" rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness. Indeed, irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological illness that is contemplated by said rule. b. Dr. Tayags psychological report and court testimony We cannot help but note that Dr. Tayags conclusions about the respondents psychological incapacity were based on the information fed to her by only one side the petitioner whose bias in favor of her cause cannot be doubted. While this circumstance alone does not disqualify the psychologist for reasons of bias, her report, testimony and conclusions deserve the application of a more rigid and stringent set of standards in the manner we discussed above.36 For, effectively, Dr. Tayag only diagnosed the respondent from the prism of a third party account; she did not actually hear, see and evaluate the respondent and how he would have reacted and responded to the doctors probes. Dr. Tayag, in her report, merely summarized the petitioners narrations, and on this basis characterized the respondent to be a self-centered, egocentric, and unremorseful person who "believes that the world revolves around him"; and who "used love as adeceptive tactic for exploiting the confidence [petitioner] extended towards him." Dr. Tayag then incorporated her own idea of "love"; made a generalization that respondent was a person who "lacked commitment, faithfulness, and remorse," and who engaged "in promiscuous acts that made the petitioner look like a fool"; and finally concluded that the respondents character traits reveal "him to suffer Narcissistic Personality Disorder with traces of Antisocial Personality Disorder declared to be grave and incurable." We find these observations and conclusions insufficiently in-depth and comprehensive to warrant the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed that prevented the respondent from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. It failed to identify the root cause of the respondent's narcissistic personality disorder and to prove that it existed at the inception of the marriage. Neither did it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor show that the respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological, not physical, nature. Thus, we cannot avoid but conclude that Dr. Tayags conclusion in her Report i.e., that the respondent suffered "Narcissistic Personality Disorder with traces of Antisocial Personality Disorder declared to be grave and incurable" is an unfounded statement, not a necessary inference from her previous characterization and portrayal of the respondent. While the various tests administered on the petitioner could have been used as a fair gauge to assess her own psychological condition, this same statement cannot be made with respect to the respondents condition. To make conclusions and generalizations on the respondents psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side is, to our mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence. Petitioner nonetheless contends that Dr. Tayags subsequent testimony in court cured whatever deficiencies attended her psychological report. We do not share this view. A careful reading of Dr. Tayags testimony reveals that she failed to establish the fact that at the time the parties were married, respondent was already suffering from a psychological defect that deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties and responsibilities of marriage. Neither did she adequately explain how she came to the conclusion that respondents condition was grave and incurable. To directly quote from the records: ATTY. RICHARD TABAGO: Q: I would like to call your attention to the Report already marked as Exh. "E-7", there is a statement to the effect that his character traits begin to suffer narcissistic personality disorder with traces of antisocial personality disorder. What do you mean? Can you please explain in laymans word, Madam Witness? DR. NEDY LORENZO TAYAG: A: Actually, in a laymans term, narcissistic personality disorder cannot accept that there is something wrong with his own behavioral manifestation. [sic] They feel that they can rule the world; they are eccentric; they are exemplary, demanding financial and emotional support, and this is clearly manifested by the fact that respondent abused and used petitioners love. Along the line, a narcissistic person cannot give empathy; cannot give love simply because they love themselves more than anybody else; and thirdly, narcissistic person cannot support his own personal need and gratification without the help of others and this is where the petitioner set in. Q: Can you please describe the personal [sic] disorder? A: Clinically, considering that label, the respondent behavioral manifestation under personality disorder [sic] this is already considered grave, serious, and treatment will be impossible [sic]. As I say this, a kind of developmental disorder wherein it all started during the early formative years and brought about by one familiar relationship the way he was reared and cared by the family. Environmental exposure is also part and parcel of the child disorder. [sic] Q: You mean to say, from the formative [years] up to the present? A: Actually, the respondent behavioral manner was [present] long before he entered marriage. [Un]fortunately, on the part of the petitioner, she never realized that such behavioral manifestation of the respondent connotes pathology. [sic] xxxx Q: So in the representation of the petitioner that the respondent is now lying [sic] with somebody else, how will you describe the character of this respondent who is living with somebody else? A: This is where the antisocial personality trait of the respondent [sic] because an antisocial person is one who indulge in philandering activities, who do not have any feeling of guilt at the expense of another person, and this [is] again a buy-product of deep seated psychological incapacity.

Q: And this psychological incapacity based on this particular deep seated [sic], how would you describe the psychological incapacity? [sic] A: As I said there is a deep seated psychological dilemma, so I would say incurable in nature and at this time and again [sic] the psychological pathology of the respondent. One plays a major factor of not being able to give meaning to a relationship in terms of sincerity and endurance. Q: And if this psychological disorder exists before the marriage of the respondent and the petitioner, Madam Witness? A: Clinically, any disorder are usually rooted from the early formative years and so if it takes enough that such psychological incapacity of respondent already existed long before he entered marriage, because if you analyze how he was reared by her parents particularly by the mother, there is already an unhealthy symbiosis developed between the two, and this creates a major emotional havoc when he reached adult age. Q: How about the gravity? A: This is already grave simply because from the very start respondent never had an inkling that his behavioral manifestation connotes pathology and second ground [sic], respondent will never admit again that such behavior of his connotes again pathology simply because the disorder of the respondent is not detrimental to himself but, more often than not, it is detrimental to other party involved. xxxx PROSECUTOR MELVIN TIONGSON: Q: You were not able to personally examine the respondent here? DR. NEDY TAYAG: A: Efforts were made by the psychologist but unfortunately, the respondent never appeared at my clinic. Q: On the basis of those examinations conducted with the petitioning wife to annul their marriage with her husband in general, what can you say about the respondent? A: That from the very start respondent has no emotional intent to give meaning to their relationship. If you analyze their marital relationship they never lived under one room. From the very start of the [marriage], the respondent to have petitioner to engage in secret marriage until that time their family knew of their marriage [sic]. Respondent completely refused, completely relinquished his marital obligation to the petitioner. xxxx COURT: Q: Because you have interviewed or you have questioned the petitioner, can you really enumerate the specific traits of the respondent? DR. NEDY TAYAG: A: One is the happy-go-lucky attitude of the respondent and the dependent attitude of the respondent. Q: Even if he is already eligible for employment? A: He remains to be at the mercy of his mother. He is a happy-go-lucky simply because he never had a set of responsibility. I think that he finished his education but he never had a stable job because he completely relied on the support of his mother. Q: You give a more thorough interview so I am asking you something specific? A: The happy-go-lucky attitude; the overly dependent attitude on the part of the mother merely because respondent happened to be the only son. I said that there is a unhealthy symbiosis relationship [sic] developed between the son and the mother simply because the mother always pampered completely, pampered to the point that respondent failed to develop his own sense of assertion or responsibility particularly during that stage and there is also presence of the simple lying act particularly his responsibility in terms of handling emotional imbalance and it is clearly manifested by the fact that respondent refused to build a home together with the petitioner when in fact they are legally married. Thirdly, respondent never felt or completely ignored the feelings of the petitioner; he never felt guilty hurting the petitioner because on the part of the petitioner, knowing that respondent indulge with another woman it is very, very traumatic on her part yet respondent never had the guts to feel guilty or to atone said act he committed in their relationship, and clinically this falls under antisocial personality. 37 In terms of incurability, Dr. Tayags answer was very vague and inconclusive, thus: xxxx ATTY. RICHARD TABAGO Q: Can this personally be cured, madam witness? DR. NEDY TAYAG A: Clinically, if persons suffering from personality disorder curable, up to this very moment, no scientific could be upheld to alleviate their kind of personality disorder; Secondly, again respondent or other person suffering from any kind of disorder particularly narcissistic personality will never admit that they are suffering from this kind of disorder, and then again curability will always be a question. [sic] 38 This testimony shows that while Dr. Tayag initially described the general characteristics of a person suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder, she did not really show how and to what extent the respondent exhibited these traits. She mentioned the buzz words that jurisprudence requires for the nullity of a marriage namely, gravity, incurability, existence at the time of the marriage, psychological incapacity relating to marriage and in her own limited way, related these to the medical condition she generally described. The testimony, together with her report, however, suffers from very basic flaws. First, what she medically described was not related or linked to the respondents exact condition except in a very general way. In short, her testimony and report were rich in generalities but disastrously short on particulars, most notably on how the respondent can be said to be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder; why and to what extent the disorder is grave and incurable; how and why it was already present at the time of the marriage; and the effects of the disorder on the respondents awareness of and his capability to undertake the duties and responsibilities of marriage. All these are critical to the success of the petitioners case.

Second, her testimony was short on factual basis for her diagnosis because it was wholly based on what the petitioner related to her. As the doctor admitted to the prosecutor, she did not at all examine the respondent, only the petitioner. Neither the law nor jurisprudence requires, of course, that the person sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at such declaration.39 If a psychological disorder can be proven by independent means, no reason exists why such independent proof cannot be admitted and given credit.40 No such independent evidence, however, appears on record to have been gathered in this case, particularly about the respondents early life and associations, and about events on or about the time of the marriage and immediately thereafter. Thus, the testimony and report appear to us to be no more than a diagnosis that revolves around the one-sided and meager facts that the petitioner related, and were all slanted to support the conclusion that a ground exists to justify the nullification of the marriage. We say this because only the baser qualities of the respondents life were examined and given focus; none of these qualities were weighed and balanced with the better qualities, such as his focus on having a job, his determination to improve himself through studies, his care and attention in the first six months of the marriage, among others. The evidence fails to mention also what character and qualities the petitioner brought into her marriage, for example, why the respondents family opposed the marriage and what events led the respondent to blame the petitioner for the death of his mother, if this allegation is at all correct. To be sure, these are important because not a few marriages have failed, not because of psychological incapacity of either or both of the spouses, but because of basic incompatibilities and marital developments that do not amount to psychological incapacity. The continued separation of the spouses likewise never appeared to have been factored in. Not a few married couples have likewise permanently separated simply because they have "fallen out of love," or have outgrown the attraction that drew them together in their younger years. Thus, on the whole, we do not blame the petitioner for the move to secure a remand of this case to the trial courts for the introduction of additional evidence; the petitioners evidence in its present state is woefully insufficient to support the conclusion that the petitioners marriage to the respondent should be nullified on the ground of the respondents psychological incapacity. The Court commiserates with the petitioners marital predicament. The respondent may indeed be unwilling to discharge his marital obligations, particularly the obligation to live with ones spouse. Nonetheless, we cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact that respondent refuses to comply with his marital duties. As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness. The psychological illness that must afflict a party at the inception of the marriage should be a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive the party of his or her awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was then about to assume. 41 WHEREFORE, in view of these considerations, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June 25, 2004 and January 18, 2005, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 75095. SO ORDERED. ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES* Associate Justice Acting Chairperson ANTONIO T. CARPIO** Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO**** Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate Justice Acting Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Acting Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO*** Associate Justice

G.R. No. 127358

March 31, 2005

NOEL BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ISABEL LUCIA SINGH BUENAVENTURA, respondents. x-------------------x

G.R. No. 127449

March 31, 2005

NOEL BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ISABEL LUCIA SINGH BUENAVENTURA, Respondents. DECISION AZCUNA, J.: These cases involve a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, which was filed by petitioner Noel Buenaventura on July 12, 1992, on the ground of the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife, Isabel Singh Buenaventura, herein respondent. After respondent filed her answer, petitioner, with leave of court, amended his petition by stating that both he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. In response, respondent filed an amended answer denying the allegation that she was psychologically incapacitated. 1 On July 31, 1995, the Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1) Declaring and decreeing the marriage entered into between plaintiff Noel A. Buenaventura and defendant Isabel Lucia Singh Buenaventura on July 4, 1979, null and void ab initio; 2) Ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant moral damages in the amount of 2.5 million pesos and exemplary damages of 1 million pesos with 6% interest from the date of this decision plus attorneys fees of P100,000.00; 3) Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant expenses of litigation of P50,000.00, plus costs; 4) Ordering the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership property[,] particularly the plaintiffs separation/retirement benefits received from the Far East Bank [and] Trust Company[,] by ceding, giving and paying to her fifty percent (50%) of the net amount of P3,675,335.79 or P1,837,667.89 together with 12% interest per annum from the date of this decision and one-half (1/2) of his outstanding shares of stock with Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies; 5) Ordering him to give a regular support in favor of his son Javy Singh Buenaventura in the amount of P15,000.00 monthly, subject to modification as the necessity arises; 6) Awarding the care and custody of the minor Javy Singh Buenaventura to his mother, the herein defendant; and 7) Hereby authorizing the defendant to revert back to the use of her maiden family name Singh. Let copies of this decision be furnished the appropriate civil registry and registries of properties. SO ORDERED.2 Petitioner appealed the above decision to the Court of Appeals. While the case was pending in the appellate court, respondent filed a motion to increase the P15,000 monthly support pendente lite of their son Javy Singh Buenaventura. Petitioner filed an opposition thereto, praying that it be denied or that such incident be set for oral argument.3 On September 2, 1996, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution increasing the support pendente lite to P20,000.4 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration questioning the said Resolution.5 On October 8, 1996, the appellate court promulgated a Decision dismissing petitioners appeal for lack of merit and affirming in toto the trial courts decision.6 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. From the abovementioned Decision, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari. On November 13, 1996, through another Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion for reconsideration of the September 2, 1996 Resolution, which increased the monthly support for the son. 7 Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari to question these two Resolutions. On July 9, 1997, the Petition for Review on Certiorari8 and the Petition for Certiorari9 were ordered consolidated by this Court.10 In the Petition for Review on Certiorari petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals decided the case not in accord with law and jurisprudence, thus: 1. WHEN IT AWARDED DEFENDANT-APPELLEE MORAL DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF P2.5 MILLION AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES OF P1 MILLION, WITH 6% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF ITS DECISION, WITHOUT ANY LEGAL AND MORAL BASIS; 2. WHEN IT AWARDED P100,000.00 ATTORNEYS FEES AND P50,000.00 EXPENSES OF LITIGATION, PLUS COSTS, TO DEFENDANTAPPELLEE, WITHOUT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS; 3. WHEN IT ORDERED PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT NOEL TO PAY DEFENDANT-APPELLEE ONE-HALF OR P1,837,667.89 OUT OF HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM THE FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO., WITH 12% INTEREST THEREON FROM THE DATE OF ITS DECISION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SAID RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE GRATUITOUS AND EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF NOEL, AND ALSO TO DELIVER TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE ONE-HALF OF HIS SHARES OF STOCK WITH THE MANILA MEMORIAL PARK AND THE PROVIDENT GROUP OF COMPANIES, ALTHOUGH SAID SHARES OF STOCK WERE ACQUIRED BY NOEL BEFORE HIS MARRIAGE TO RESPONDENT ISABEL AND ARE, THEREFORE, AGAIN HIS EXCLUSIVE PROPERTIES; AND 4. WHEN IT AWARDED EXCLUSIVE CARE AND CUSTODY OVER THE PARTIES MINOR CHILD TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE WITHOUT ASKING THE CHILD (WHO WAS ALREADY 13 YEARS OLD AT THAT TIME) HIS CHOICE AS TO WHOM, BETWEEN HIS TWO PARENTS, HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CUSTODY OVER HIS PERSON.11 In the Petition for Certiorari, petitioner advances the following contentions: THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT REFUSED TO SET RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR INCREASED SUPPORT FOR THE PARTIES SON FOR HEARING.12 THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO INCREASE JAVYS MONTHLY SUPPORT OF P15,000.00 BEING GIVEN BY PETITIONER EVEN AT PRESENT PRICES.13

IN RESOLVING RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR THE INCREASE OF JAVYS SUPPORT, THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE LIST OF EXPENSES SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT IN THE LIGHT OF PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS THERETO, INSTEAD OF MERELY ASSUMING THAT JAVY IS ENTITLED TO A P5,000 INCREASE IN SUPPORT AS SAID AMOUNT IS "TOO MINIMAL." 14 LIKEWISE, THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS PRESENT INCOME TO SHOW THAT HE CANNOT AFFORD TO INCREASE JAVYS SUPPORT.15 With regard to the first issue in the main case, the Court of Appeals articulated: On Assignment of Error C, the trial court, after findings of fact ascertained from the testimonies not only of the parties particularly the defendant-appellee but likewise, those of the two psychologists, awarded damages on the basis of Articles 21, 2217 and 2229 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Thus, the lower court found that plaintiff-appellant deceived the defendant-appellee into marrying him by professing true love instead of revealing to her that he was under heavy parental pressure to marry and that because of pride he married defendant-appellee; that he was not ready to enter into marriage as in fact his career was and always would be his first priority; that he was unable to relate not only to defendant-appellee as a husband but also to his son, Javy, as a father; that he had no inclination to make the marriage work such that in times of trouble, he chose the easiest way out, that of leaving defendantappellee and their son; that he had no desire to keep defendant-appellee and their son as proved by his reluctance and later, refusal to reconcile after their separation; that the aforementioned caused defendant-appellee to suffer mental anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights not only in those years the parties were together but also after and throughout their separation. Plaintiff-appellant assails the trial courts decision on the ground that unlike those arising from a breach in ordinary contracts, damages arising as a consequence of marriage may not be awarded. While it is correct that there is, as yet, no decided case by the Supreme Court where damages by reason of the performance or non-performance of marital obligations were awarded, it does not follow that no such award for damages may be made. Defendant-appellee, in her amended answer, specifically prayed for moral and exemplary damages in the total amount of 7 million pesos. The lower court, in the exercise of its discretion, found full justification of awarding at least half of what was originally prayed for. We find no reason to disturb the ruling of the trial court.16 The award by the trial court of moral damages is based on Articles 2217 and 21 of the Civil Code, which read as follows: ART. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission. ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The trial court referred to Article 21 because Article 221917 of the Civil Code enumerates the cases in which moral damages may be recovered and it mentions Article 21 as one of the instances. It must be noted that Article 21 states that the individual must willfully cause loss or injury to another. There is a need that the act is willful and hence done in complete freedom. In granting moral damages, therefore, the trial court and the Court of Appeals could not but have assumed that the acts on which the moral damages were based were done willfully and freely, otherwise the grant of moral damages would have no leg to stand on. On the other hand, the trial court declared the marriage of the parties null and void based on Article 36 of the Family Code, due to psychological incapacity of the petitioner, Noel Buenaventura. Article 36 of the Family Code states: A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Psychological incapacity has been defined, thus: . . . no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. . . . 18 The Court of Appeals and the trial court considered the acts of the petitioner after the marriage as proof of his psychological incapacity, and therefore a product of his incapacity or inability to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Nevertheless, said courts considered these acts as willful and hence as grounds for granting moral damages. It is contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity, and hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the same time considering the same set of acts as willful. By declaring the petitioner as psychologically incapacitated, the possibility of awarding moral damages on the same set of facts was negated. The award of moral damages should be predicated, not on the mere act of entering into the marriage, but on specific evidence that it was done deliberately and with malice by a party who had knowledge of his or her disability and yet willfully concealed the same. No such evidence appears to have been adduced in this case. For the same reason, since psychological incapacity means that one is truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that one must assume and discharge as a consequence of marriage, it removes the basis for the contention that the petitioner purposely deceived the private respondent. If the private respondent was deceived, it was not due to a willful act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the award of moral damages was without basis in law and in fact. Since the grant of moral damages was not proper, it follows that the grant of exemplary damages cannot stand since the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages are imposed in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. 19 With respect to the grant of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation the trial court explained, thus: Regarding Attorneys fees, Art. 2208 of the Civil Code authorizes an award of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, when as in this case the plaintiffs act or omission has compelled the defendant to litigate and to incur expenses of litigation to protect her interest (par. 2), and where the Court deems it just and equitable that attorneys fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered. (par. 11) 20 The Court of Appeals reasoned as follows: On Assignment of Error D, as the award of moral and exemplary damages is fully justified, the award of attorneys fees and costs of litigation by the trial court is likewise fully justified.21 The acts or omissions of petitioner which led the lower court to deduce his psychological incapacity, and his act in filing the complaint for the annulment of his marriage cannot be considered as unduly compelling the private respondent to litigate, since both are grounded on petitioners psychological incapacity, which as explained above is a mental incapacity causing an utter inability to comply with the obligations of marriage. Hence, neither can be a ground for attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Furthermore, since the award of moral and exemplary damages is no longer justified, the award of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation is left without basis.

Anent the retirement benefits received from the Far East Bank and Trust Co. and the shares of stock in the Manila Memorial Park and the Provident Group of Companies, the trial court said: The third issue that must be resolved by the Court is what to do with the assets of the conjugal partnership in the event of declaration of annulment of the marriage. The Honorable Supreme Court has held that the declaration of nullity of marriage carries ipso facto a judgment for the liquidation of property (Domingo v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 104818, Sept. 17, 1993, 226 SCRA, pp. 572 573, 586). Thus, speaking through Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero, it was ruled in this case: When a marriage is declared void ab initio, the law states that the final judgment therein shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in the previous proceedings. The parties here were legally married on July 4, 1979, and therefore, all property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved (Art. 116, New Family Code; Art. 160, Civil Code). Art. 117 of the Family Code enumerates what are conjugal partnership properties. Among others they are the following: 1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses; 2) Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both of the spouses; 3) The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or received during the marriage from the common property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive property of each spouse. . . . Applying the foregoing legal provisions, and without prejudice to requiring an inventory of what are the parties conjugal properties and what are the exclusive properties of each spouse, it was disclosed during the proceedings in this case that the plaintiff who worked first as Branch Manager and later as Vice-President of Far East Bank & Trust Co. received separation/retirement package from the said bank in the amount of P3,701,500.00 which after certain deductions amounting to P26,164.21 gave him a net amount of P3,675,335.79 and actually paid to him on January 9, 1995 (Exhs. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Not having shown debts or obligations other than those deducted from the said retirement/separation pay, under Art. 129 of the Family Code "The net remainder of the conjugal partnership properties shall constitute the profits, which shall be divided equally between husband and wife, unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the marriage settlement or unless there has been a voluntary waiver or forfeiture of such share as provided in this Code." In this particular case, however, there had been no marriage settlement between the parties, nor had there been any voluntary waiver or valid forfeiture of the defendant wifes share in the conjugal partnership properties. The previous cession and transfer by the plaintiff of his onehalf (1/2) share in their residential house and lot covered by T.C.T. No. S-35680 of the Registry of Deeds of Paraaque, Metro Manila, in favor of the defendant as stipulated in their Compromise Agreement dated July 12, 1993, and approved by the Court in its Partial Decision dated August 6, 1993, was actually intended to be in full settlement of any and all demands for past support. In reality, the defendant wife had allowed some concession in favor of the plaintiff husband, for were the law strictly to be followed, in the process of liquidation of the conjugal assets, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated shall, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, be adjudicated to the spouse with whom their only child has chosen to remain (Art. 129, par. 9). Here, what was done was one-half (1/2) portion of the house was ceded to defendant so that she will not claim anymore for past unpaid support, while the other half was transferred to their only child as his presumptive legitime. Consequently, nothing yet has been given to the defendant wife by way of her share in the conjugal properties, and it is but just, lawful and fair, that she be given one-half (1/2) share of the separation/retirement benefits received by the plaintiff the same being part of their conjugal partnership properties having been obtained or derived from the labor, industry, work or profession of said defendant husband in accordance with Art. 117, par. 2 of the Family Code. For the same reason, she is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the outstanding shares of stock of the plaintiff husband with the Manila Memorial Park and the Provident Group of Companies.22 The Court of Appeals articulated on this matter as follows: On Assignment of Error E, plaintiff-appellant assails the order of the trial court for him to give one-half of his separation/retirement benefits from Far East Bank & Trust Company and half of his outstanding shares in Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies to the defendant-appellee as the latters share in the conjugal partnership. On August 6, 1993, the trial court rendered a Partial Decision approving the Compromise Agreement entered into by the parties. In the same Compromise Agreement, the parties had agreed that henceforth, their conjugal partnership is dissolved. Thereafter, no steps were taken for the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Finding that defendant-appellee is entitled to at least half of the separation/retirement benefits which plaintiff-appellant received from Far East Bank & Trust Company upon his retirement as Vice-President of said company for the reason that the benefits accrued from plaintiffappellants service for the bank for a number of years, most of which while he was married to defendant-appellee, the trial court adjudicated the same. The same is true with the outstanding shares of plaintiff-appellant in Manila Memorial Park and Provident Group of Companies. As these were acquired by the plaintiff-appellant at the time he was married to defendant-appellee, the latter is entitled to one-half thereof as her share in the conjugal partnership. We find no reason to disturb the ruling of the trial court.23 Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a bigamous marriage, the provisions of Article 50 in relation to Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Family Code, providing for the dissolution of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains, as the case may be, do not apply. Rather, the general rule applies, which is that in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable and to be liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal co-ownership. In Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City,24 this Court expounded on the consequences of a void marriage on the property relations of the spouses and specified the applicable provisions of law: The trial court correctly applied the law. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of the Family Code. Article 147 is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code as interpreted and so applied in previous cases; it provides: ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation. When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the

respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. This peculiar kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no legal impediment to marry each other, so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage. The term "capacitated" in the provision (in the first paragraph of the law) refers to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage, i.e., any "male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38" of the Code. Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall still be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said party's "efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household." Unlike the conjugal partnership of gains, the fruits of the couple's separate property are not included in the co-ownership. Article 147 of the Family Code, in substance and to the above extent, has clarified Article 144 of the Civil Code; in addition, the law now expressly provides that (a) Neither party can dispose or encumber by act[s] inter vivos [of] his or her share in co-ownership property, without the consent of the other, during the period of cohabitation; and (b) In the case of a void marriage, any party in bad faith shall forfeit his or her share in the co-ownership in favor of their common children; in default thereof or waiver by any or all of the common children, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants, or still in default thereof, to the innocent party. The forfeiture shall take place upon the termination of the cohabitation or declaration of nullity of the marriage. In deciding to take further cognizance of the issue on the settlement of the parties' common property, the trial court acted neither imprudently nor precipitately; a court which had jurisdiction to declare the marriage a nullity must be deemed likewise clothed with authority to resolve incidental and consequential matters. Nor did it commit a reversible error in ruling that petitioner and private respondent own the "family home" and all their common property in equal shares, as well as in concluding that, in the liquidation and partition of the property owned in common by them, the provisions on coownership under the Civil Code, not Articles 50, 51 and 52, in relation to Articles 102 and 129, of the Family Code, should aptly prevail. The rules set up to govern the liquidation of either the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains, the property regimes recognized for valid and voidable marriages (in the latter case until the contract is annulled), are irrelevant to the liquidation of the co-ownership that exists between common-law spouses. The first paragraph of Article 50 of the Family Code, applying paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43, relates only, by its explicit terms, to voidable marriages and, exceptionally, to void marriages under Article 40 of the Code, i.e., the declaration of nullity of a subsequent marriage contracted by a spouse of a prior void marriage before the latter is judicially declared void. The latter is a special rule that somehow recognizes the philosophy and an old doctrine that void marriages are inexistent from the very beginning and no judicial decree is necessary to establish their nullity. In now requiring for purposes of remarriage, the declaration of nullity by final judgment of the previously contracted void marriage, the present law aims to do away with any continuing uncertainty on the status of the second marriage. It is not then illogical for the provisions of Article 43, in relation to Articles 41 and 42, of the Family Code, on the effects of the termination of a subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage to be made applicable pro hac vice. In all other cases, it is not to be assumed that the law has also meant to have coincident property relations, on the one hand, between spouses in valid and voidable marriages (before annulment) and, on the other, between common-law spouses or spouses of void marriages, leaving to ordain, in the latter case, the ordinary rules on co-ownership subject to the provision of Article 147 and Article 148 of the Family Code. It must be stressed, nevertheless, even as it may merely state the obvious, that the provisions of the Family Code on the "family home," i.e., the provisions found in Title V, Chapter 2, of the Family Code, remain in force and effect regardless of the property regime of the spouses. 25 Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found, both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, to have been acquired during the union of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-ownership. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in said distribution. The liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties owned in common by the parties herein as ordered by the court a quo should, therefore, be sustained, but on the basis of co-ownership and not of the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. As to the issue on custody of the parties over their only child, Javy Singh Buenaventura, it is now moot since he is about to turn twenty-five years of age on May 27, 200526 and has, therefore, attained the age of majority. With regard to the issues on support raised in the Petition for Certiorari, these would also now be moot, owing to the fact that the son, Javy Singh Buenaventura, as previously stated, has attained the age of majority. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 8, 1996 and its Resolution dated December 10, 1996 which are contested in the Petition for Review (G.R. No. 127449), are hereby MODIFIED, in that the award of moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, expenses of litigation and costs are deleted. The order giving respondent one-half of the retirement benefits of petitioner from Far East Bank and Trust Co. and one-half of petitioners shares of stock in Manila Memorial Park and in the Provident Group of Companies is sustained but on the basis of the liquidation, partition and distribution of the co-ownership and not of the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The rest of said Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED. The Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 127358) contesting the Court of Appeals Resolutions of September 2, 1996 and November 13, 1996 which increased the support pendente lite in favor of the parties son, Javy Singh Buenaventura, is now MOOT and ACADEMIC and is, accordingly, DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 180668

May 26, 2009

MARIETA C. AZCUETA Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. DECISION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 86162 dated August 31, 2007,1 and its Resolution dated November 20, 2007.2 Petitioner Marietta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in 1993. Less than two months after their first meeting, they got married on July 24, 1993 at St. Anthony of Padua Church, Antipolo City. At the time of their marriage, petitioner was 23 years old while respondent was 28. They separated in 1997 after four years of marriage. They have no children. On March 2, 2002, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 72, a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, docketed as Civil Case No. 02-6428. Meanwhile, respondent failed to appear and file an answer despite service of summons upon him. Because of this, the trial court directed the City Prosecutor to conduct an investigation whether there was collusion between the parties. In a report dated August 16, 2002, Prosecutor Wilfredo G. Oca found that there was no collusion between the parties. On August 21, 2002, the Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance for the Republic of the Philippines and submitted a written authority for the City Prosecutor to appear in the case on the States behalf under the supervision and control of the Solicitor General. In her petition and during her testimony, petitioner claimed that her husband Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. According to petitioner, Rodolfo was emotionally immature, irresponsible and continually failed to adapt himself to married life and perform the essential responsibilities and duties of a husband. Petitioner complained that Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and instead always asked his mother for financial assistance. When they were married it was Rodolfos mother who found them a room near the Azcueta home and it was also his mother who paid the monthly rental. Petitioner also testified that she constantly encouraged her husband to find employment. She even bought him a newspaper every Sunday but Rodolfo told her that he was too old and most jobs have an age limit and that he had no clothes to wear to job interviews. To inspire him, petitioner bought him new clothes and a pair of shoes and even gave him money. Sometime later, her husband told petitioner that he already found a job and petitioner was overjoyed. However, some weeks after, petitioner was informed that her husband had been seen at the house of his parents when he was supposed to be at work. Petitioner discovered that her husband didnt actually get a job and the money he gave her (which was supposedly his salary) came from his mother. When she confronted him about the matter, Rodolfo allegedly cried like a child and told her that he pretended to have a job so that petitioner would stop nagging him about applying for a job. He also told her that his parents can support their needs. Petitioner claimed that Rodolfo was so dependent on his mother and that all his decisions and attitudes in life should be in conformity with those of his mother. Apart from the foregoing, petitioner complained that every time Rodolfo would get drunk he became physically violent towards her. Their sexual relationship was also unsatisfactory. They only had sex once a month and petitioner never enjoyed it. When they discussed this problem, Rodolfo would always say that sex was sacred and it should not be enjoyed nor abused. He did not even want to have a child yet because he claimed he was not ready. Additionally, when petitioner requested that they move to another place and rent a small room rather than live near his parents, Rodolfo did not agree. Because of this, she was forced to leave their residence and see if he will follow her. But he did not. During the trial of the case, petitioner presented Rodolfos first cousin, Florida de Ramos, as a witness. In 1993, Ramos, the niece of Rodolfos father, was living with Rodolfos family. She corroborated petitioners testimony that Rodolfo was indeed not gainfully employed when he married petitioner and he merely relied on the allowance given by his mother. This witness also confirmed that it was respondents mother who was paying the rentals for the room where the couple lived. She also testified that at one time, she saw respondent going to his mothers house in business attire. She learned later that Rodolfo told petitioner that he has a job but in truth he had none. She also stated that respondent was still residing at the house of his mother and not living together with petitioner. Petitioner likewise presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist. Dr. Villegas testified that after examining petitioner for her psychological evaluation, she found petitioner to be mature, independent, very responsible, focused and has direction and ambition in life. She also observed that petitioner works hard for what she wanted and therefore, she was not psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. Dr. Villegas added that based on the information gathered from petitioner, she found that Rodolfo showed that he was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties and responsibilities. Dr. Villegas concluded that he was suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder associated with severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings. She explained that persons suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder were those whose response to ordinary way of life was ineffectual and inept, characterized by loss of self-confidence, constant self-doubt, inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people. She added that the root cause of this psychological problem was a cross-identification with the mother who was the dominant figure in the family considering that respondents father was a seaman and always out of the house. She stated that this problem began during the early stages in his life but manifested only after the celebration of his marriage. According to Dr. Villegas, this kind of problem was also severe because he will not be able to make and to carry on the responsibilities expected of a married person. It was incurable because it started in early development and therefore deeply ingrained into his personality. Based on petitioners evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision dated October 25, 2004, declaring the marriage between petitioner and Rodolfo as null and void ab initio, thus: With the preponderant evidence presented by the petitioner, the court finds that respondent totally failed in his commitments and obligations as a husband. Respondents emotional immaturity and irresponsibility is grave and he has no showing of improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse with the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt felling of having sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected. The respondent is suffering from dependent personality disorder and therefore cannot make his own decision and cannot carry on his responsibilities as a husband. The marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect, support was not fulfilled by the respondent. Considering the totality of evidence of the petitioner clearly show that respondent failed to comply with his marital obligations. Thus the marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared null and void on the account of respondents severe and incurable psychological incapacity. xxx xxx xxx Wherefore premises considered, the marriage between Marietta Azcueta and Rodolfo B. Azcuata is hereby declared null and void abinitio pursuant to Article 36 fo the Family Code. The National Statistics Office and the Local Civil Registrar of Antipolo City are ordered to make proper entries into the records of the parties pursuant to judgment of the court. Let copies of this decision be furnished the Public Prosecutor and the Solicitor General. SO ORDERED.3

On July 19, 2005, the RTC rendered an Amended Decision4 to correct the first name of Rodolfo which was erroneously typewritten as "Gerardo" in the caption of the original Decision. The Solicitor General appealed the RTC Decision objecting that (a) the psychiatric report of Dr. Villegas was based solely on the information provided by petitioner and was not based on an examination of Rodolfo; and (b) there was no showing that the alleged psychological defects were present at the inception of marriage or that such defects were grave, permanent and incurable. Resolving the appeal, the CA reversed the RTC and essentially ruled that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove the psychological incapacity of Rodolfo or that his alleged psychological disorder existed prior to the marriage and was grave and incurable. In setting aside the factual findings of the RTC, the CA reasoned that: The evidence on record failed to demonstrate that respondents alleged irresponsibility and over-dependence on his mother is symptomatic of psychological incapacity as above explained. xxx xxx xxx Also worthy of note is petitioner-appellees failure to prove that respondents supposed psychological malady existed even before the marriage. Records however show that the parties were living in harmony in the first few years of their marriage and were living on their own in a rented apartment. That respondent often times asks his mother for financial support may be brought about by his feeling of embarrassment that he cannot contribute at all to the family coffers, considering that it was his wife who is working for the family. Petitioner-appellee likewise stated that respondent does not like to have a child on the pretense that respondent is not yet ready to have one. However this is not at all a manifestation of irresponsibility. On the contrary, respondent has shown that he has a full grasp of reality and completely understands the implication of having a child especially that he is unemployed. The only problem besetting the union is respondents alleged irresponsibility and unwillingness to leave her (sic) mother, which was not proven in this case to be psychological-rooted. The behavior displayed by respondent was caused only by his youth and emotional immaturity which by themselves, do not constitute psychological incapacity (Deldel vs. Court of Appeals, 421 SCRA 461, 466 [2004]). At all events, petitioner-appellee has utterly failed, both in her allegations in the complaint and in her evidence, to make out a case of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent, let alone at the time of solemnization of the contract, so immaturity and irresponsibility, invoked by her, cannot be equated with psychological incapacity (Pesca vs. Pesca, 356 SCRA 588, 594 [2001]). As held by the Supreme Court: Psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations, it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. (Navarro, Jr. vs. Cecilio-Navarro, G.R. No. 162049, April 13, 2007). xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the appealed decision dated July 19, 2005 fo the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 72 in Civil Case No. 02-6428 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage berween petitioner-appellee Marietta C. Azcueta and respondent Rodolfo B. Azcueta remains VALID.5 (emphasis ours) The basic issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not the totality of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations. The Office of the Solicitor General, in its Comment, submits that the appellate court correctly ruled that the "totality of evidence presented by petitioner" failed to prove her spouses psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code and settled jurisprudence. We grant the petition. Prefatorily, it bears stressing that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.6 Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members. 7 Thus, the Court laid down in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina8 stringent guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis (Salita v. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100, 108), nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I dos." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage. (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision. (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. x x x.9 (Emphasis supplied) In Santos v. Court of Appeals,10 the Court declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.11 It should refer to "no less than a mental, not physical, incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage." 12 The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.13 However, in more recent jurisprudence, we have observed that notwithstanding the guidelines laid down in Molina, there is a need to emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36.14 Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In regard to psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with another case. The trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.15 With the advent of Te v. Te,16 the Court encourages a reexamination of jurisprudential trends on the interpretation of Article 36 although there has been no major deviation or paradigm shift from the Molina doctrine. After a thorough review of the records of the case, we find that there was sufficient compliance with Molina to warrant the annulment of the parties marriage under Article 36. First, petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove the psychological incapacity of her husband. The Solicitor General, in discrediting Dr. Villegas psychiatric report, highlights the lack of personal examination of Rodolfo by said doctor and the doctors reliance on petitioners version of events. In Marcos v. Marcos,17 it was held that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. It should be noted that, apart from her interview with the psychologist, petitioner testified in court on the facts upon which the psychiatric report was based. When a witness testified under oath before the lower court and was cross-examined, she thereby presented evidence in the form of testimony. 18 Significantly, petitioners narration of facts was corroborated in material points by the testimony of a close relative of Rodolfo. Dr. Villegas likewise testified in court to elaborate on her report and fully explain the link between the manifestations of Rodolfos psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. It is a settled principle of civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect from the appellate courts because the trial court had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while giving testimony which may indicate their candor or lack thereof.19 Since the trial court itself accepted the veracity of petitioners factual premises, there is no cause to dispute the conclusion of psychological incapacity drawn therefrom by petitioners expert witness.20 Second, the root cause of Rodolfos psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified, alleged in the petition, sufficiently proven by expert testimony, and clearly explained in the trial courts decision. The petition alleged that from the beginning of their marriage, Rodolfo was not gainfully employed and, despite pleas from petitioner, he could not be persuaded to even attempt to find employment; that from the choice of the family abode to the couples daily sustenance, Rodolfo relied on his mother; and that the couples inadequate sexual relations and Rodolfos refusal to have a child stemmed from a psychological condition linked to his relationship to his mother.1avvphi1 These manifestations of incapacity to comply or assume his marital obligations were linked to medical or clinical causes by an expert witness with more than forty years experience from the field of psychology in general and psychological incapacity, in particular. In a portion of her psychiatric evaluation, Dr. Villegas elucidated the psychodynamics of the case of petitioner and Rodolfo, thus: Marietta is the eldest of 5 siblings, whose parents has very limited education. Being the eldest, she is expected to be the role model of younger siblings. In so doing, she has been restricted and physically punished, in order to tow the line. But on the other hand, she developed growing resentments towards her father and promised herself that with the first opportunity, shell get out of the family. When Rodolfo came along, they were married 1 months after they met, without really knowing anything about him. Her obsession to leave her family was her primary reason at that time and she did not exercise good judgment in her decision making in marriage. During their 4 years marital relationship, she came to realize that Rodolfo cannot be responsible in his duties and responsibilities, in terms of loving, caring, protection, financial support and sex. On the other hand, Rodolfo is the 3rd among 5 boys. The father, who was perceived to be weak, and his two elder brothers were all working as seaman. Rodolfo who was always available to his mothers needs, became an easy prey, easily engulfed into her system. The relationship became symbiotic, that led to a prolonged and abnormal dependence to his mother. The mother, being the stronger and dominant parent, is a convenient role model, but the reversal of roles became confusing that led to ambivalence of his identity and grave dependency. Apparently, all the boys were hooked up to his complexities, producing so much doubts in their capabilities in a heterosexual setting. Specifically, Rodolfo tried, but failed. His inhibitions in a sexual relationship, is referable to an unconscious guilt feelings of defying the mothers love. At this point, he has difficulty in delineating between the wife and the mother, so that his continuous relationship with his wife produces considerable anxiety, which he is unable to handle, and crippled him psychologically. Based on the above clinical data, family background and outcome of their marriage, it is the opinion of the examiner, that Mrs. Marietta Cruz-Azcueta is mature, independent and responsible and is psychologically capacitated to perform the duties and obligations of marriage. Due to her numerous personal problems she has difficulty in handling her considerable anxiety, at present. There are strong clinical evidences that Mr. Rodolfo Azcueta is suffering from a Dependent Personality Disorder associated with severe inadequacy that renders him psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. The root cause of the above clinical condition is due to a strong and prolonged dependence with a parent of the opposite sex, to a period when it becomes no longer appropriate. This situation crippled his psychological functioning related to sex, self confidence, independence, responsibility and maturity. It existed prior to marriage, but became manifest only after the celebration due to marital stresses and demands. It is considered as permanent and incurable in nature, because it started early in his life and therefore became so deeply ingrained into his personality structure. It is severe or grave in degree, because it hampered and interfered with his normal functioning related to heterosexual adjustment. 21 These findings were reiterated and further explained by Dr. Villegas during her testimony, the relevant portion of which we quote below: xxx xxx xxx Q: Now, Madame Witness, after examining the petitioner, what was your psychological evaluation? A: Ive found the petitioner in this case, Mrs. Marietta Azcueta as matured, independent, very responsible, focused, she has direction and ambition in life and she work hard for what she wanted, maam, and therefore, I concluded that she is psychologically capacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of the marriage, maam. Q: How about the respondent, Madame Witness, what was your psychological evaluation with regards to the respondent?

A: Based on my interview, Ive found out that the husband Mr. Rodolfo Azcueta is psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage suffering from a psychiatric classification as Dependent Personality Disorder associated with severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings, maam. Q: In laymans language, Madame Witness, can you please explain to us what do you mean by Dependent Personality Disorder? A: Dependent Personality Disorder are (sic) those persons in which their response to ordinary way of life are ineffectual and inept characterized by loss of self confidence, always in doubt with himself and inability to make his own decision, quite dependent on other people, and in this case, on his mother, maam. Q: And do you consider this, Madame Witness, as a psychological problem of respondent, Rodolfo Azcueta? A: Very much, maam. Q: Why? A: Because it will always interfered, hampered and disrupt his duties and responsibilities as a husband and as a father, maam. Q: And can you please tell us, Madame Witness, what is the root cause of this psychological problem? A: The root cause of this psychological problem is a cross identification with the mother who is the dominant figure in the family, the mother has the last say and the authority in the family while the father was a seaman and always out of the house, and if present is very shy, quiet and he himself has been very submissive and passive to the authority of the wife, maam. Q: And can you please tell us, Madame Witness, under what circumstance this kind of psychological problem manifested? A: This manifested starting his personality development and therefore, during his early stages in life, maam. Q: So, you mean to say, Madame Witness, this kind of problem existed to Rodolfo Azcueta, the respondent in this case, before the celebration of the marriage? A: Yes, maam. Q: And it became manifested only after the celebration of the marriage? A: Yes, maam. Q: And can you please tell us the reason why it became manifested with thethat the manifestation came too late? A: The manifestation came too late because the history of Mr. Rodolfo Azcueta was very mild, no stresses, no demand on his life, at 24 years old despite the fact that he already finished college degree of Computer Science, there is no demand on himself at least to establish his own, and the mother always would make the decision for him, maam. Q: Okay, Madame Witness, is this kind of psychological problem severe? A: Yes maam. Q: Why do you consider this psychological problem severe, Madame Witness? A: Because he will not be able to make and to carry on the responsibility that is expected of a married person, maam. Q: Is it incurable, Madame Witness? A: It is incurable because it started early in development and therefore it became so deeply ingrained into his personality, and therefore, it cannot be changed nor cured at this stage, maam. Q: So, you mean to say, Madame Witness, that it is Permanent? A: It is permanent in nature, sir. Q: And last question as an expert witness, what is the effect of the psychological problem as far as the marriage relationship of Rodolfo Azcueta is concerned? A: The effect of this will really be a turbulent marriage relationship because standard expectation is, the husband has to work, to feed, to protect, to love, and of course, to function on (sic) the sexual duties of a husband to the wife, but in this case, early in their marriage, they had only according to the wife, experienced once sexual relationship every month and this is due to the fact that because husband was so closely attached to the mother, it is a result of the unconscious guilt feeling of the husband in defying the mothers love when they will be having heterosexual relationship and therefore, at that point, he will not be able to distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore, sex relationship will not be satisfactory according to expectation, maam.22 In Te v. Te, we held that "[b]y the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties." 23 Based on the totality of the evidence, the trial court clearly explained the basis for its decision, which we reproduce here for emphasis: With the preponderant evidence presented by the petitioner, the court finds that respondent totally failed in his commitments and obligations as a husband. Respondents emotional immaturity and irresponsibility is grave and he has no showing of improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse with the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt felling of having sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected. The respondent is suffering from dependent personality disorder and therefore cannot make his own decision and cannot carry on his responsibilities as a husband. The marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect, support was not fulfilled by the respondent. Considering the totality of evidence of the petitioner clearly show that respondent failed to comply with his marital obligations.

Thus the marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared null and void on the account of respondents severe and incurable psychological incapacity. Third, Rodolfos psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage. Contrary to the CAs finding that the parties lived harmoniously and independently in the first few years of marriage, witnesses were united in testifying that from inception of the marriage, Rodolfos irresponsibility, overdependence on his mother and abnormal sexual reticence were already evident. To be sure, these manifestations of Rodolfos dependent personality disorder must have existed even prior to the marriage being rooted in his early development and a by product of his upbringing and family life. Fourth, Rodolfos psychological incapacity has been shown to be sufficiently grave, so as to render him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The Court is wary of the CAs bases for overturning factual findings of the trial court on this point. The CAs reasoning that Rodolfos requests for financial assistance from his mother might have been due to his embarrassment for failing to contribute to the family coffers and that his motive for not wanting a child was his "responsible" realization that he should not have a child since he is unemployed are all purely speculative. There is no evidence on record to support these views. Again, we must point out that appellate courts should not substitute their discretion with that of the trial court or the expert witnesses, save only in instance where the findings of the trial court or the experts are contradicted by evidence. We likewise cannot agree with the CA that Rodolfos irresponsibility and overdependence on his mother can be attributed to his immaturity or youth. We cannot overlook the fact that at the time of his marriage to petitioner, he was nearly 29 years old or the fact that the expert testimony has identified a grave clinical or medical cause for his abnormal behavior. In Te, the Court has had the occasion to expound on the nature of a dependent personality disorder and how one afflicted with such a disorder would be incapacitated from complying with marital obligations, to wit: Indeed, petitioner, who is afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others, allows others to make most of his important decisions (such as where to live), tends to agree with people even when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on his own, volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. As clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life.24 Of course, this is not to say that anyone diagnosed with dependent personality disorder is automatically deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply with the obligations of marriage. We realize that psychology is by no means an exact science and the medical cases of patients, even though suffering from the same disorder, may be different in their symptoms or manifestations and in the degree of severity. It is the duty of the court in its evaluation of the facts, as guided by expert opinion, to carefully scrutinize the type of disorder and the gravity of the same before declaring the nullity of a marriage under Article 36. Fifth, Rodolfo is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. 25 As noted by the trial court, as a result of Rodolfos dependent personality disorder, he cannot make his own decisions and cannot fulfill his responsibilities as a husband. Rodolfo plainly failed to fulfill the marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect, support under Article 68. Indeed, one who is unable to support himself, much less a wife; one who cannot independently make decisions regarding even the most basic and ordinary matters that spouses face everyday; one who cannot contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations within the meaning of Article 36. Sixth, the incurability of Rodolfos condition which has been deeply ingrained in his system since his early years was supported by evidence and duly explained by the expert witness. At this point, the Court is not unmindful of the sometimes peculiar predicament it finds itself in those instances when it is tasked to interpret static statutes formulated in a particular point in time and apply them to situations and people in a society in flux. With respect to the concept of psychological incapacity, courts must take into account not only developments in science and medicine but also changing social and cultural mores, including the blurring of traditional gender roles. In this day and age, women have taken on increasingly important roles in the financial and material support of their families. This, however, does not change the ideal that the family should be an "autonomous" social institution, wherein the spouses cooperate and are equally responsible for the support and well-being of the family. In the case at bar, the spouses from the outset failed to form themselves into a family, a cohesive unit based on mutual love, respect and support, due to the failure of one to perform the essential duties of marriage. This brings to mind the following pronouncement in Te: In dissolving marital bonds on account of either partys psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction, and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage. 26 (emphasis ours) In all, we agree with the trial court that the declaration of nullity of the parties marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code is proper under the premises. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated July 19, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City in Civil Case No. 02-6428 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice Chairperson ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERASMIN Associate Justice CERTIFICATION RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

G.R. No. 165842 November 29, 2005 EDUARDO P. MANUEL, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 26877, affirming the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 3, convicting Eduardo P. Manuel of bigamy in Criminal Case No. 19562-R. Eduardo was charged with bigamy in an Information filed on November 7, 2001, the accusatory portion of which reads: That on or about the 22nd day of April, 1996, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused EDUARDO P. MANUEL, being then previously and legally married to RUBYLUS [GAA] and without the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with TINA GANDALERA-MANUEL, herein complainant, who does not know the existence of the first marriage of said EDUARDO P. MANUEL to Rubylus [Gaa]. CONTRARY TO LAW. 3 The prosecution adduced evidence that on July 28, 1975, Eduardo was married to Rubylus Gaa before Msgr. Feliciano Santos in Makati, which was then still a municipality of the Province of Rizal.4 He met the private complainant Tina B. Gandalera in Dagupan City sometime in January 1996. She stayed in Bonuan, Dagupan City for two days looking for a friend. Tina was then 21 years old, a Computer Secretarial student, while Eduardo was 39. Afterwards, Eduardo went to Baguio City to visit her. Eventually, as one thing led to another, they went to a motel where, despite Tinas resistance, Eduardo succeeded in having his way with her. Eduardo proposed marriage on several occasions, assuring her that he was single. Eduardo even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Tinas parents, and was assured by them that their son was still single. Tina finally agreed to marry Eduardo sometime in the first week of March 1996. They were married on April 22, 1996 before Judge Antonio C. Reyes, the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 61. 5 It appeared in their marriage contract that Eduardo was "single."

The couple was happy during the first three years of their married life. Through their joint efforts, they were able to build their home in Cypress Point, Irisan, Baguio City. However, starting 1999, Manuel started making himself scarce and went to their house only twice or thrice a year. Tina was jobless, and whenever she asked money from Eduardo, he would slap her. 6 Sometime in January 2001, Eduardo took all his clothes, left, and did not return. Worse, he stopped giving financial support. Sometime in August 2001, Tina became curious and made inquiries from the National Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila where she learned that Eduardo had been previously married. She secured an NSO-certified copy of the marriage contract.7 She was so embarrassed and humiliated when she learned that Eduardo was in fact already married when they exchanged their own vows. 8 For his part, Eduardo testified that he met Tina sometime in 1995 in a bar where she worked as a Guest Relations Officer (GRO). He fell in love with her and married her. He informed Tina of his previous marriage to Rubylus Gaa, but she nevertheless agreed to marry him. Their marital relationship was in order until this one time when he noticed that she had a "love-bite" on her neck. He then abandoned her. Eduardo further testified that he declared he was "single" in his marriage contract with Tina because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid. He did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina. Eduardo further claimed that he was only forced to marry his first wife because she threatened to commit suicide unless he did so. Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned. He visited her in jail after three months and never saw her again. He insisted that he married Tina believing that his first marriage was no longer valid because he had not heard from Rubylus for more than 20 years. After trial, the court rendered judgment on July 2, 2002 finding Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six (6) years and ten (10) months, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum, and directed to indemnify the private complainant Tina Gandalera the amount of P200,000.00 by way of moral damages, plus costs of suit. 9 The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. It declared that Eduardos belief, that his first marriage had been dissolved because of his first wifes 20-year absence, even if true, did not exculpate him from liability for bigamy. Citing the ruling of this Court in People v. Bitdu,10 the trial court further ruled that even if the private complainant had known that Eduardo had been previously married, the latter would still be criminally liable for bigamy. Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA. He alleged that he was not criminally liable for bigamy because when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and without any malicious intent. He maintained that at the time that he married the private complainant, he was of the honest belief that his first marriage no longer subsisted. He insisted that conformably to Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, there must be malice for one to be

criminally liable for a felony. He was not motivated by malice in marrying the private complainant because he did so only out of his overwhelming desire to have a fruitful marriage. He posited that the trial court should have taken into account Article 390 of the New Civil Code. To support his view, the appellant cited the rulings of this Court in United States v. Pealosa11 and Manahan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals.12 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) averred that Eduardos defense of good faith and reliance on the Courts ruling in United States v. Enriquez13 were misplaced; what is applicable is Article 41 of the Family Code, which amended Article 390 of the Civil Code. Citing the ruling of this Court in Republic v. Nolasco,14 the OSG further posited that as provided in Article 41 of the Family Code, there is a need for a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse to enable the present spouse to marry. Even assuming that the first marriage was void, the parties thereto should not be permitted to judge for themselves the nullity of the marriage; the matter should be submitted to the proper court for resolution. Moreover, the OSG maintained, the private complainants knowledge of the first marriage would not afford any relief since bigamy is an offense against the State and not just against the private complainant. However, the OSG agreed with the appellant that the penalty imposed by the trial court was erroneous and sought the affirmance of the decision appealed from with modification. On June 18, 2004, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC with modification as to the penalty of the accused. It ruled that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of bigamy. Contrary to the contention of the appellant, Article 41 of the Family Code should apply. Before Manuel could lawfully marry the private complainant, there should have been a judicial declaration of Gaas presumptive death as the absent spouse. The appellate court cited the rulings of this Court in Mercado v. Tan15 and Domingo v. Court of Appeals16 to support its ruling. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Decision promulgated on July 31, 2002 is hereby MODIFIED to reflect, as it hereby reflects, that accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum. Said Decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects. SO ORDERED.17 Eduardo, now the petitioner, filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, insisting that: I THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT PETITIONERS FIRST WIFE CANNOT BE LEGALLY PRESUMED DEAD UNDER ARTICLE 390 OF THE CIVIL CODE AS THERE WAS NO JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLE 41 OF THE FAMILY CODE. II THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE AWARD OF PHP200,000.00 AS MORAL DAMAGES AS IT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW.18 The petitioner maintains that the prosecution failed to prove the second element of the felony, i.e., that the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his/her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead under the Civil Code. He avers that when he married Gandalera in 1996, Gaa had been "absent" for 21 years since 1975; under Article 390 of the Civil Code, she was presumed dead as a matter of law. He points out that, under the first paragraph of Article 390 of the Civil Code, one who has been absent for seven years, whether or not he/she is still alive, shall be presumed dead for all purposes except for succession, while the second paragraph refers to the rule on legal presumption of death with respect to succession. The petitioner asserts that the presumptive death of the absent spouse arises by operation of law upon the satisfaction of two requirements: the specified period and the present spouses reasonable belief that the absentee is dead. He insists that he was able to prove that he had not heard from his first wife since 1975 and that he had no knowledge of her whereabouts or whether she was still alive; hence, under Article 41 of the Family Code, the presumptive death of Gaa had arisen by operation of law, as the two requirements of Article 390 of the Civil Code are present. The petitioner concludes that he should thus be acquitted of the crime of bigamy. The petitioner insists that except for the period of absences provided for in Article 390 of the Civil Code, the rule therein on legal presumptions remains valid and effective. Nowhere under Article 390 of the Civil Code does it require that there must first be a judicial declaration of death before the rule on presumptive death would apply. He further asserts that contrary to the rulings of the trial and appellate courts, the requirement of a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is only a requirement for the validity of the subsequent or second marriage. The petitioner, likewise, avers that the trial court and the CA erred in awarding moral damages in favor of the private complainant. The private complainant was a "GRO" before he married her, and even knew that he was already married. He genuinely loved and took care of her and gave her financial support. He also pointed out that she had an illicit relationship with a lover whom she brought to their house. In its comment on the petition, the OSG maintains that the decision of the CA affirming the petitioners conviction is in accord with the law, jurisprudence and the evidence on record. To bolster its claim, the OSG cited the ruling of this Court in Republic v. Nolasco.19 The petition is denied for lack of merit. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes bigamy, reads: Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. The provision was taken from Article 486 of the Spanish Penal Code, to wit: El que contrajere Segundo o ulterior matrimonio sin hallarse legtimamente disuelto el anterior, ser castigado con la pena de prision mayor. xxx The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the juridical tie of marriage established by law. 20 The phrase "or before the absent spouse had been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings" was incorporated in the Revised Penal Code because the drafters of the law were of the impression that "in consonance with the civil law which provides for the presumption of death after an absence of a number of years, the judicial declaration of presumed death like annulment of marriage should be a justification for bigamy."21 For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the prosecution is burdened to prove the felony: (a) he/she has been legally married; and (b) he/she contracts a subsequent marriage without the former marriage having been lawfully dissolved. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage.22 It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. 23 Viada avers that a third element of the crime is that the second marriage must be entered into with fraudulent intent (intencion fraudulente) which is an essential element of a felony by dolo.24 On the other hand, Cuello Calon is of the view that there are only two elements of bigamy: (1) the existence of a marriage that has not been lawfully dissolved; and (2) the celebration of a second marriage. It does not matter whether the first marriage is void or voidable because such marriages have juridical effects until

lawfully dissolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.25 As the Court ruled in Domingo v. Court of Appeals26 and Mercado v. Tan,27 under the Family Code of the Philippines, the judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is a defense. In his commentary on the Revised Penal Code, Albert is of the same view as Viada and declared that there are three (3) elements of bigamy: (1) an undissolved marriage; (2) a new marriage; and (3) fraudulent intention constituting the felony of the act. 28 He explained that: This last element is not stated in Article 349, because it is undoubtedly incorporated in the principle antedating all codes, and, constituting one of the landmarks of our Penal Code, that, where there is no willfulness there is no crime. There is no willfulness if the subject believes that the former marriage has been dissolved; and this must be supported by very strong evidence, and if this be produced, the act shall be deemed not to constitute a crime. Thus, a person who contracts a second marriage in the reasonable and well-founded belief that his first wife is dead, because of the many years that have elapsed since he has had any news of her whereabouts, in spite of his endeavors to find her, cannot be deemed guilty of the crime of bigamy, because there is no fraudulent intent which is one of the essential elements of the crime. 29 As gleaned from the Information in the RTC, the petitioner is charged with bigamy, a felony by dolo (deceit). Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. Indeed, a felony cannot exist without intent. Since a felony by dolo is classified as an intentional felony, it is deemed voluntary.30 Although the words "with malice" do not appear in Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, such phrase is included in the word "voluntary."31 Malice is a mental state or condition prompting the doing of an overt act without legal excuse or justification from which another suffers injury.32 When the act or omission defined by law as a felony is proved to have been done or committed by the accused, the law presumes it to have been intentional.33 Indeed, it is a legal presumption of law that every man intends the natural or probable consequence of his voluntary act in the absence of proof to the contrary, and such presumption must prevail unless a reasonable doubt exists from a consideration of the whole evidence. 34 For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil act and an evil intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.35 In the present case, the prosecution proved that the petitioner was married to Gaa in 1975, and such marriage was not judicially declared a nullity; hence, the marriage is presumed to subsist.36 The prosecution also proved that the petitioner married the private complainant in 1996, long after the effectivity of the Family Code. The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he married the private complainant. As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. It was the burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when he married the private complainant in 1996, he was of the well-grounded belief that his first wife was already dead, as he had not heard from her for more than 20 years since 1975. He should have adduced in evidence a decision of a competent court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as required by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. Such judicial declaration also constitutes proof that the petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part when he married the private complainant and, as a consequence, he could not be held guilty of bigamy in such case. The petitioner, however, failed to discharge his burden. The phrase "or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered on the proceedings" in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code was not an aggroupment of empty or useless words. The requirement for a judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse is for the benefit of the spouse present, as protection from the pains and the consequences of a second marriage, precisely because he/she could be charged and convicted of bigamy if the defense of good faith based on mere testimony is found incredible. The requirement of judicial declaration is also for the benefit of the State. Under Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, the "State shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution." Marriage is a social institution of the highest importance. Public policy, good morals and the interest of society require that the marital relation should be surrounded with every safeguard and its severance only in the manner prescribed and the causes specified by law.37 The laws regulating civil marriages are necessary to serve the interest, safety, good order, comfort or general welfare of the community and the parties can waive nothing essential to the validity of the proceedings. A civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones; it enhances the welfare of the community. In a real sense, there are three parties to every civil marriage; two willing spouses and an approving State. On marriage, the parties assume new relations to each other and the State touching nearly on every aspect of life and death. The consequences of an invalid marriage to the parties, to innocent parties and to society, are so serious that the law may well take means calculated to ensure the procurement of the most positive evidence of death of the first spouse or of the presumptive death of the absent spouse38 after the lapse of the period provided for under the law. One such means is the requirement of the declaration by a competent court of the presumptive death of an absent spouse as proof that the present spouse contracts a subsequent marriage on a well-grounded belief of the death of the first spouse. Indeed, "men readily believe what they wish to be true," is a maxim of the old jurists. To sustain a second marriage and to vacate a first because one of the parties believed the other to be dead would make the existence of the marital relation determinable, not by certain extrinsic facts, easily capable of forensic ascertainment and proof, but by the subjective condition of individuals.39 Only with such proof can marriage be treated as so dissolved as to permit second marriages. 40 Thus, Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code has made the dissolution of marriage dependent not only upon the personal belief of parties, but upon certain objective facts easily capable of accurate judicial cognizance,41 namely, a judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse. The petitioners sole reliance on Article 390 of the Civil Code as basis for his acquittal for bigamy is misplaced. Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code provide Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not, the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. Art. 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane; (2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years; (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years. The presumption of death of the spouse who had been absent for seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, is created by law and arises without any necessity of judicial declaration.42 However, Article 41 of the Family Code, which amended the foregoing rules on presumptive death, reads: Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent

spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Court for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.43 With the effectivity of the Family Code,44 the period of seven years under the first paragraph of Article 390 of the Civil Code was reduced to four consecutive years. Thus, before the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage, he or she must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse,45 without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absentee spouse. As explained by this Court in Armas v. Calisterio:46 In contrast, under the 1988 Family Code, in order that a subsequent bigamous marriage may exceptionally be considered valid, the following conditions must concur, viz.: (a) The prior spouse of the contracting party must have been absent for four consecutive years, or two years where there is danger of death under the circumstances stated in Article 391 of the Civil Code at the time of disappearance; (b) the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c) there is, unlike the old rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present can institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that declaration. The last condition is consistent and in consonance with the requirement of judicial intervention in subsequent marriages as so provided in Article 41, in relation to Article 40, of the Family Code. The Court rejects petitioners contention that the requirement of instituting a petition for declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code is designed merely to enable the spouse present to contract a valid second marriage and not for the acquittal of one charged with bigamy. Such provision was designed to harmonize civil law and Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and put to rest the confusion spawned by the rulings of this Court and comments of eminent authorities on Criminal Law. As early as March 6, 1937, this Court ruled in Jones v. Hortiguela47 that, for purposes of the marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee before the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage. It held that the declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the celebration of the marriage. 48 In In Re Szatraw,49 the Court declared that a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead, because he or she had been unheard from in seven years, being a presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final; and that proof of actual death of the person presumed dead being unheard from in seven years, would have to be made in another proceeding to have such particular fact finally determined. The Court ruled that if a judicial decree declaring a person presumptively dead because he or she had not been heard from in seven years cannot become final and executory even after the lapse of the reglementary period within which an appeal may be taken, for such presumption is still disputable and remains subject to contrary proof, then a petition for such a declaration is useless, unnecessary, superfluous and of no benefit to the petitioner. The Court stated that it should not waste its valuable time and be made to perform a superfluous and meaningless act.50 The Court also took note that a petition for a declaration of the presumptive death of an absent spouse may even be made in collusion with the other spouse. In Lukban v. Republic of the Philippines,51 the Court declared that the words "proper proceedings" in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code can only refer to those authorized by law such as Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code which refer to the administration or settlement of the estate of a deceased person. In Gue v. Republic of the Philippines,52 the Court rejected the contention of the petitioner therein that, under Article 390 of the Civil Code, the courts are authorized to declare the presumptive death of a person after an absence of seven years. The Court reiterated its rulings in Szatraw, Lukban and Jones. Former Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino was of the view that "the provision of Article 349 or "before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment reached in the proper proceedings" is erroneous and should be considered as not written. He opined that such provision presupposes that, if the prior marriage has not been legally dissolved and the absent first spouse has not been declared presumptively dead in a proper court proceedings, the subsequent marriage is bigamous. He maintains that the supposition is not true. 53 A second marriage is bigamous only when the circumstances in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 83 of the Civil Code are not present. 54 Former Senator Ambrosio Padilla was, likewise, of the view that Article 349 seems to require judicial decree of dissolution or judicial declaration of absence but even with such decree, a second marriage in good faith will not constitute bigamy. He posits that a second marriage, if not illegal, even if it be annullable, should not give rise to bigamy.55 Former Justice Luis B. Reyes, on the other hand, was of the view that in the case of an absent spouse who could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code, the spouse present cannot be charged and convicted of bigamy in case he/she contracts a second marriage.56 The Committee tasked to prepare the Family Code proposed the amendments of Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code to conform to Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in that, in a case where a spouse is absent for the requisite period, the present spouse may contract a subsequent marriage only after securing a judgment declaring the presumptive death of the absent spouse to avoid being charged and convicted of bigamy; the present spouse will have to adduce evidence that he had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. 57 Such judgment is proof of the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a subsequent marriage; thus, even if the present spouse is later charged with bigamy if the absentee spouse reappears, he cannot be convicted of the crime. As explained by former Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy: Such rulings, however, conflict with Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code providing that the present spouse must first ask for a declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse in order not to be guilty of bigamy in case he or she marries again. The above Article of the Family Code now clearly provides that for the purpose of the present spouse contracting a second marriage, he or she must file a summary proceeding as provided in the Code for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the latters reappearance. This provision is intended to protect the present spouse from a criminal prosecution for bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code because with the judicial declaration that the missing spouses presumptively dead, the good faith of the present spouse in contracting a second marriage is already established.58 Of the same view is former Dean Ernesto L. Pineda (now Undersecretary of Justice) who wrote that things are now clarified. He says judicial declaration of presumptive death is now authorized for purposes of remarriage. The present spouse must institute a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, where the ordinary rules of procedure in trial will not be followed. Affidavits will suffice, with possible clarificatory examinations of affiants if the Judge finds it necessary for a full grasp of the facts. The judgment declaring an absentee as presumptively dead is without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the said absentee. Dean Pineda further states that before, the weight of authority is that the clause "before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead x x x" should be disregarded because of Article 83, paragraph 3 of the Civil Code. With the new law, there is a need to institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee, otherwise, there is bigamy. 59 According to Retired Supreme Court Justice Florenz D. Regalado, an eminent authority on Criminal Law, in some cases where an absentee spouse is believed to be dead, there must be a judicial declaration of presumptive death, which could then be made only in the proceedings for the settlement of his estate.60 Before such declaration, it was held that the remarriage of the other spouse is bigamous even if done in good faith. 61 Justice Regalado opined that there were contrary views because of the ruling in Jones and the provisions of Article 83(2) of the Civil Code, which, however, appears to have been set to rest by Article 41 of the Family Code, "which requires a summary hearing for the declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse before the other spouse can remarry." Under Article 238 of the Family Code, a petition for a declaration of the presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code may be filed under Articles 239 to 247 of the same Code. 62 On the second issue, the petitioner, likewise, faults the trial court and the CA for awarding moral damages in favor of the private complainant. The petitioner maintains that moral damages may be awarded only in any of the cases provided in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, and bigamy is not one of

them. The petitioner asserts that the appellate court failed to apply its ruling in People v. Bondoc,63 where an award of moral damages for bigamy was disallowed. In any case, the petitioner maintains, the private complainant failed to adduce evidence to prove moral damages. The appellate court awarded moral damages to the private complainant on its finding that she adduced evidence to prove the same. The appellate court ruled that while bigamy is not included in those cases enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, it is not proscribed from awarding moral damages against the petitioner. The appellate court ruled that it is not bound by the following ruling in People v. Bondoc: ... Pero si en dichos asuntos se adjudicaron daos, ello se debi indedublamente porque el articulo 2219 del Cdigo Civil de Filipinas autoriza la adjudicacin de daos morales en los delitos de estupro, rapto, violacin, adulterio o concubinato, y otros actos lascivos, sin incluir en esta enumeracin el delito de bigamia. No existe, por consiguiente, base legal para adjudicar aqu los daos de P5,000.00 arriba mencionados. 64 The OSG posits that the findings and ruling of the CA are based on the evidence and the law. The OSG, likewise, avers that the CA was not bound by its ruling in People v. Rodeo. The Court rules against the petitioner. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission.65 An award for moral damages requires the confluence of the following conditions: first, there must be an injury, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly sustained by the claimant; second, there must be culpable act or omission factually established; third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 or Article 2220 of the Civil Code. 66 Moral damages may be awarded in favor of the offended party only in criminal cases enumerated in Article 2219, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Civil Code and analogous cases, viz.: Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases. (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35. The parents of the female seduced, abducted, raped, or abused, referred to in No. 3 of this article, may also recover moral damages. The spouse, descendants, ascendants, and brothers and sisters may bring the action mentioned in No. 9 of this article in the order named. Thus, the law does not intend that moral damages should be awarded in all cases where the aggrieved party has suffered mental anguish, fright, moral anxieties, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury arising out of an act or omission of another, otherwise, there would not have been any reason for the inclusion of specific acts in Article 2219 67 and analogous cases (which refer to those cases bearing analogy or resemblance, corresponds to some others or resembling, in other respects, as in form, proportion, relation, etc.)68 Indeed, bigamy is not one of those specifically mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil Code in which the offender may be ordered to pay moral damages to the private complainant/offended party. Nevertheless, the petitioner is liable to the private complainant for moral damages under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. According to Article 19, "every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith." This provision contains what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, and sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the performance of ones duties. The standards are the following: act with justice; give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good faith. The elements for abuse of rights are: (a) there is a legal right or duty; (b) exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.69 Article 20 speaks of the general sanctions of all other provisions of law which do not especially provide for its own sanction. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform to the standards set forth in the said provision and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible.70 If the provision does not provide a remedy for its violation, an action for damages under either Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code would be proper. Article 20 provides that "every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same." On the other hand, Article 21 provides that "any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages." The latter provision is adopted to remedy "the countless gaps in the statutes which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury should vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for that untold number of moral wrongs which it is impossible for human foresight to prove for specifically in the statutes." Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code or other applicable provisions of law depends upon the circumstances of each case. 71 In the present case, the petitioner courted the private complainant and proposed to marry her. He assured her that he was single. He even brought his parents to the house of the private complainant where he and his parents made the same assurance that he was single. Thus, the private complainant agreed to marry the petitioner, who even stated in the certificate of marriage that he was single. She lived with the petitioner and dutifully performed her duties as his wife, believing all the while that he was her lawful husband. For two years or so until the petitioner heartlessly abandoned her, the private complainant had no inkling that he was already married to another before they were married. Thus, the private complainant was an innocent victim of the petitioners chicanery and heartless deception, the fraud consisting not of a single act alone, but a continuous series of acts. Day by day, he maintained the appearance of being a lawful husband to the private complainant, who changed her status from a single woman to a married woman, lost the consortium, attributes and support of a single man she could have married lawfully and endured mental pain and humiliation, being bound to a man who it turned out was not her lawful husband. 72

The Court rules that the petitioners collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and after his marriage with the private complainant were willful, deliberate and with malice and caused injury to the latter. That she did not sustain any physical injuries is not a bar to an award for moral damages. Indeed, in Morris v. Macnab,73 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled: xxx The defendant cites authorities which indicate that, absent physical injuries, damages for shame, humiliation, and mental anguish are not recoverable where the actor is simply negligent. See Prosser, supra, at p. 180; 2 Harper & James, Torts, 1031 (1956). But the authorities all recognize that where the wrong is willful rather than negligent, recovery may be had for the ordinary, natural, and proximate consequences though they consist of shame, humiliation, and mental anguish. See Spiegel v. Evergreen Cemetery Co., 117 NJL 90, 94, 186 A 585 (Sup. Ct. 1936); Kuzma v. Millinery Workers, etc., Local 24, 27 N.J. Super, 579, 591, 99 A.2d 833 (App. Div. 1953); Prosser, supra, at p. 38. Here the defendants conduct was not merely negligent, but was willfully and maliciously wrongful. It was bound to result in shame, humiliation, and mental anguish for the plaintiff, and when such result did ensue the plaintiff became entitled not only to compensatory but also to punitive damages. See Spiegel v. Evergreen Cemetery Co., supra; Kuzma v Millinery Workers, etc., Local 24, supra. CF. Note, "Exemplary Damages in the Law of Torts," 70 Harv. L. Rev. 517 (1957). The plaintiff testified that because of the defendants bigamous marriage to her and the attendant publicity she not only was embarrassed and "ashamed to go out" but "couldnt sleep" but "couldnt eat," had terrific headaches" and "lost quite a lot of weight." No just basis appears for judicial interference with the jurys reasonable allowance of $1,000 punitive damages on the first count. See Cabakov v. Thatcher, 37 N.J. Super 249, 117 A.2d 298 (App. Div. 74 1955). The Court thus declares that the petitioners acts are against public policy as they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution, good morals and the interest and general welfare of society. Because the private complainant was an innocent victim of the petitioners perfidy, she is not barred from claiming moral damages. Besides, even considerations of public policy would not prevent her from recovery. As held in Jekshewitz v. Groswald:75 Where a person is induced by the fraudulent representation of another to do an act which, in consequence of such misrepresentation, he believes to be neither illegal nor immoral, but which is in fact a criminal offense, he has a right of action against the person so inducing him for damages sustained by him in consequence of his having done such act. Burrows v. Rhodes, [1899] 1 Q.B. 816. In Cooper v. Cooper, 147 Mass. 370, 17 N.E. 892, 9 Am. St. Rep. 721, the court said that a false representation by the defendant that he was divorced from his former wife, whereby the plaintiff was induced to marry him, gave her a remedy in tort for deceit. It seems to have been assumed that the fact that she had unintentionally violated the law or innocently committed a crime by cohabiting with him would be no bar to the action, but rather that it might be a ground for enhancing her damages. The injury to the plaintiff was said to be in her being led by the promise to give the fellowship and assistance of a wife to one who was not her husband and to assume and act in a relation and condition that proved to be false and ignominious. Damages for such an injury were held to be recoverable in Sherman v. Rawson, 102 Mass. 395 and Kelley v. Riley, 106 Mass. 339, 343, 8 Am. Rep. 336. Furthermore, in the case at bar the plaintiff does not base her cause of action upon any transgression of the law by herself but upon the defendants misrepresentation. The criminal relations which followed, innocently on her part, were but one of the incidental results of the defendants fraud for which damages may be assessed. [7] Actions for deceit for fraudulently inducing a woman to enter into the marriage relation have been maintained in other jurisdictions. Sears v. Wegner, 150 Mich. 388, 114 N.W. 224, 17 L.R. A. (N.S.) 819; Larson v. McMillan, 99 Wash. 626, 170 P. 324; Blossom v. Barrett, 37 N.Y. 434, 97 Am. Dec. 747; Morril v. Palmer, 68 Vt. 1, 33 A. 829, 33 L.R.A. 411. Considerations of public policy would not prevent recovery where the circumstances are such that the plaintiff was conscious of no moral turpitude, that her illegal action was induced solely by the defendants misrepresentation, and that she does not base her cause of action upon any transgression of the law by herself. Such considerations distinguish this case from cases in which the court has refused to lend its aid to the enforcement of a contract illegal on its face or to one who has consciously and voluntarily become a party to an illegal act upon which the cause of action is founded. Szadiwicz v. Cantor, 257 Mass. 518, 520, 154 N.E. 251, 49 A. L. R. 958.76 Considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the Court finds the award of P200,000.00 for moral damages to be just and reasonable. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice Chairman MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice Associate Justice On leave MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice Chairman, Second Division CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairmans Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. Chief Justice

G.R. No. 161062

July 31, 2009

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. FERVENTINO U. TANGO, Respondent. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 dated November 28, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76387 which denied the Republics appeal from the Order2 dated July 23, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao City, Branch 11 in Special Proceeding No. 357. The trial court had declared the wife of respondent Ferventino U. Tango (Ferventino), Maria Jose Villarba (Maria), presumptively dead under Article 413 of the Family Code. The present controversy arose from the following facts: On March 9, 1987, Ferventino and Maria were married4 in civil rites before then Mayor Ignacio Bunye of Muntinlupa City. None of Marias relatives witnessed the ceremony as they were opposed to her relationship with Ferventino. The two had only spent a night together and had been intimate once when Maria told Ferventino that she and her family will soon be leaving for the United States of America (USA). Maria assured Ferventino, however, that she will file a petition so he can live with her in the USA. In the event that said petition is denied, she promised to return to the Philippines to live with him. On March 13, 1987, Maria and her family flew to Seattle, USA. Ferventino alleges that Maria kept in touch for a year before she stopped responding to his letters. Out of resentment, he burned all the letters Maria wrote him. He claims to have forgotten her address since. Ferventino recounts the efforts he made to find Maria. Upon inquiry from the latters uncle, Antonio Ledesma, in Las Pias, Ferventino learned that even Marias relatives were unaware of her whereabouts. He also solicited the assistance of a friend in Texas, Capt. Luis Aris of the U.S. Air Force, but to no avail. Finally, he sought the aid of his parents Antonio and Eusebia in Los Angeles, and his aunt Anita Castro-Mayor in Seattle. Like, Ledesma though, their attempts to find Maria proved fruitless. The next 14 years went by without any news of Maria. On the belief that his wife had died, Ferventino filed a verified petition5 dated October 1, 2001 before the Ligao City RTC for the declaration of presumptive death of Maria within the contemplation of Article 41 of the Family Code. When the case was called for initial hearing on January 8, 2002, nobody entered any opposition. On July 22, 2002, Ferventino presented evidence ex parte and testified in court about the details of his search. On July 23, 2002, Branch 11 of the Ligao City RTC issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, declaring MARIA JOSE V. VILLARBA, wife of FERVENTINO U. TANGO, presumptively dead within the meaning of Article 41 of the Family Code. SO ORDERED. 6 This prompted the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the Republic, to file a Notice of Appeal. 7 Acting thereon, Presiding Judge Romulo SG. Villanueva of the Ligao City RTC had the records of the case transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, treating the case as an ordinary appealed case under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, affirmed the RTCs Order. It held that Marias absence for 14 years without information about her location despite diligent search by Ferventino was sufficient to support a well-founded belief of her death. The appellate court observed that neither the OSG nor the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor objected to the evidence which Ferventino presented on trial. It noted, in particular, that the OSG did not dispute the adequacy of Ferventinos basis to engender a well-founded belief that Maria is dead. Hence, in a Decision dated November 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals denied the Republics appeal in this tenor: WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the July 23, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, Branch 11 in Spec. Proc. No. 357 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.8 Before us, petitioner anchors this petition for review on certiorari on the following two grounds: I. THE TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT ON THE ALLEGED EFFORTS MADE BY HIS FRIEND AND RELATIVES IN LOCATING HIS MISSING WIFE IN SEATTLE, UNITED STATES, IS HEARSAY AND DEVOID OF PROBATIVE VALUE[; AND] II. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE AFORESAID TESTIMONY MAY BE CONSIDERED IN EVIDENCE, THE ALLEGED EFFORTS OF RESPONDENTS FRIEND AND RELATIVES IN LOCATING HIS MISSING WIFE IN SEATTLE, UNITED STATES, DO NOT SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORT A "WELLFOUNDED BELIEF" THAT RESPONDENTS ABSENT SPOUSE IS PROBABLY DEAD.9 Unadorned, the issues for our determination are: (1) whether the testimony of respondent Ferventino is hearsay; and (2) whether respondent Ferventino has established a basis to form a well-founded belief that his absent spouse is already dead.

The Republic, through the OSG, contests the appellate courts holding that the absence of respondents wife Maria for 14 years provides sufficient basis to entertain a well-founded belief that she is dead. The OSG discounts respondents testimony, on the steps he took to find Maria, as hearsay because none of the persons who purportedly helped in his search testified in court. Notably, the OSG observes that only Capt. Aris gave a detailed account of his efforts to track down Maria. According to Capt. Aris, he went over the Seattle phone directory for Marias name and inquired about her from the registrars office in Seattle, but both efforts proved to be in vain. The OSG belittles its failure to object to the admissibility of respondents testimony during trial. Instead, it invokes Constitutional provisions that advocate the state policy of preserving marital institutions. On March 16, 2007, respondents counsel, Atty. Richie R. Regala, manifested to this Court his intent to withdraw as counsel for respondent. According to Atty. Regala, he received a letter by which respondent expressed a desire to withdraw from the proceeding. 10 In view of this, the Court issued a Resolution11 on April 21, 2008 which deemed as waived the filing of respondents comment on the petition. Previously, the Court of Appeals had also issued a Resolution12 dated October 15, 2003 submitting the case for decision and ordering its re-raffling for respondents failure to file an appellees brief. In other words, apart from the verified petition for the declaration of presumptive death of Maria dated October 1, 2001, which respondent filed before the Ligao City RTC, he has not submitted any other pleading in connection with the petition. Respondents apparent lack of desire to pursue the proceedings notwithstanding, the Court is inclined to rule against the Republic. This case presents an opportunity for us to settle the rule on appeal of judgments rendered in summary proceedings under the Family Code and accordingly, refine our previous decisions thereon. Article 238 of the Family Code, under Title XI: SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY LAW, establishes the rules that govern summary court proceedings in the Family Code: ART. 238. Until modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this Code requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. In turn, Article 253 of the Family Code specifies the cases covered by the rules in chapters two and three of the same title. It states: ART. 253. The foregoing rules in Chapters 2 and 3 hereof shall likewise govern summary proceedings filed under Articles 41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124 and 217, insofar as they are applicable. (Emphasis supplied.) In plain text, Article 247 in Chapter 2 of the same title reads: ART 247. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory. By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial courts judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. To be sure, even if the Courts original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. 13 From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party may then file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. This is because the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.141avvphi1 In the case before us, petitioner committed a serious procedural lapse when it filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals instead of a petition for certiorari. The RTC equally erred in giving due course to said appeal and ordering the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate court. By no means did the Court of Appeals acquire jurisdiction to review the judgment of the RTC which, by express provision of law, was immediately final and executory. Adding to the confusion, the Court of Appeals entertained the appeal and treated the same as an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. As it were, the Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error when it failed to dismiss the erroneous appeal of the Republic on the ground of lack of jurisdiction because, by express provision of the law, the judgment was not appealable. 15 Before us, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. But, even if petitioner used the correct mode of appeal at this level, the hands of the Court are tied. Without a doubt, the decision of the trial court had long become final. Deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence is the principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. As such, it may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. 16 In light of the foregoing, it would be unnecessary, if not useless, to discuss the issues raised by petitioner. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final on some definite date fixed by law. The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. 17 None of the exceptions obtains here to merit the review sought. WHEREFORE the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO* Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*** Associate Justice ATTESTATION TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO** Associate Justice

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice