TOLENTINO v. PARAS G.R. No. L-43905 May 30, 1983 SERAFIA G. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. HON. EDGARDO L.

PARAS, MARIA CLEMENTE and THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAOMBONG, BULACAN, respondents. Ponente: MELENCIO-HERRERA, J. FACTS: 1. While still married to the petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, (celebrated on July 31, 1943), Amado Tolentino contracted a second marriage with Maria Clemente (defendant) at Paombong, Bulacan, on November 1, 1948. 2. Petitioner charged Amado with Bigamy before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, 3. Amado pleaded guilty and served the prison sentence imposed on him. 4. After serving his sentence, he continued to live with Maria Clemente (respondent) till he died on July 25, 1974. 5. Since Amados death certificate carried Maria Celemente as his surviving spouse, in Special Proceeding no. 1587-M, Serafia (petitioner) sought to correct the name of the surviving spouse to her name. 6. The lower Court dismissed the petition "for lack of the proper requisites under the law" and indicated the need for a more detailed proceeding, 7. Petitioner, then, filed a case against private respondent and the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan, for her declaration as the lawful surviving spouse, and the correction of the death certificate of Amado. 8. Private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss which was granted by the respondent court due to the following reasons: a. the correction of the entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar is not the proper remedy because the issue involved is marital relationship b. the Court has not acquired proper jurisdiction because as prescribed under Art. 108, read together with Art. 412 of the Civil Code publication is needed in a case like this, and up to now, there has been no such publication c. in a sense, the subject matter of this case has been aptly discussed in Special Proceeding No. 1587-M, which this Court has already dismissed, for lack of the proper requisites under the law.

9. Serafia filed a petition for review on certiorari for dismissing her suit to declare her as Amados surviving spouse and the correction of the death certificate. ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is Amados surviving spouse and whether or not her name should be placed on the death certificate instead of private respondent? RULING: Since Amado pleaded guilty of bigamy, it is proof then that the marriage between Amado and the petitioner does exist. This makes the second marriage of Amado with the private respondent null and void and of no force and effect from the very beginning. (No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage.) Therefore, Petitioner is the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado and not the private respondent. Rectification of the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar should be made.