Professional Documents
Culture Documents
26, 2013 691 SCRA 391 These circumstances must be established by clear and positive
Erla
proof. In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these
criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to continue. Only
with evidence showing concurrence of all three requirements can
FACTS:
the presumption of continuity or residence be rebutted, for a
change of residence requires an actual and deliberate
On 20 November 2009, petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy abandonment, and one cannot have two legal residences at the
(CoC) for mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental for the 10 May same time.
2010 elections. She indicated therein her place of birth and
residence as BarangayTugas, Municipality of Baliangao, Misamis
Occidental (Brgy. Tugas). Asserting otherwise, private respondents Moreover, even if these requisites are established by clear and
filed against petitioner a Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel positive proof, the date of acquisition of the domicile of choice, or
the critical date, must also be established to be within at least
the Certificate of Candidacy, in which they argued that she had
falsely represented her place of birth and residence, because she one year prior to the elections using the same standard of
evidence.
was in fact born in San Juan, Metro Manila, and had not totally
abandoned her previous domicile, Dapitan City. To support this
claim, they presented as evidence the certification from the
In the instant case, we find that petitioner failed to establish by clear
Assessors Office of Baliangao that there was no tax declaration
and positive proof that she had resided in Baliangao, Misamis
covering any real property in the name of petitioner located at any Occidental, one year prior to the 10 May 2010 elections.
place in the municipality and the certification from the Civil
Registrar of Baliangao that petitioner had no record of birth in the
civil registry of the municipality. The Petition to Deny Due Course to
or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy remained pending as of the Marriage
1. Classification of Marriages/ Relationships. Parties In
day of the elections, in which petitioner garnered the highest
Interest; NCC;FC;AM 02-11-10 SC
number of votes. On 10 May 2010, the Municipal Board of
Canvassers of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, proclaimed her as
the duly elected municipal mayor. On 04 June 2010, the COMELEC Valid
disqualified petitioner from running for the position of mayor in the Voidable
Municipality of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental on the ground that
petitioner never acquired a new domicile in Baliangao, because she Void
failed to prove her bodily presence at that place, her intention to
Terminable
remain there, and her intention never to return to her domicile of
origin.
Others Classifications
Legal Separation
ISSUE:
W/N petitioner is qualified to run for mayor of Baliangao, Misamis
Occidental on the ground that petitioner is a resident and a
registered voter of the said place .
HELD:
The petitioner is disqualified to run as mayor because she failed to
comply with the one-year residency requirement for local elective
officials. Petitioners uncontroverted domicile of origin is Dapitan
City. The question is whether she was able to establish, through
clear and positive proof, that she had acquired a domicile of choice
in Baliangao, Misamis Occidental, prior to the May 2010 elections.
The approval of the application for registration of petitioner as voter
only shows, at most, that she had met the minimum residency
requirement as a voter. This minimum requirement is different from
that for acquiring a new domicile of choice for the purpose of
running for public office. When it comes to the qualifications for
running for public office, residence is synonymous with
domicile. Accordingly,Nuval v. Guray held as follows:
The term residence as so used, is synonymous with
domicile which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed
place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention.
Separation in Fact
Common Law Relationship
45. Lucas v. Lucas G.R. No. 190710 / Jun. 6, 2011 650 SCRA
667 Mai
Facts: On July 26, 2007, petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas, filed a Petition
to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of
Parties to DNA Testing)2 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 72, Valenzuela City. Petitioner narrated that, sometime in
1967, his mother, Elsie Uy (Elsie), migrated to Manila from Davao
and stayed with a certain "Ate Belen (Belen)" who worked in a
prominent nightspot in Manila. Elsie would oftentimes accompany
Belen to work. On one occasion, Elsie got acquainted with
respondent, Jesus S. Lucas, at Belens workplace, and an intimate
relationship developed between the two. Elsie eventually got
pregnant and, on March 11, 1969, she gave birth to petitioner,
Jesse U. Lucas. The name of petitioners father was not stated in
petitioners certificate of live birth. However, Elsie later on told
petitioner that his father is respondent. On August 1, 1969,
petitioner was baptized at San Isidro Parish, Taft Avenue, Pasay
City. Respondent allegedly extended financial support to Elsie and
petitioner for a period of about two years. When the relationship of
Elsie and respondent ended, Elsie refused to accept respondents
offer of support and decided to raise petitioner on her own. While
petitioner was growing up, Elsie made several attempts to introduce
petitioner to respondent, but all attempts were in vain.
and Hear the Case. The court also directed that the Order be
that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can
published once a week for three consecutive weeks in any
constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases.
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. On September We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court
14, 2007, respondent also filed a Manifestation and Comment on may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party
Petitioners Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case.
must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As
Respondent reiterated that the petition for recognition is adversarial explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a
in nature; hence, he should be served with summons. Respondent party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a
averred that the petition was not in due form and substance
show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine
because petitioner could not have personally known the matters
whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case
that were alleged therein. He argued that DNA testing cannot be
which warrants issuance of a court order for blood
had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to respondent as
testing.371avvphi1
petitioners father.
The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction
Issue: W/N it was necessaryto serve summons on respondent for to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus,
the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case. W/N DNA testing can during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner
be had on the mere allegation that respondent is petitioners father. must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable
possibility of paternity.
Held: No. An action in personam is lodged against a person based
on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing
itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a 2. F.C. Marriage Requirements; Civil Wedding v. Church
person as defendant, but its object is to subject that person's
Wedding; Cert of Civil Registrar;
interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation. A petition
directed against the "thing" itself or the res, which concerns the
status of a person, like a petition for adoption, annulment of
marriage, or correction of entries in the birth certificate, is an action 46. Ty v. CA G.R. No. 127406 / Nov. 27, 2000 346 SCRA 86 in rem.
Joyce B
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the
case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction
on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the
property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law, or (b) as a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and
made effective.
FACTS:
Private respondent married Anna Maria Regina Villanueva in a civil
ceremony on March 29, 1977, in Manila. Then they had a church
wedding on August 27, 1977. However, on August 4, 1980, the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City declared
their marriage null and void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage
license. The church wedding on August 27, 1977, was also
declared null and void ab initio for lack of consent of the parties.
Even before the decree was issued nullifying his marriage to Anna
The herein petition to establish illegitimate filiation is an action in
Maria, private respondent wed Ofelia P. Ty, herein petitioner, on
rem. By the simple filing of the petition to establish illegitimate
April 4, 1979, in ceremonies officiated by the judge of the City Court
filiation before the RTC, which undoubtedly had jurisdiction over the of Pasay. On April 4, 1982, they also had a church wedding in
subject matter of the petition, the latter thereby acquired jurisdiction Makati, Metro Manila.
over the case. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the
On January 3, 1991, private respondent filed a Civil Case 1853-J
proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be
minded to make an objection of any sort to the right sought to be with the RTC of Pasig, Branch 160, praying that his marriage to
petitioner be declared null and void. He alleged that they had no
established.24 Through publication, all interested parties are
marriage license when they got married. He also averred that at the
deemed notified of the petition.
time he married petitioner, he was still married to Anna Maria. He
stated that at the time he married petitioner the decree of nullity of
If at all, service of summons or notice is made to the defendant, it is his marriage to Anna Maria had not been issued. The decree of
not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but merely nullity of his marriage to Anna Maria was rendered only on August
for satisfying the due process requirements.25 This is but proper in 4, 1980, while his civil marriage to petitioner took place on April 4,
order to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his 1979.
interest if he so chooses.26 Hence, failure to serve summons will
not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to try and decide the case.
The Pasig RTC sustained private respondents civil suit and
declared his marriage to herein petitioner null and void ab initio in
At any rate, the CAs view that it would be dangerous to allow a
its decision dated November 4, 1991. Both parties appealed to
DNA testing without corroborative proof is well taken and deserves respondent Court of Appeals. On July 24, 1996, the appellate court
the Courts attention.
affirmed the trial courts decision. It ruled that a judicial declaration
of nullity of the first marriage (to Anna Maria) must first be secured
Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional before a subsequent marriage could be validly contracted.
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still
applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in both the decision and resolution
particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a in not considering the civil effects of the religious ratification which
court may order a compulsory blood test. Courts in various
used the same marriage license.
jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures which
are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found
HELD:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage is void for lack of a valid marriage
license at the time of its celebration
HELD:
YES. From the documents she presented, the marriage license was
issued on September 17,1974, almost one year after the ceremony
took place on November 15, 1973. The ineluctable conclusion is
Likewise, the issue raised by petitioner -- that they appeared before that the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage
a "fixer" who arranged everything for them and who facilitated the license.
ceremony before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the
Gospel of the CDCC Br Chapel -- will not strengthen his posture.
The authority of the officer or clergyman shown to have performed Article 80 of the Civil Code31 (Art. 80. The following marriages shall
be void from the beginning:
a marriage ceremony will be presumed in the absence of any
showing to the contrary.37 Moreover, the solemnizing officer is not
duty-bound to investigate whether or not a marriage license has
been duly and regularly issued by the local civil registrar. All the
solemnizing officer needs to know is that the license has been
issued by the competent official, and it may be presumed from the
issuance of the license that said official has fulfilled the duty to
ascertain whether the contracting parties had fulfilled the
requirements of law.38
xxx
Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of
exceptional character;
49. Cario v. Cario G.R. No. 132529 / Feb. 02, 2001 351 SCRA
On August 4, 1992, Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of
127 ilao
absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on the ground of
psychological incapacity. She points out that the final judgment
FACTS: SPO4 Santiago S. Cario married petitioner Susan Nicdao
rendered by the Regional Trial Court in her favor, in her petitions for Cario on June 20, 1969 whith whom he had two children Sahlee
separation of property and legal separation, and Fernando's
and Sandee Cario. He then married respondent Susan Yee Cario
infliction of physical violence on her which led to the conviction of on November 10, 1992, with whom he cohabited since 1982. He
her husband for slight physical injuries are symptoms of
passed away on November 23, 1992 under the care of Susan Yee,
psychological incapacity. The RTC denied the petition. Petitioner
who spent for his medical and burial expenses. Both petitioner and
Feb 17, 2000. Having been assured that all the required documents
are complied with, Respondent agreed to solemnize the marriage in
his sala in MTC Balatan, CamSur. However, Arroyo informed him
that Orobia (the Husband) has difficulty in walking and could not
In People vs. Lara, SC held that a marriage which preceded the
stand the rigors of travelling to Balatan from his residence in
issuance of the marriage license is void, and that the subsequent
Nabua. Arroyo requested if respondent can solemnize the marriage issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of
in Nabua. He acceded to the request.
validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the
marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to
Respondent further averred that on the day of the ceremony, when solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such
he discovered that the requisite marriage license was not present, authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this
respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.
he refused to solemnize the same and reset the date. However,
due to the earnest pleas of the parties, the influx of visitors, and the
delivery of provisions for the occasion, he proceeded to solemnize
the marriage out of human compassion. He also feared that if he 52. OCA vs. J. Necessario et al A.M. No. 07-1691/April 2, 2013
reset the wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of
695 SCRA - G.
Orobia who just suffered from a stroke. After the solemnization, he
reiterated the necessity for the marriage license and admonished
Facts:
the parties that their failure to give it would render the marriage
void. Petitioner and Orobia assured respondent judge that they
would give the license to him in the afternoon of that same day.
The judicial audit team created by the OCA reported alleged
irregularities in the solemnization of marriages in several branches
It appears that on Jan 5, 2000, Petitioner and Orobia applied for a of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and Regional Trial
marriage license but either of them did not claim it. There was also Court (RTC) in Cebu City
no record of said marriage in the Office of the Civil Registrar of
Nabua, Camsur therefore no Marriage Contract was not issued.
On 8 May 2001, petitioner sought the assistance of respondent
Occiano so the latter could communicate with the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Nabua for the issuance of her marriage
license. However the Clerk of said office informed respondent judge
that their office cannot issue the marriage license due to the failure
of Orobia to submit the Death Certificate of his previous spouse.
HELD:
Yes. 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
courts 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.
In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is
limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of
solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua,
Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to
administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance
of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human
compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating
the law on marriage.
The trial court held that no valid marriage license was issued by the
Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite in favor of Gloria and
Syed and hence the marriage between them was void ab initio. It
also took into account the fact that neither party was a resident of
Carmona, Cavite, the place where Marriage License No. 9969967
was issued, in violation of Article 9 of the Family Code.
The judges gross ignorance of the law is also evident when they On appeal, the CA gave credence to Glorias arguments, and
solemnized marriages under Article 34 of the Family Code without granted her appeal. It held that the certification of the Municipal
the required qualifications and with the existence of legal
Civil Registrar failed to categorically state that a diligent search
impediments such as minority of a party. Marriages of exceptional for the marriage license of
character such as those made under Article 34 are, doubtless, the
exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite
of a marriage license.126 Under the rules of statutory construction, Gloria and Syed was conducted, and thus held that said
certification could not be accorded probative value. The CA
exceptions as a general rule should be strictly but reasonably
ruled that there was sufficient testimonial and documentary
construed.127 The affidavits of cohabitation should not be issued
and accepted pro forma particularly in view of the settled rulings of evidence that Gloria and Syed had been validly married and that
the Court on this matter. The five-year period of cohabitation should there was compliance with all the requisites laid down by law.
be one of a perfect union valid under the law but rendered
imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract.128 The
ISSUE:
parties should have been capacitated to marry each other during
the entire period and not only at the time of the marriage
W/N the marriage between Syed and Gloria contracted on 09
Nadismiss from service ang lahat ng judge sa final ruling ng court January 1993 remains valid and subsisting on the ground that the
certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar failed to categorically
state that a diligent search for the marriage license of Gloria and
Syed was conducted
53. Abbas v. Abbas G.R. No. 183896 / Jan. 30, 2013 689 SCRA
636 Erla
HELD:
motion and asserted its jurisdiction over the case for declaration of
nullity. The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the RTC of
Quezon City (in petition for review on certiorari) stating as one of
the reasons that as sharia courts are not vested with original and
exclusive jurisdiction in cases of marriages celebrated under both
the Civil Code and PD 1083, the RTC, as a court of general
jurisdiction, is not precluded from assuming jurisdiction over such
Article 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate cases. A few days before this resolution, or on August 18, 1998, the
children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall
RTC rendered a judgment declaring Estrellitas marriage with Sen.
succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the Tamano as void ab initio for being bigamous under Article 35 of the
following articles.
Family Code of the Philippines and under Article 83 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines.
Pursuant to these provisions, the presence of descendants,
ascendants, or illegitimate children of the deceased excludes
The CA affirmed the RTCs decision. Hence, this petition. She
collateral relatives like the petitioner from succeeding to the
maintained that Sen. Tamano is capacitated to marry her as his
deceaseds estate.18 Necessarily, therefore, the right of the
marriage and subsequent divorce with Zorayda is governed by the
petitioner to bring the action hinges upon a prior determination of Muslim Code. Lastly, she highlighted Zoraydas lack of legal
whether Cresenciano had any descendants, ascendants, or
standing to question the validity of her marriage to the deceased.
children (legitimate or illegitimate), and of whether the petitioner
Estrellita argues that Zorayda and Adib have no legal standing to
was the late Cresencianos surviving heir. Such prior determination file suit because only the husband or the wife can file a complaint
must be made by the trial court, for the inquiry thereon involves
for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Supreme Court
questions of fact.
Resolution A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
Article 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.
As can be seen, both the RTC and the CA erroneously resolved the
issue presented in this case. We reverse their error, in order that
the substantial right of the petitioner, if any, may not be prejudiced.
ISSUE:
57. Juliano-Llave v. Republic G.R. No. 169766 / Mar. 30, 2011
646 SCRA 637 - jille
Whether or not the marriage between Estrellita and the late Sen.
Tamano was bigamous;
FACTS:
Art. 186 (1). Effect of code on past acts. Acts executed prior to
the effectivity of this Code shall be governed by the laws in force at
the time of their execution, and nothing herein except as otherwise
specifically provided, shall affect their validity or legality or operate
to extinguish any right acquired or liability incurred thereby.
HELD:
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.
nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to be the party marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code.
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or According to Cynthia, the CA erroneously anchored its decision to
the party entitled to the avails of the suit.25 Elsewise stated, plaintiff an obiter dictum in the aforecited Enrico case, which did not even
must be the real party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law involve a marriage solemnized before the effectivity of the Family
that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of Code).
the real party-in-interest.26
HELD:
Illuminating on this point is Amor-Catalan v. Court of Appeals,28
where the Court held:
60. Bolos v. Bolos G.R. No. 186400 / Oct. 20, 2010 634 SCRA
429 - jo
FACTS:
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.
Respondents argument
copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these must 63. Catalan v.Catalan G.R. No. 183622 / Feb. 08, 2012 665 SCRA
be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic 487 mai
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.
The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the Facts: Orlando B. Catalan was a naturalized American citizen. After
allegedly obtaining a divorce in the United States from his first wife,
divorce decree, as well as the required certificates proving its
Felicitas Amor, he contracted a second marriage with petitioner
authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on
divorce. Under this situation, we can, at this point, simply dismiss herein. On 18 November 2004, Orlando died intestate in the
Philippines. Thereafter, on 28 February 2005, petitioner filed with
the petition for insufficiency of supporting evidence, unless we
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City a Petition for the
deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the RTC to
issuance of letters of administration for her appointment as
determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the
administratrix of the intestate estate of Orlando. On 3 March 2005,
Canadian divorce law.
while Spec. Proc. No. 228 was pending, respondent Louella A.
Catalan-Lee, one of the children of Orlando from his first marriage,
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
filed a similar petition with the RTC. The two cases were
subsequently consolidated.
Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that "no entry in a civil
register shall be changed or corrected, without judicial order." Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of Spec. Proc. No. 232 on the
The Rules of Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code by
ground of litis pendentia, considering that Spec. Proc. No. 228
specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by which
covering the same estate was already pending. On the other hand,
entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled or corrected. respondent alleged that petitioner was not considered an interested
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and person qualified to file a petition for the issuance of letters of
procedural requirements that must be complied with before a
administration of the estate of Orlando. In support of her contention,
judgment, authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be
respondent alleged that a criminal case for bigamy was filed
annotated in the civil registry. It also requires, among others, that against petitioner before Branch 54 of the RTC of Alaminos,
the verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the province
Pangasinan. Apparently, Felicitas Amor filed a Complaint for
where the corresponding civil registry is located; that the civil
bigamy, alleging that petitioner contracted a second marriage to
registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must be
Orlando despite having been married to one Eusebio Bristol on 12
made parties to the proceedings; and that the time and place for
December 1959. On 6 August 1998, the RTC had acquitted
hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. Aspetitioner of bigamy.3 The trial court ruled that since the deceased
these basic jurisdictional requirements have not been met in the
was a divorced American citizen, and since that divorce was not
present case, we cannot consider the petition Gerbert filed with the recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, the marriage between him
RTC as one filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
and petitioner was not valid. The trial court also found that, in the
first place, petitioner had never been married to Eusebio Bristol.
We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should not be
construed as requiring two separate proceedings for the registration On 26 June 2006, Branch 70 of the RTC of Burgos, Pangasinan
of a foreign divorce decree in the civil registry one for recognition dismissed the Petition for the issuance of letters of administration
of the foreign decree and another specifically for cancellation of the filed by petitioner and granted that of private respondent. Petitioner
entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The recognition of the elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). CA held that the
foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding dismissal of her petition for letters of administration by the trial court
itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule
is in place.
108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or
right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules
Issue: W/N petitioner, not being an interested party and a stranger
of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by
to the estate of Orlando B. Catalan, the dismissal of her petition for
which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured
and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the letters of administration by the trial court is in place.
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
Held: No. RTC in the special proceedings failed to appreciate the
A judgment of divorce is a judicial decree, although a foreign one, finding of the RTC in Crim. Case No. 2699-A that petitioner was
never married to Eusebio Bristol. By failing to take note of the
affecting a persons legal capacity and status that must be
recorded. But while the law requires the entry of the divorce decree findings of fact on the nonexistence of the marriage between
petitioner and Bristol, both the RTC and CA held that petitioner was
in the civil registry, the law and the submission of the decree by
not an interested party in the estate of Orlando.
themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decrees registration.
The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial
recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res
judicata effect. In the context of the present case, no judicial order
as yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree. Thus, the
Pasig City Civil Registry Office acted totally out of turn and
without authority of law when it annotated the Canadian
divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyns marriage certificate, on
the strength alone of the foreign decree presented by Gerbert.
For being contrary to law, the registration of the foreign
divorce decree without the requisite judicial recognition is
patently void and cannot produce any legal effect.
6. Article 36, FC; AM 02-11-10 SC; See also Articles 48, 68-71,
220-221 & 225 FC
64. Marable v. Marable G.R. No. 178741 / Jan. 17, 2011 639
SCRA 557 - joyce b
Petitioner and respondent met in 1967 while studying at Arellano
University. On December 19, 1970, petitioner and respondent
eloped and were married in civil rites at Tanay, Rizal before Mayor
Antonio C. Esguerra. A church wedding followed on December 30,
1970 at the Chapel of the Muntinlupa Bilibid Prison and their
marriage was blessed with five children.
As the years went by, however, their marriage turned sour. Verbal
and physical quarrels became common occurrences.
Code.28
While we are not insensitive to petitioners suffering in view of the Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of
truly appalling and shocking behavior of his wife, still, we are bound the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
by judicial precedents regarding the evidentiary requirements in
with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
psychological incapacity cases that must be applied to the present likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
case.
only after its solemnization.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the application of
66. Yambao v. REP G.R. No. 184063 / Jan. 24, 2011 640 SCRA Article 36 to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
355 - jille
and significance to the marriage. Thus, for a marriage to be
annulled under Article 36 of the Family Code, the psychologically
FACTS:
incapacitated spouse must be shown to suffer no less than a
mental (not physical) incapacity that causes him or her to be truly
Petitioner and respondent were married on December 21, 1968 at incognitive of the basic marital covenants. It is a malady so grave
the Philamlife Church in Quezon City. On July 11, 2003, after 35
and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
years of marriage, petitioner filed a Petition before the RTC, Makati responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
City, praying that the marriage be declared null and void by reason
of respondents psychological incapacity, pursuant to Article 36 of In this case, there is no showing that respondent was suffering from
the Family Code.
a psychological condition so severe that he was unaware of his
obligations to his wife and family. On the contrary, respondents
In her petition before the RTC, petitioner narrated that, since the
efforts, though few and far between they may be, showed an
beginning, her and respondents married life had been marred by understanding of his duty to provide for his family, albeit he did not
bickering, quarrels, and recrimination due to the latters inability to meet with much success. Whether his failure was brought about by
comply with the essential obligations of married life. Petitioner
his own indolence or irresponsibility, or by some other external
averred that through all the years of their married life, she was the factors, is not relevant. What is clear is that respondent, in showing
only one who earned a living and took care of the children.
an awareness to provide for his family, even with his many failings,
Respondent, she alleged, did nothing but eat and sleep all day, and does not suffer from psychological incapacity.
spend time with friends. When respondent would find a job, he
would not be able to stay in it for long. Likewise, respondent went Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of
into several business ventures, which all failed. In addition,
and to assume basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty,
respondent loved to gamble and would gamble away whatever
refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill
money would come his way. When respondent started threatening will. This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to
to kill petitioner, she decided to leave the conjugal abode and live commit oneself to the essentials of marriage; (b) this inability to
separately from him.
commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage:
the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of
On February 9, 2007, the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; and (c) the
petition for lack of merit. The court said that, even as petitioner
inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality. It is not
claimed to be unhappy in the marriage, it is incontrovertible that the enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and
union lasted for over thirty years and the parties were able to raise duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to
three children into adulthood without suffering any major parenting be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness.
problems. On appeal, the CA affirmed RTCs decision. Hence, this
petition. Petitioner argues against the CAs finding that respondents
laziness and dependence could not be characterized as inability but
67. Rep. v. Galang G.R. No. 168335 / Jun. 6, 2011 650 SCRA 524
just plain refusal. Petitioner contends that she has complied with
- ilao
the guidelines laid down by the Court in Republic v. Court of
Appeals and Molina. She further contends that the framers of the
Family Code never intended to give such a suppressed definition of BRION, J.:
psychological incapacity, and, in fact, declared that a restrictive
definition would limit the applicability of the provision. Moreover,
she asserts that she has proven that respondents unbearable
FACTS: On March 9, 1994, respondent Nestor Galang and Juvy
jealousy and Dependent Personality Disorder manifested
themselves even before the marriage of the parties, although not in contracted marriage in Pampanga and lived in respondents fathers
house in Pampanga. Nestor worked as an artist-illustrator while
the same degree as when they were already married.
Juvy stayed at home as a housewife. They have one child,
Christopher. On August 4, 1999, the respondent filed with the
Regional Trial Court a petition for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Juvy, under Article 36 of the Family Code. He
claimed that Juvy was a kleptomaniac and a swindler. He claimed
ISSUE:
that Juvy stole his ATM card and his parents money, and often
asked money from their friends and relatives on the pretext that
Does the totality of petitioners evidence establish respondents
Christopher was confined in a hospital. According to the
psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of
respondent, Juvy suffers from mental deficiency, innate immaturity,
marriage?
distorted discernment and total lack of care, love and affection
towards him and their child. He posited that Juvys incapacity was
HELD:
extremely serious and appears to be incurable. Aside from his
The petition has no merit and, perforce, must be denied. Article 36 testimony, the respondent also presented Anna Liza S. Guiang, a
FACTS:
In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four children
with Tyrone. The latter started living with Jocelyn, who bore him
three more children.
On July 6, 1994, nine years since the de facto separation from his
wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with the
essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of their
marriage. He further claimed that her psychological incapacity was
manifested by her immaturity and irresponsibility towards Tyrone
and their children during their co-habitation. He alleged the
following acts of Malyn:
she left the children without proper care and attention as she
played mahjong all day and all night;
she left the house to party with male friends and returned in the
early hours of the following day;
ISSUE:
Kasalan
Nagfile ng annulment on PI
HELD:
Allegation of Ricardo:
Ricardo alleged in his petition and in his testimony at the trial that
Teresita was an adulteress and a squanderer
ON the existence of PI
Testimony of the expert witness was based only on the
evaluation of petitioner and his son
The CA reversed the RTC decision and held that the trial courts
findings did not satisfy the rules and guidelines set by this Court in We are in no way convinced that a mere narration of the
statements of Ricardo and Richardson, coupled with the results of
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina
the psychological tests administered only on Ricardo, without more,
already constitutes sufficient basis for the conclusion that Teresita
Issue: WON, the marriage should be declared null and void on the suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This Court has long
ground of PI
been negatively critical in considering psychological
Sub: WON, the expert testimony of dr.Albaran based only on the
statements of Ricardo and his son, Richardson, sufficient to show
PI on the part of Teresita.
Ruling:
outlined in Santos and Molina need not necessarily come from the Elizabeth E. Rondain, a psychiatrist, testified that after conducting
allegedly incapacitated spouse. In other words, it is still essential several tests, she reached the conclusion that respondent was
although from sources other than the respondent spouse to show suffering from histrionic personality disorder which she described
his or her personality profile, or its approximation, at the time of
as personality is that she has an excessive emotion and attention
marriage; the root cause of the inability to appreciate the essential seeking behavior. She believed with this extra marital affair is
obligations of marriage; and the gravity, permanence and
respondents way of seeking attention and seeking emotions from
incurability of the condition.
other person and not from the husband. And of course, this is not
fulfilling the basic responsibility in a marriage.
Other than from the spouses, such evidence can come from
persons intimately related to them, such as relatives, close friends
or even family doctors or lawyers who could testify on the allegedly
incapacitated spouses condition at or about the time of marriage,
or to subsequent occurring events that trace their roots to the
incapacity already present at the time of marriage.
In the present case, the only other party outside of the spouses
who was ever asked to give statements for purposes of Teresitas
psychological evaluation was Richardson, the spouses eldest son
who would not have been very reliable as a witness in an Article 36
case because he could not have been there when the spouses
were married and could not have been expected to know what was
happening between his parents until long after his birth.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition and
AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
71882. Costs against the petitioner.
FACTS:
Jose met Bona in August 1973 when he was a young lieutenant in
the AFP while the latter was a seventeen-year-old first year college
drop-out. They eventually got married on 27 October 1973 before
the Honorable Judge Cesar S. Principe in Basilan. In 1976,
however, they found an abandoned and neglected one-year-old
baby girl whom they later registered as their daughter, naming her
Ramona Celeste Alano Ochosa.
other words, her alleged psychological incapacity did not satisfy the
jurisprudential requisite of "juridical antecedence."
We have stressed time and again that Article 36 of the Family Code
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
A little over a decade since the promulgation of the Molina
serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the
guidelines, we made a critical assessment of the same in Ngo Te v. celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so
Yu-Te,12 to wit:
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
These marital obligations are those provided under Articles 68 to
However, our critique did not mean that we had declared an
71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code.28
abandonment of the Molina doctrine. On the contrary, we simply
declared and, thus, clarified in the same Te case that there is a
need to emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern While we are not insensitive to petitioners suffering in view of the
the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. truly appalling and shocking behavior of his wife, still, we are bound
Furthermore, we reiterated in the same case the principle that each by judicial precedents regarding the evidentiary requirements in
psychological incapacity cases that must be applied to the present
case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. And, case.
to repeat for emphasis, 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.14
72. Baccay v. Baccay G.R. No 173138 / Dec, 1, 2010 636 SCRA
350 mai
We are sufficiently convinced, after a careful perusal of the
evidence presented in this case, that Bona had been, on several
occasions with several other men, sexually disloyal to her spouse,
Jose. Likewise, we are persuaded that Bona had indeed
Facts: Noel and Maribel were schoolmates at the Mapua Institute of
abandoned Jose. However, we cannot apply the same conviction to Technology where both took up Electronics and Communications
Joses thesis that the totality of Bonas acts constituted
Engineering. Sometime in 1990, they were introduced by a mutual
psychological incapacity as determined by Article 36 of the Family friend and became close to one another. Noel courted Maribel, but
Code. There is inadequate credible evidence that her "defects"
it was only after years of continuous pursuit that Maribel accepted
were already present at the inception of, or prior to, the marriage. In Noels proposal and the two became sweethearts. Noel considered
Maribel as the snobbish and hard-to-get type, which traits he found live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
attractive.
support. The intendment of the law has been to confine it to the
most serious of cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
Noels family was aware of their relationship for he used to bring
Maribel to their house. Noel observed that Maribel was inordinately and significance to the marriage.
shy when around his family so to bring her closer to them, he
always invited Maribel to attend family gatherings and other festive
occasions like birthdays, Christmas, and fiesta celebrations.
Maribel, however, would try to avoid Noels invitations and
whenever she attended those occasions with Noels family, he
observed that Maribel was invariably aloof or snobbish. Not once
did she try to get close to any of his family members. Noel would
talk to Maribel about her attitude towards his family and she would
promise to change, but she never did.
(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
Around 1997, Noel decided to break up with Maribel because he
of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the
was already involved with another woman. He tried to break up with Family, recognizing it as the foundation of the nation. It decrees
Maribel, but Maribel refused and offered to accept Noels
marriage as legally inviolable, thereby protecting it from
relationship with the other woman so long as they would not sever dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage
their ties. Despite their efforts to keep their meetings strictly friendly, are to be protected by the state.
however, Noel and Maribel had several romantic moments
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and
together. Noel took these episodes of sexual contact casually since the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and
Maribel never demanded anything from him except his company. solidarity.
Then, sometime in November 1998, Maribel informed Noel that she
was pregnant with his child. Upon advice of his mother, Noel
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a)
grudgingly agreed to marry Maribel. Noel and Maribel were
medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
immediately wed on November 23, 1998 before Judge Gregorio
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
Dayrit, the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity
Quezon City.
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
On September 11, 2000 or after less than two years of marriage,
Noel filed a petition[7] for declaration of nullity of marriage with the may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
RTC of Manila. Despite summons, Maribel did not participate in the
proceedings. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also did not The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
submit a certification manifesting its agreement or opposition to the celebration of the marriage. The evidence must show that the
case. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
illness was existing when the parties exchanged their I dos. The
marriage of the parties hereto celebrated on November 23, 1998 at manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time,
the sala of Judge Gregorio Dayrit of the Metropolitan Trial Court in but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior
Quezon City as NULL and VOID. On appeal by the OSG, the CA thereto.
reversed the decision of the RTC.
Surprisingly, despite Maribels claim of being pregnant, Noel never
observed any symptoms of pregnancy in her. Then, sometime in
January 1999, Maribel did not go home for a day, and when she
came home she announced to Noel and his family that she had a
miscarriage and was confined at the Chinese General Hospital
where her sister worked as a nurse.
FACTS:
HELD:
NO, there is no sufficient basis exists to annul the marriage,
FACTS:
FACTS: On August 25, 1979, Cesar married Lolita and the union
bore two children, Maricar and Manny. To support his family, Cesar
went to work in Saudi Arabia on May 15, 1984. On June 12, 1986,
Cesar, while still in Saudi Arabia, learned that Lolita had been
having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez. Sometime in 1991, Lolita
allegedly left the conjugal home with her children and lived with
Alvin. Since then, Cesar and Lolita had been separated. On June
16, 1995, Cesar filed with the RTC a petition against Lolita for the
declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas
psychological incapacity.
Lolita denied that she had an affair with Alvin; she contended that
Alvin used to be an associate in her promotions business. She
insisted that she is not psychologically incapacitated and that she
FACTS:
On May 31, 2000, petitioner was charged with Bigamy before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 117.
On October 5, 2000, accused-appellant filed against Rafael , before
the RTC of Makati for declaration of nullity of their marriage.
On July 9, 2001, the court a quo found accused Victoria GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of BIGAMY. Her MR was
denied.
For her defense, Victoria insisted that (1) her 1974 and 1975
The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article marriages to Rafael were null and void because the latter was
36 of the Family Code is whether petitioner is psychologically
allegedly still married to a certain Loretta Tillman at the time of the
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The celebration of their marriage; (2) her marriages to both Rafael and
issue in parricide is whether the accused killed the victim. In this
Emmanuel were null and void for lack of a valid marriage license;
case, since petitioner was charged with frustrated parricide, the
and (3) the action had prescribed, sinceEmmanuel knew about her
issue is whether he performed all the acts of execution which would marriage to Rafael as far back as 1978.
have killed respondent as a consequence but which, nevertheless,
did not produce it by reason of causes independent of petitioners
will.16 At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner CA affirmed Victorias conviction CA held that petitioner committed
and respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their bigamy when she contracted marriage with Emmanuel because, at
marriage, in case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, that time, her marriage to Rafael had not yet been declared null
will have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the
time of the subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the
and void by the court. This being so, the presumption is, her
marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner previous marriage to Rafael was still existing at the time of her
could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the
marriage to Emmanuel.
commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to
respondent.
After the presentation of the prosecution evidence, petitioner
We cannot accept petitioners reliance on Tenebro v. Court of
moved for suspension of the proceedings on the ground of the
Appeals17 that "the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage pendency of the petition for declaration of nullity of petitioners
on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of marriages to Rafael, which, petitioner claimed involved a prejudicial
the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the question.
spouses is concerned x x x." First, the issue in Tenebro is the effect
of the judicial declaration of nullity of a second or subsequent
Meanwhile, On March 28, 2003, the RTC of Makati City, declared
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on a criminal
petitioners 1974 and 1975 marriages to Rafael null and void ab
liability for bigamy. There was no issue of prejudicial question in
that case. Second, the Court ruled in Tenebro that "[t]here is x x x a initio on the ground of Rafaels psychological incapacity.
recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although
void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences."18 In fact, the In her MR, Victoria invoked said declaration of nullity as a ground
Court declared in that case that "a declaration of the nullity of the for the reversal of her conviction. However, the CA, citing Tenebro
second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of
v. Court of Appeals, denied reconsideration and ruled that [t]he
absolutely no moment insofar as the States penal laws are
subsequent declaration of nullity of her first marriage on the ground
concerned.
of psychological incapacity, while it retroacts to the date of the
celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the
spouses is concerned, the said marriage is not without legal
consequences, among which is incurring criminal liability for
bigamy.
78. Jarillo v. People G.R. No. 164435 / Sept. 29, 2009 601 SCRA
236 JO
ISSUE:
FACTS:
HELD:
No. petitioners conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The provisions of Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code finds no
The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioners two
application since Article 102 refers to the procedure for the
marriages to Rafael cannot be considered a valid defense in the
liquidation of the conjugal partnership property and Article 129
crime of bigamy. The moment petitioner contracted a second
refers to the procedure for the liquidation of the absolute
marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared community of property. 4
null and void, the crime of bigamy was already consummated
because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage,
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the order. The motion was
petitioners marriage to Rafael, which had not yet been declared
denied on 30 October 1995.
null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid
and subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of
Argument ng petitioner na gonggong
petitioners marriage to Uy make any difference. As held in
Tenebro, since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a
valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second
In his recourse to this Court, petitioner submits that Articles 50, 51
and 52 of the Family Code should be held controlling: he argues
that:
marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal
liability for
I
bigamy.
No. SC ruled in Landicho v. Relova, he who contracts a second
marriage before the
Article 147 of the Family Code does not apply to cases where the
parties are psychologically incapacitated.
II
Ruling:
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the
either by
Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.7 Article 147 of the
Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated
and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose
81. Dio v. Dio G.R. No.178044 / Jan. 19, 2011 640 SCRA 178 marriage is nonetheless void,8 such as petitioner and respondent in
MAI
the case before the Court.
Facts: Alain M. Dio (petitioner) and Ma. Caridad L. Dio
For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the
(respondent) were childhood friends and sweethearts. They started acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to
living together in 1984 until they decided to separate in 1994. In
have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the formers
1996, petitioner and respondent decided to live together again. On efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of
14 January 1998, they were married before Mayor Vergel Aguilar of the household.
Las Pias City.
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.
On 30 May 2001, petitioner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the
of Marriage against respondent, citing psychological incapacity
share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited
under Article 36 of the Family Code. Petitioner alleged that
respondent failed in her marital obligation to give love and support 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
to him, and had abandoned her responsibility to the family,
vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants.
choosing instead to go on shopping sprees and gallivanting with
her friends that depleted the family assets. Petitioner further alleged In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the
that respondent was not faithful, and would at times become violent innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon
termination of the cohabitation.
and hurt him.
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements
Extrajudicial service of summons was effected upon respondent
who, at the time of the filing of the petition, was already living in the must be present:
United States of America. Despite receipt of the summons,
The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other;
respondent did not file an answer to the petition within the
reglementary period. Petitioner later learned that respondent filed a
petition for divorce/dissolution of her marriage with petitioner, which They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
was granted by the Superior Court of California on 25 May 2001.
Petitioner also learned that on 5 October 2001, respondent married
Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is
a certain Manuel V. Alcantara.
void.9
The trial court granted the petition on the ground that respondent
was psychologically incapacited to comply with the essential marital
obligations at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Petitioner
filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the dissolution
of the absolute community of property and the ruling that the
All these elements are present in this case and there is no question
decree of annulment shall only be issued upon compliance with
Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code. Decision was rendered by that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the property relations
between petitioner and respondent.
RTC declaring that A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE shall be issued after liquidation, partition and
distribution of the parties properties under Article 147 of the Family
Code.
We agree with petitioner that the trial court erred in ordering that a
decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued only after
liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties properties under
Article 147 of the Family Code. The ruling has no basis because
Section 19(1) of the Rule does not apply to cases governed under
Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code.
Held: The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon
It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that Section 19(1) of
City that in a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the property
relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed the Rule applies only to marriages which are declared void ab initio
or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45 of the Family and Ongkiko went through a marriage ceremony before a Nueva
Code. In short, Article 50 of the Family Code does not apply to
Ecija town mayor on April 25, 1965, the same was not a valid
marriages which are declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the marriage for lack of a marriage license. Upon the request of the
Family Code, which should be declared void without waiting for the parents of Ongkiko, respondent went through another marriage
liquidation of the properties of the parties.
ceremony with her in Manila on June 5, 1965. Again, neither party
applied for a marriage license. Ongkiko abandoned respondent 17
In this case, petitioners marriage to respondent was declared void years ago, leaving their children to his care and custody as a single
under Article 3615 of the Family Code and not under Article 40 or parent.
45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of properties owned in
common by petitioner and respondent are the rules on coownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled that the property relations of
parties in a void marriage during the period of cohabitation is
governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.16
The rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the spouses
should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions
on co-ownership. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code, "[p]artition
may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial
proceedings. x x x." It is not necessary to liquidate the properties of
the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of
marriage.
HELD:
82. Atienza v. Brillantes AM. No.MTJ 92-706 / Mar. 29, 1995 243
SCRA 32 - JOYCE B
No. Under the Family Code, there must be a judicial declaration of
LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENZA, complainant, vs.
the nullity of a previous marriage before a party thereto can enter
into a second marriage. Article 40 of said Code provides:
JUDGE FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR., Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 28, Manila, respondent.
The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for the
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
FACTS:
declaring such previous marriage void.
Complainant alleges that he has two children with Yolanda De
Castro, who are living together at No. 34 Galaxy Street, Bel-Air
Subdivision, Makati, Metro Manila. He stays in said house, which
he purchased in 1987, whenever he is in Manila.
With the de facto separation, the relationship still did not improve.
Neither did respondents relationship with his children. Finally, in
2001,5 petitioner filed (before the RTC) a petition for the declaration
of nullity of her marriage with the respondent, alleging the latters In sum, we find points of convergence & consistency in all three
psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations
reports and the respective testimonies of Doctors Magno, Dayan
under Article 36 of the Family Code.
and Villegas, i.e.: (1) respondent does have problems; and (2)
these problems include chronic irresponsibility; inability to
recognize and work towards providing the needs of his family;
Respondent denied petitioners allegations that he was
several failed business attempts; substance abuse; and a trail of
psychologically incapacitated.
unpaid money obligations.
The trial court ruled granted the petition on the ground of
psychological incapacity of both parties. Respondent appealed to
the Court of Appeals, adamant on the validity of his marriage to
petitioner. The appellate court, agreeing with the respondent,
reversed the RTC and declared the parties marriage as valid and
subsisting.
In fine, given the factual milieu of the present case and in light of
the foregoing disquisition, we find ample basis to conclude that
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
essential marital obligations at the time of his marriage to the
support.
petitioner.
In this connection, it is well to note that persons with antisocial
personality disorder exhibit the following clinical features:
Patients with antisocial personality disorder can often seem to be 9. RA 9262- Law on Violation against Women and their
Children; Support; Art. 213 FC
normal and even charming and ingratiating. Their histories,
however, reveal many areas of disordered life functioning. Lying,
truancy, running away from home, thefts, fights, substance abuse, 84. Go Tan v. Tan G.R. No. 168852 / Sept. 30, 2008 567 SCRA
and illegal activities are typical experiences that patients report as 231 - JILE
beginning in childhood. x x x Their own explanations of their
antisocial behavior make it seem mindless, but their mental content FACTS:
reveals the complete absence of delusions and other signs of
irrational thinking. In fact, they frequently have a heightened sense
of reality testing and often impress observers as having good verbal
intelligence.
x x x Those with this disorder do not tell the truth and cannot be
On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, petitioner, and Steven L.
trusted to carry out any task or adhere to any conventional standard Tan (Steven) were married. Out of this union, two female children
of morality. x x x A notable finding is a lack of remorse for these
were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12,
actions; that is, they appear to lack a conscience.28
In the instant case, respondents pattern of behavior manifests an
inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to perform the essential
marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic financial support;
(2) extra-marital affairs;
(3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid
money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected
with the family businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa.
2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed a Petition
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO)
against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan
and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the RTC. She alleged that
Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal,
psychological and economic abuses upon her in violation of Section
5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i) of Republic Act No. 9262,
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004.
On the issue of the petitioners purported psychological incapacity, On February 7, 2005, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with
we agree with the CAs ruling thereon:
Opposition to the Issuance of Permanent Protection Order Ad
Cautelam and Comment on the Petition, contending that the RTC
lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-law of the
Such alleged condition of [petitioner] is not a debilitating
psychological condition that incapacitates her from complying with petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262. Respondents
the essential marital obligations of marriage.1avvphi1 In fact, in the submit that they are not covered by R.A. No. 9262 since Section 3
thereof explicitly provides that the offender should be related to the
Psychological Evaluation Report of clinical psychologist Magno,
[petitioner] was given a glowing evaluation as she was found to be victim only by marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or sexual
a "good, sincere, and conscientious person and she has tried her relationship.
best to provide for the needs of her children. Her achievements in
this regard are praiseworthy." Even in Dr. Villegas psychiatric
report, it was stated that [petitioner] was able to remain in their
marriage for more than 20 years "trying to reach out and lending a
hand for better understanding and relationship." With the foregoing ISSUE:
evaluation made by no less than [petitioners] own expert
witnesses, we find it hard to believe that she is psychologically
Whether or not parents-in-law may be included in the petition for
incapacitated within the contemplation of Article 36 of the Family
the issuance of a protective order in accordance with RA 9262
Code.29
All told, it is wise to be reminded of the caveat articulated by Justice
Teodoro R. Padilla in his separate statement in Republic v. Court of
HELD:
Appeals and Molina:30
thus:
85. Ang v. CA/ Sagud G.R. No.182835 / Apr. 20, 2010 618 SCRA
592 - ILAO
ABAD, J.:
Before Rustan got married, however, he got in touch with Irish and
tried to convince her to elope with him; Irish rejected the proposal.
Irish changed her cellphone number but Rustan somehow
SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages. Rustan used
crime of violence against
two cellphone numbers for sending his messages. Irish replied to
his text messages but it was to ask him to leave her alone.
women and their children is committed through any of the following
acts:
xxx
In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Irish received through
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct,
multimedia message service a picture of a naked woman with
personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial spread legs and with Irishs face superimposed on the figure. The
emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. Xxx senders cellphone number was one of the numbers that Rustan
used. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text
messages from Rustan. He boasted that it would be easy for him to
create similarly scandalous pictures of her. And he threatened to
spread the picture he sent through the internet. One of the
messages he sent to Irish, written in text messaging shorthand,
In addition, the protection order that may be issued for the purpose read: "Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede
ring send sa lahat ng chatter."
of preventing further acts of violence against the woman or her
child may include
Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred
her to the police. Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan
individuals other than the offending husband, thus:
through the cellphone numbers he used in sending the picture and
his text messages. Irish asked Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess
Resort and he did. After parking, Rustan walked towards Irish but
the waiting police officers intercepted and arrested him. They
searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone and
several SIM cards.
RTC should not have dismissed the entire case based solely on the
lack of any judicial declaration of filiation between the parties child
since the main issue remains to be the alleged violence committed
by Respondent against Dolina and her child and whether they are
entitled to protection. However, Petitioner failed to raise this error
on review. This omission lends credence to the conclusion of the
RTC that the real purpose of the petition is to obtain support from
Respondent.
88. Dabalos v. RTC Br. 59, Angeles City G.R. No. 193960/Jan. 7,
2013 688 SCRA 64 G
Topic: dating or sexual relationship as element of violation of
ra 9262
Facts
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262
before the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 59, in an Information which
states:
Respondent opposed the petition, claiming that the petition is more That on or about the 13th day of July, 2009, in the City of Angeles,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
of a petition for financial support rather than protection against
89. Ablaza v. Republic G.R. No. 158298 / Aug. 11, 2010 628
SCRA 27 ERLA
90. Nial v. Bayadog G.R. No. 133778 / Mar. 14, 2000 328 SCRA
122 MAI
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not Veronico is still liable for the crime of
Whether or not the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio bigamy considering that the second marriage was subsequently
on the ground of psychological incapacity cure the criminal liability declared null by the court.
of bigamy since he said marriage is not without legal consequences
HELD: Yes. Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of a
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the marriage license, and marriage ceremony wherein the parties
date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum
personally declare their agreement to marry before the solemnizing
between the spouses is concerned, it is significant to note that said officer in the presence of at least two witnesses). Under Article 5 of
marriage is not without legal effects. Among these effects is that
the Family Code, any male or female of the age of eighteen years
children conceived or born before the judgment of absolute nullity or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles
of the marriage shall be considered legitimate. There is therefore a 37 and 38 may contract marriage.
recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although
void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences. Among these Antone v. Beronilla G.R. No.183824 / Dec. 08, 2010 637 SCRA
legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy. To hold 615 KRISHA
otherwise would render the States penal laws on bigamy
completely nugatory, and allow individuals to deliberately ensure
that each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus Teves v. People G.R. No. 188775 / Aug 24, 2011 656 SCRA 307 escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while JO
beguiling throngs of hapless women with the promise of futurity and
commitment.
FACTS:
Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the
crime of Bigamy are:
(1) that the offender has been legally married;
HELD:
Yes. Petitioner was legally married to Thelma on 26 November
1992 at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City. He
contracted a second or subsequent marriage with Edita on 10
December 2001 in Meycauayan, Bulacan. At the time of his second
marriage with Edita, his marriage with Thelma was legally
subsisting. It is noted that the finality of the decision declaring the
nullity of his first marriage with Thelma was only on 27 June 2006
or about five (5) years after his second marriage to Edita. Finally,
the second or subsequent marriage of petitioner with Edita has all
the essential requisites for validity. Petitioner has in fact not
disputed the validity of such subsequent marriage.
Moreover, the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on The crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner on 10 December
2001 when he contracted a second marriage with Edita. The finality
the ground of psychological incapacity is not an indicator that
on 27 June 2006 of the judicial declaration of the nullity of his
petitioners marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites for
validity. The requisites for the validity of a marriage are classified by previous marriage to Thelma cannot be made to retroact to the date
of the bigamous marriage.
the Family Code into essential (legal capacity of the contracting
parties and their consent freely given in the presence of the
solemnizing officer) and formal (authority of the solemnizing officer,
97.. Nollora v. People G.R. No.191425 / Sept. 7, 2011 657 SCRA Balik Islam Tableegh Foundation of the Philippines and as such
330 - G.
president, he has the power and authority to convert any applicant
to the Muslim religion. He alleged that sometime in 1992, he met
accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. in Mabini (Manila) who was then
going abroad.
Facts:
The appellate court recited the facts as follows:
On August 24, 2004, Assistant City Prosecutor Raymond Jonathan application, said accused was indoctrinated regarding his
B. Lledo filed an Information against Atilano O. Nollora, Jr.
obligations as a Muslim.
("Nollora") and Rowena P. Geraldino ("Geraldino") for the crime of
Bigamy.
However, before marrying his second, third and fourth wives, it
is required that the consent of the first Muslim wife be
As culled from the herein assailed Decision, the respective
secured. Thus, if the first wife is not a Muslim, there is no
testimonies of prosecution witnesses were as follows:
necessity to secure her consent (TSN, October 9, 2006, pages
2-12).
"xxx (W)itness Jesusa Pinat Nollora xxx testified that she and
accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. met in Saudi Arabia while she was Palusot ni Rowena
working there as a Staff Midwife in King Abdulah Naval Base
Hospital. Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. courted her and on April 6, 1999,
Accused Rowena P. Geraldino alleged that she was only a
they got married at the
victim in this incident of bigamous marriage. She claimed that
she does not know the private complainant Jesusa Pinat
[IE]MELIF Chruch [sic] in Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte,
Nollora and only came to know her when this case was filed.
Bulacan (Exhibit A). While
She insists that she is the one lawfully married to Atilano O.
Nollora, Jr., having been married to the latter since December
working in said hospital, she heard rumors that her husband has 8, 2001
another wife and because of anxiety and emotional stress, she
left Saudi Arabia and returned to the Philippines (TSN, October Accused Rowena P. Geraldino alleged that she was only a
4, 2005, page 10). Upon arrival in the Philippines, the private
victim in this incident of bigamous marriage. She claimed that
complainant learned that indeed, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. contracted a she does not know the private complainant Jesusa Pinat
second marriage with co-accused Rowena P.
Nollora and only came to know her when this case was filed.
She insists that she is the one lawfully married to Atilano O.
When asked about the moral damages she suffered, she
Nollora, Jr., having been married to the latter since December
declared that what happened to her was a tragedy and she had 8, 2001
entertained [thoughts] of committing suicide. She added that
because of what happened to her, her mother died and she
The appellate court rejected Nolloras defense that his second
almost got raped when Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. left her alone in marriage to Geraldino was in
their residence in Saudi Arabia.
Before the trial and appellate courts, Nollora put up his Muslim
religion as his sole defense. He alleged that his religion allows him
to marry more than once. Granting arguendo that Nollora is indeed
of Muslim faith at the time of celebration of both marriages,20
Nollora cannot deny that both marriage ceremonies were not
conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws,
or Presidential Decree No. 1083
entered into two marriages while the latters first marriage was still
subsisting. While respondent denied entering into the second and
the third marriages, he resorted to vague assertions tantamount to
a negative pregnant. He did not dispute the authenticity of the
NSO documents, but denied that he contracted those two
other marriages.
The documents were certified by the NSO, which is the official
repository of civil registry records pertaining to the birth, marriage
and death of a person. Having been issued by a government
agency, the NSO certification is accorded much evidentiary
weight and carries with it a presumption of regularity. In this
case, respondent has not presented any competent evidence to
rebut those documents.
99. Montanez v. Cipriano G.R. No. 181089 / Oct 22, 2012 684
SCRA 315 MAI
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants'
rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending
actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not
violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely
affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may
attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws.1wphi1. He cannot have
his cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist
RTC of Muntinlupa, Branch 256, rendered an Amended Decision5 has to do is disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a
declaring the marriage of respondent with Socrates null and void. subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply
Said decision became final and executory on October 13, 2003. On claiming that the first marriage is void and that the subsequent
May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Cipriano Montaez, Silverios
marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of
daughter from the first marriage, filed with the Municipal Trial Court nullity of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage license
of San Pedro, Laguna, a Complaint7 for Bigamy against
and thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a
respondent which alleged, among others, that respondent failed to declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first
reveal to Silverio that she was still married to Socrates.
marriage is void. Such scenario would render nugatory the
provision on bigamy.
On July 24, 2007 and before her arraignment, respondent, through
counsel, filed a Motion to Quash Information (and Dismissal of the
Criminal Complaint)12 alleging that her marriage with Socrates had
already been declared void ab initio in 2003, thus, there was no
See also Atienza v. Brillantes
more marriage to speak of prior to her marriage to Silverio on
January 24, 1983; that the basic element of the crime of bigamy,
i.e., two valid marriages, is therefore wanting. She also claimed that 12. Arts. 41- 44, 49 FC; Art.83 (2) NCC;
since the second marriage was held in 1983, the crime of bigamy
had already prescribed. The prosecution filed its Comment13
arguing that the crime of bigamy had already been consummated 100. Armas v. Calisterio G.R. No.136467/ Apr. 06, 2000 330
when respondent filed her petition for declaration of nullity; that the SCRA 201 - JOYCE B
law punishes the act of contracting a second marriage which
appears to be valid, while the first marriage is still subsisting and
has not yet been annulled or declared void by the court.
FACTS:
101. Rep. v. Nolasco G.R. No. 94053 / Mar. 17, 1993 220 SCRA
20 - JOYCE D
The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at
the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having
news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee, though he has During trial, respondent Nolasco testified that he was a seaman
been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as and that he had first met Janet Monica Parker, a British subject, in a
dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of
bar in England during one of his ship's port calls. On 15 January
contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is
1982, respondent married Janet Monica Parker in San Jose,
presumed dead according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage so Antique, in Catholic rites officiated by Fr. Henry van Tilborg in the
contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null Cathedral of San Jose.
Respondent further testified that his efforts to look for her himself
As pointed out by the Solicitor-General, there are four (4) requisites
whenever his ship docked in England proved fruitless. He also
stated that all the letters he had sent to his missing spouse at No. for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the
38 Ravena Road, Allerton, Liverpool, England, the address of the Family Code:
bar where he and Janet Monica first met, were all returned to him.
That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive
Respondent Nolasco presented his mother, Alicia Nolasco, as his years, or two consecutive years if the disappearance occurred
where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down
witness. She testified that her daughter-in-law Janet Monica had
expressed a desire to return to England even before she had given in Article 391, Civil Code;
birth to Gerry Nolasco on 7 December 1982. Alicia Nolasco also
said that she had tried to dissuade Janet Monica from leaving as
she had given birth to her son just fifteen days before, but when
she (Alicia) failed to do so, she gave Janet Monica P22,000.00 for
her expenses before she left on 22 December 1982 for England.
She further claimed that she had no information as to the missing
person's present whereabouts.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the . . . Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a
preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the
proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect familyand an inviolable social institution whose nature,
of reappearance of the absent spouse. (Emphasis supplied).
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject
When Article 41 is compared with the old provision of the Civil
Code, which it superseded, 7 the following crucial differences
emerge. Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption to
arise has been shortened to four
(4) years; however, there is need for a judicial declaration of
presumptive death to enable the spouse present to remarry. 8 Also,
FACTS:
The RTC held that Angelita "was not able to prove the wellgrounded belief that her husband Sofio Polborosa was already
The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years
dead." It said that under Article 41 of the Family Code, the present at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present
spouse is burdened to prove that her spouse has been absent and having news of the absentee being alive, of if the absentee,
that she has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already though he has been absent for less than seven years, is
dead before the present spouse may contract a subsequent
generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the
marriage. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. She argued spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent
that it is the Civil Code that applies in this case and not the Family marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead according to
Code since petitioners marriage to Sofio was celebrated on
Articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid
January 11, 1971, long before the Family Code took effect.
in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a
Petitioner further argued that she had acquired a vested right under competent court.
the provisions of the Civil Code and the stricter provisions of the
Family Code should not be applied against her because Title XIV of
the Civil Code, where Articles 384 and 390 on declaration of
absence and presumption of death, respectively, can be found, was
not expressly repealed by the Family Code. To apply the stricter
Article 390 of the Civil Code states:
provisions of the Family Code will impair the rights petitioner had
acquired under the Civil Code.
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
Whether or not Art 41 of the FC has a retroactive application in this five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may
case
be opened.
ISSUE:
ART 247. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final and
executory.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the 105. Rep. v. Bermudez-Lorino G.R. No. 160258 / Jan. 19, 2005
preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary 449 SCRA 57 JO
proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect FACTS:
of reappearance of the absent spouse.
On June 12, 1987, Respondent Gloria Bermudez-Lorino (Gloria)
The law is clear and simple. Even if the spouse present has a well- and her husband were married. Out of this marriage, she begot
founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, a
three (3) children, namely: Francis Jeno, Fria Lou and Fatima.
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 Before their marriage, Gloria was unaware that her husband was a
Code to discourage subsequent marriages where it is not proven habitual drinker, possessed with violent character/attitude, and had
that the previous marriage has been dissolved or a missing spouse the propensity to go out with friends to the extent of being unable to
engage in any gainful work. Because of her husbands violent
is factually or presumptively dead, in accordance with pertinent
character, Gloria found it safer to leave him behind and decided to
provisions of law.
go back to her parents together with her 3 children. In order to
support the children, Gloria was compelled to work abroad.
The marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga is
considered bigamous and void, there being a subsisting
On August 14, 2000, 9 years after she left her husband, Gloria filed
marriage between Gaspar Tagadan and Ida Pearanda.
a verified petition with the RTC at San Mateo, Rizal under the rules
on Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law. She alleged
(2)
that she has absolutely no news about him and that she believes
that he is already dead. She seeks the Court declaration that her
The second issue involves the solemnization of a marriage
husband is judicially presumed dead for the purpose of remarriage.
ceremony outside the court's jurisdiction, covered by Articles 7 and
8 of the Family Code, thus:
Court declared the presumptive death/absence of Francisco Lorino,
Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by :
Jr. pursuant to Art. 41 of the New Family Code but subject to all
restrictions and conditions provided therein.
(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's
jurisdiction;
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied.)
No. Article 247 of the Family Code provides that The judgment of
the court shall be immediately final and executor.
106. Rep. v. Granada G.R. No. 187512/ June 13, 2012 672 SCRA Issues:
432 - G.
1.WON, a judgment in a petition for declaration of presumptive
death under article 41 of the FC is immediately final and executor
Facts:
and, thus not appealable.
Nagkakilala si Yolanda at si Cyrus sa electronics company at
sa kaduluhan ay nagpakasal sila.
Argument ng OSG:
On 10 March 2005, petitioner Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of this Decision. Petitioner argued that
Yolanda had failed to exert earnest efforts to locate Cyrus and thus
failed to prove her well-founded belief that he was already dead
Taken together, Articles 41, 238, 247 and 253 of the Family Code That the present spouse wishes to remarry;
provide that since a petition for declaration of presumptive death is
a summary proceeding, the judgment of the court therein shall be That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the
immediately final and executory.
absentee is dead; and
Pero pwede pa certiorari
absent spouse and the nature and extent of the inquiries made by
present spouse.
As noted by the Court in that case, the four requisites for the
declaration of presumptive death under the Family Code are as
follows:
That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive
years, or two consecutive years if the disappearance occurred
where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down
in Article 391, Civil Code;