DE CASTRO V.

DE CASTRO
GR. No. 160172, February 13, 2008
Petitioner: REINEL DE CASTRO
Respondent: ANNABELLE DE CASTRO
Case: Petition for review of CAs decision declaring that Reianna De Castro is
the legitimate child of Reinel De Castro, and that the marriage of the parties is
valid until properly nullified by a competent court in a proceeding instituted for
that purpose.
Facts: Reinel and Annabelle met and fell in love in 1991. In 1994, they applied
for a marriage license. Shortly after, they had sexual relations. When they
returned to retrieve the marriage license, it had already expired. In order to still
push through with their plans, they opted to just execute an affidavit stating that
they had been living together as husband and wife for at least 5 years, then got
married in civil rites. However, parties returned to their respective homes and did
not live together as husband and wife. In 1995, respondent gave birth to Reianna
and supported her on her own. Annabelle then filed a complaint with RTC Pasig,
alleging that she is married to Reinel and that he has reneged on his
responsibility to financially support his wife and child. Reinel in his answer,
denied that he is married to Annabelle, claiming that their marriage was void ab
initio because they signed a fake affidavit. He said that he was forced by
Annabelle to sign it to save her from embarrassment. He also averred that they
never lived together, nor ever seen or acknowledged the child.
RTC: trial court ruled that the marriage is not valid because it was celebrated
without a license. It also declared that Reinel is the natural father of the child
thus obliged to give it support.
CA: Reinel claimed that the RTC decision was based on mere conjecture and
that he could not have possibly been the father of the child. CA denied the
appeal, upholding the rule that a marriage is presumed to be subsisting until a
judicial declaration of nullity has been made, and that the child was born during
the subsistence of the marriage. CA frowned upon petitioners refusal to undergo
paternal testing as well as refusal to state with certainty the last time he had sex
with Annabell. CA also noted the affidavit signed in 1998 wherein the petitioner
voluntarily admitted that he is the legitimate father of the child. Further, the CA
ruled that it was improper for the RTC to declare the marriage as null and void in
the same case as an action for support. It should have been filed separately. CA
affirmed that Reinel is the natural father, and ruled that the marriage remains
valid. Reinel filed an MR but was denied.
Issue: W/N RTC had the jurisdiction to determine validity of the marriage? W/N
the child is the legitimate daughter of petitioner?

Held: Yes, marriage is void, but yes, legit daughter

Ratio: Petitioner argues that the RTC had jurisdiction to nullify the marriage
since it was void ab initio without a marriage license and was based only on a
falsified affidavit. He also claims that a void marriage can be collaterally
attacked and that an independent proceeding does not need to be instituted.
Finally, in view of his vehement denial of filiation, the child should not be
recognised as his legitimate daughter.
SC required Annabelle and the OSG to file their comments.
Annabelle she avers that the marriage cannot be attacked collaterally and that
the appeal was a mere dilatory move to thwart the finality of the CA decision.
With regard to filiation, Annabelle compared her candid and straightforward
testimony to his uncertain and evasive interview.
OSG it believed that the CA erred in claiming that the trial court was improper
in declaring null and void the marriage, stating that courts may pass upon the
validity of the marriage in an action for support since this hinges on the existence
of a valid marriage. OSG affirmed RTC ruling that the marriage is null and void
due to absence of a marriage license, and that the child is illegitimate.
First issue. The validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked. In
Ninal, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to
declare a marriage null and void. For purposes such as but not limited to
heirship, filiation, settlement of estate, the court may pass upon the validity of
the marriage even in a suit not directly instituting the question of marriage.
When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary
even if the purpose is other than to remarry. Under the FC, the absence of any of
the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio,
whereas a defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage
voidable. It is clear from the evidence that the parties did not have a marriage
license when they celebrated the marriage. Instead, they presented the affidavit
however false. The falsity cannot be considered as a mere irregularity. The law
exempts common law marriages of at least 5 years before the actual marriage to
avoid exposing the parties to humiliation and shame concomitant with the
scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to publication.
In this case, there was actually no cohabitation at all. The false affidavit has no
value. It does not exempt them from the license requirement and the absence of a
license renders their marriage void ab initio.
Second issue. The child is the illegit daughter of Reinel. Illegit children may
establish their illegit filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legit
children. Thus, one can prove filiation through the birth certificate. On the birth
certificate of Reianna is petitioners name as the father.