Ty v.

CA
GR# 127406, NOV. 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 86Article 40
Exception to the Rule
FACTS:
In 1977, Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva in a civil ceremony. They had a
church wedding in the same year as well. In1980, the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court of QC declared their marriage as null and void; the civil one for lack
of marriage license and the subsequent church wedding due to the lack of consent
of the parties. In 1979, prior to the JDRC decision, Reyes married Ofelia. Then in
1991, Reyes filed for an action for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Ofelia.
He averred that they lack a marriage license at the time of the celebration and that
there was no judicial declaration yet as to the nullity of his previous marriage with
Anna. Ofelia presented evidence proving the existence of a valid marriage license
including the specific license number designated.
The lower court however ruled that Ofelias marriage with Reyes is null and void.
The same was affirmed by the CA applying the provisions of the Art 40 of the FC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the absolute nullity of the previous of marriage of Reyes can be
invoked in the case at bar.
HELD:
Art. 40 of the FC provides that, The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring
such previous marriage void. This means that before one can enter into a second
marriage he must first require a judicial declaration of the nullity of the previous
marriage and such declaration may be invoked on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring the previous marriage as void. For purposes other than
remarriage, other evidences may be presented and the declaration can be passed
upon by the courts. In the case at bar, the lower court and the CA cannot apply the
provision of the FC. Both marriages entered by Reyes were solemnized prior to the
FC. The old CC did not have any provision that states that there must be such a
declaration before remarriage can be done hence Ofelias marriage with Reyes is
valid. The provisions of the FC (took effect in 87) cannot be applied retroactively
especially because they would impair the vested rights of Ofelia under the CC which
was operational during her marriage with Reyes.

Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda 35 Phil 252

FACTS:
Luisa Goitia y de la Camara, petitioner, and Jose Campos y Rueda,
respondent, were married on January 7, 1915 and had a residence at 115 Calle San
Marcelino Manila. They stayed together for a month before petitioner returned to
her parents home. Goitia filed a complaint against respondent for support outside
the conjugal home. It was alleged that respondent demanded her to perform
unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs. Petitioner refused to perform
such acts and demanded her husband other than the legal and valid cohabitation.
Since Goitia kept on refusing, respondent maltreated her by word and deed,
inflicting injuries upon her lops, face and different body parts. The trial court ruled
in favor of respondent and stated that Goitia could not compel her husband to
support her except in the conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree
granting her separation or divorce from respondent. Goitia filed motion for review.

ISSUE: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the
conjugal home.

HELD:
The obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife is created
merely in the act of marriage. The law provides that the husband, who is obliged to
support the wife, may fulfill the obligation either by paying her a fixed pension or by
maintaining her in his own home at his option. However, this option given by law is
not absolute. The law will not permit the husband to evade or terminate his
obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven away from the conjugal home
because of his wrongful acts. In the case at bar, the wife was forced to leave the
conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and physical assault of the husband,
she can therefore claim support from the husband for separate maintenance even
outside the conjugal home.