SANTOS V SANTOS

OCT 8 2014 | PONENTE: LEONEN

Petitioner, Celerina Santos
Respondent, Ricardo Santos
MARRIAGE: JUNE 18, 1980
GROUND FOR ANNULMENT: PRESUMPTIVELY DEAD (CELERINA)
RICARDO FILED PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OR
PRESUMPTIVE DEATH: JUNE 15 2007
RE-MARRIAGE: SEPT 17 2008
RTC TARLAC (JUN 27 2007): CELERINA PRESUMPTIVELY DEAD
CA (NOV 28, 2008 & MAR 5 2009): DISMISSED PETITION OF CELERINA
Facts:
Ricardo and Celerina got married on June 18 1980 and rented an apartment
in San Juan. After a year, they moved to Tarlac City. They were engaged in a
buy and sell business that, according to Ricardo, did not prosper. Because of
this Celerina convinced him to allow her to work as a domestic helper in
Hong Kong. She applied in an employment agency in Ermita Manila in Feb
1995 and left Tarlac 2 months after and was never heard of again.
Ricardo alleged that he looked for her, even went to her parents, her other
relatives and friends but they did not know where she was. Ricardo claimed it
was almost 12 years from the date of his RTC petition since she left and he
believed she had passed away.
Celerina claimed that she learned about his petition only sometime in
October 2008 when she could no longer avail the remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief and other appropriate remedies. On Nov 17 2008,
Celerina filed a petition for annulment of judgment before CA on the grounds
of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction (because never published in
newspaper, OSG and Provincial Prosecutors Office were not furnished
copies of Ricardos petition)
She argued se was deprived her day in court when Ricardo, despite his
knowledge of her true residence, misrepresented to the court that she was a
resident of Tarlac. According to her, she resided in Congressional Avenue
with Ricardo since 1989 until Ricardo left in May 2008.
She claimed she never resided in Tarlac, left and worked as a domestic
helper abroad, went to an employment agency in Feb 1995, and was not
absent for 12 years. It was he who left her to cohabit with another woman.
She referred to a joint affidavit executed by their children.
CA: wrong remedy; proper remedy was to file sworn statement before civil
registry declaring her reappearance (Art 42 of Family Code)

Issue: WON CA erred in dismissing Celerinas petition for annulment of

judgment for being the wrong remedy for a fraudulently obtained judgment
declaring presumptive death? YES.
1. Petition for Annulment of Judgment filed within period allowed by
law in case of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction
Annulment of Judgment remedy when RTCs judgment has become final
and remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief (or other appropriate
remedies) are no longer available through no fault of petitioner.
GROUNDS: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction
o Extrinsic fraud (Stilianopulos v City of Legaspi) when
litigant commits acts outside of the tiral which prevents a
party from having a real contest, or from presenting all of his
case, such that there is no fair submission of the
controversy.
Celerina filed petition on Nov 17 2008 (less than 2 years from Jul 27
2007 decision and a month from discovery of decision in Oct 2008)
filed within 4-year period allowed by law in case of extrinsic fraud and
lack of jurisdiction.
2. No other sufficient remedy available to Celerina at the time of her
discovery of the fraud
Art, 41 of the Family Code subsequent marriage when spouse is absent
Art. 42 2nd marriage in danger of being terminated in case of reappearance
Termination of subsequent marriage by reappearance subject to ff
(means reappearance does not always immediately cause
termination of 2nd marriage):
1. Non-existence of judgment annulling previous marriage or
declaring it void ab initio
2. Recoding in the civil registry of residence of parties to the
subsequent marriage of the sworn statement of fact and
circumstances of reappearance
3. Due notice to spouses of subsequent marriage of the fact of
reappearance
4. Fact of reappearance must either be undisputed or judicially
determined
Valid bigamous marriage when ff are present:
1. Prior spouse had been absent for 4 years
2. Spouse present has well-founded belief that absent spouse was
dead
3. Summary proceedings for declaration of presumptive death of the
absent spouse
4. Court declaration of presumptive death of absent spouse

*if 2nd marriage in bad faith, lacks requirement of well founded belief that
spouse is already dead (only subsequent marriage contracted in good faith is
protected by law)
Void for being bigamous under Art 35(4) because circumstance lack
element of well-founded belief under Art 41 which is essential for
exception to the rule against bigamous marriages
Celerina does not admit to have been absent and seeks not merely the
termination of the subsequent marriage but also the nullification of its effects.

Celerina is correct in saying that reappearance is not a sufficient

remedy because it will only terminate the subsequent marriage but not
nullify the effects of the declaration of her presumptive death and the
subsequent marriage.
Decision case REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for determination of the
existence of extrinsic fraud, grounds for nullity/annulment of the first
marriage, and the merits of the petition