1) The marriage between Teodorico Calisterio and Marietta Calisterio was valid under Article 83 of the Civil Code, as Marietta's first husband James Bounds had been absent for over 11 years prior to her marriage to Teodorico in 1958.
2) As the marriage was valid, Marietta has rights as Teodorico's surviving spouse over his intestate estate.
3) As the conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta was not shown to be under another property regime, it belongs equally to Marietta as the surviving spouse and to Teodorico's estate upon his death.
1) The marriage between Teodorico Calisterio and Marietta Calisterio was valid under Article 83 of the Civil Code, as Marietta's first husband James Bounds had been absent for over 11 years prior to her marriage to Teodorico in 1958.
2) As the marriage was valid, Marietta has rights as Teodorico's surviving spouse over his intestate estate.
3) As the conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta was not shown to be under another property regime, it belongs equally to Marietta as the surviving spouse and to Teodorico's estate upon his death.
1) The marriage between Teodorico Calisterio and Marietta Calisterio was valid under Article 83 of the Civil Code, as Marietta's first husband James Bounds had been absent for over 11 years prior to her marriage to Teodorico in 1958.
2) As the marriage was valid, Marietta has rights as Teodorico's surviving spouse over his intestate estate.
3) As the conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta was not shown to be under another property regime, it belongs equally to Marietta as the surviving spouse and to Teodorico's estate upon his death.
ANTONIA ARMAS Y of her right as a surviving spouse.
CALISTERIO, petitioner, vs. MARIETTA HELD: CALISTERIO, respondent. Marriage is valid.
FACTS: The marriage between the deceased
Teodorico and respondent Marietta Teodorico Calisterio died intestate, was solemnized on 08 May 1958. The leaving several parcels of land with an law in force at that time was the Civil estimated value of P604,750.00. Code, not the Family Code which Teodorico was survived by his wife, took effect only on 03 August 1988. herein respondent Marietta Article 256 of the Family Code. Calisterio. Esm Verily, the applicable specific Teodorico was the second husband of provision in the instant controversy is Marietta who had previously been Article 83 of the New Civil Code married to James William Bounds. which provides:
James Bounds disappeared without a
trace on 11 February 1947. Teodorico "Art. 83. Any marriage and Marietta were married eleven subsequently contracted by years later, or on 08 May 1958, any person during the without Marietta having priorly lifetime of the first spouse secured a court declaration that James of such person with any was presumptively dead. person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and Herein petitioner Antonia Armas y void from its performance, Calisterio, a surviving sister of unless: Teodorico, filed with the Regional Trial Court, a petition entitled, "In the "(1) The first marriage was Matter of Intestate Estate of the annulled or dissolved; or Deceased Teodorico Calisterio y Cacabelos, Antonia Armas, "(2) The first spouse had Petitioner," claiming to be inter been absent for seven alia, the sole surviving heir of consecutive years at the Teodorico Calisterio, the marriage time of the second between the latter and respondent marriage without the Marietta Espinosa Calisterio being spouse present having allegedly bigamous and thereby null news of the absentee being and void. alive, or if the absentee, though he has been absent The trial court issued an order for less than seven years, is appointing jointly Sinfroniano C. generally considered as Armas, Jr., and respondent Marietta dead and believed to be so administrator and administratrix, by the spouse present at the respectively, of the intestate estate of time of contracting such Teodorico. subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed CA reversed the decision of the RTC. dead according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage ISSUE: so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases Whether the marriage of the deceased until declared null and void Teodorico and respondent Marietta is by a competent court." valid, that, in turn, would be determinative Under the foregoing provisions, a subsequent marriage contracted spouse. during the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void ab initio unless the The successional right in intestacy of prior marriage is first annulled or a surviving spouse over the net estate dissolved. Paragraph (2) of the law of the deceased, concurring with gives exceptions from the above rule. legitimate brothers and sisters or For the subsequent marriage referred nephews and nieces (the latter by to in the three exceptional cases right of representation), is one-half of therein provided, to be held valid, the the inheritance, the brothers and spouse present(not the absentee sisters or nephews and nieces, being spouse) so contracting the later entitled to the other half. marriage must have done so in good faith.
Bad faith imports a dishonest purpose
or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong - it partakes of the nature of fraud, a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will. The Court does not find these circumstances to be here extant.
A judicial declaration of absence of
the absentee spouse is not necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met.
In the case at bar, it remained
undisputed that respondent Marietta's first husband, James William Bounds, had been absent or had disappeared for more than eleven years before she entered into a second marriage in 1958 with the deceased Teodorico Calisterio.
This second marriage, having been
contracted during the regime of the Civil Code, should thus be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of a judicial declaration of presumptive death of James Bounds. The conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta, no evidence having been adduced to indicate another property regime between the spouses, pertains to them in common.
Upon its dissolution with the death
of Teodorico, the property should rightly be divided in two equal portions -- one portion going to the surviving spouse and the other portion to the estate of the deceased