Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Spouses Santos have been married for 27 years until the
man left the conjugal dwelling to cohabit with another woman and
later on got married. He filed a petition for declaration of her
absence and presumptive death alleging that for a while the lived in
San Juan City and move to Tarlac where they engaged in a buy & sell
business which did not prosper. It was alleged that the wife went to
Hongkong to work after the business failed. He further alleged that
she left the conjugal dwelling and despite efforts to locate her, she
could not be located. She discovered that the notice of hearing was
never published, but the court rendered a judgment declaring her
presumptively dead, thus enabling the man to remarry. She learned
about the filing of the petition and the decision after one year. She
filed a petition to annul the RTC judgment with the CA on the ground
of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. She claimed that the
allegations of her husband that she left the conjugal dwelling and
that she worked in Hongkong were all false. Instead it was her
husband who left the conjugal dwelling to cohabit with another
woman. The CA dismissed the petition for being the wrong remedy
and held that the appropriate remedy is to file a sworn statement
before the Local Civil Registrar declaring her reappearance. Is the
CAs ruling correct? Why?
The grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. The court defined extrinsic fraud in Stilianopulos v. City of
Legaspi: (Stiliana-Pulos v. City of Legaspi, 374 Phil. 879).
Hence, the subsequent marriage may still subsist despite the absent or
presumptively dead spouse's reappearance (1) if the first marriage has
already been annulled or has been declared a nullity; (2) if the sworn
statement of the reappearance is not recorded in the civil registry of the
subsequent spouses' residence; (3) if there is no notice to the subsequent
spouses; or (4) if the fact of reappearance is disputed in the proper courts of
law, and no judgment is yet rendered confirming, such fact of reappearance.