Persons and Family Relations Case No.

30
Case Title:
Renato A. Castillo, petitioner vs. Lea De Leon Castillo, respondent

Digest By: Gail Padayhag

Legal Principles/Doctrines:

Facts:
May 25, 1972, respondent married Benjamin Bautista
January 6, 1979, respondent married petitioner
May 28, 2001, petitioner filed before RTC a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage due to her subsisting marriage to Bautista (and her
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of FC)
Respondent opposed the Petition and contented that her marriage w/
Bautista was null (and void) as they had NOT secured any license and
neither of them was a member of the denomination to w/c the solemnizing
officer belonged.
January 3, 2002, respondent filed an action to declare first marriage void.
January 22, 2003, RTC Paraaque declared respondents first marriage
null and void and issued a Certificate of Finality.
August 12, 2004, respondent filed a Demurer of Evidence, claiming that
petitioners proof was insufficient for a declaration of nullity on the grounds
of bigamy. Petitioner countered- that the time she entered into marriage
with him, her previous marriage was valid and subsisting.

Issue: Whether the CA was correct in holding thus and consequentially reversing
the RTCs declaration of nullity of the second marriage.

Ruling/s:
RTC granted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the
ground that respondent had a previous valid marriage before she married
petitioner/bigamous. As long as no judicial declaration exists, the prior
marriage is valid and existing.
The CA reversed and set aside RTCs decision and upheld the validity of
the parties marriage. Since respondents marriages were solemnized prior
to the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988), the Civil Code is the
applicable law since it is the law in effect at the time of the marriages was
celebrated. The Civil Code doe not state that judicial decree is necessary
to establish the nullity of a marriage.
SC Ruling: WHERFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED.
The CAs decision and resolution are AFFIRMED.
The validity of marriage and its entire incident must be determined in
accordance with the law in effect at the time of its celebration. Under the
Civil Code-
 Void Marriage Voidable Marriage
Nonexistent (no marriage from the Marriage is valid until annulled by a
beginning) competent court
Cannot be ratified Can be ratified by cohabitation
Being nonexistent, can be collaterally Cannot be collaterally attacked
attacked
No conjugal partnership and the There is conjugal partnership and the
offspring are natural children by legal children conceived before the decree of
fiction annulment are considered legitimate
No judicial decree to establish validity There must be a judicial decree
is necessary

SC emphasize on the fifth difference that the Civil Code contains no express
provision on the necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage
(held in cases of Mendoza, Aragon, and Odayat)

Mendoza- appellant contracted three marriages in 1936, 1941, and 1949. The 2 nd
marriage was contracted in the belief that the first wife was already dead, while
the third marriage was contracted after the death of the second wife. The Court
ruled that the first marriage was deem valid until annulled which made the
second marriage null and void for being bigamous. Thus, the third marriage was
valid as the second marriage was void from its performance, hence the
nonexistent w/o the need of a judicial declaration.

The Court concludes the subsequent marriage of Lea to Renato valid in view of
the invalidity of her first marriage to Bautista because of the absence of a
marriage license. That there was no judicial declaration that the first marriage
was void before the second marriage was contracted is IMMATERIAL as this is
not a requirement under the Civil Code.