Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The deceased Josefa Delgado was the daughter of The marriage of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa
Felisa11 Delgado by one Lucio Campo. Aside from Delgado
Josefa, five other children were born to the couple,
namely, Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, and Sometime in 1917, Guillermo Rustia proposed
Gorgonio, all surnamed Delgado. Felisa Delgado was marriage to Josefa Delgado17 but whether a marriage
never married to Lucio Campo, hence, Josefa and her in fact took place is disputed. According to petitioners,
full-blood siblings were all natural children of Felisa the two eventually lived together as husband and wife
Delgado. but were never married. To prove their assertion,
petitioners point out that no record of the contested
However, Lucio Campo was not the first and only man marriage existed in the civil registry. Moreover, a
in Felisa Delgado’s life. Before him was Ramon baptismal certificate naming Josefa Delgado as one of
Osorio12 with whom Felisa had a son, Luis Delgado. the sponsors referred to her as "Señorita" or
But, unlike her relationship with Lucio Campo which unmarried woman.
was admittedly one without the benefit of marriage,
the legal status of Ramon Osorio’s and Felisa The oppositors (respondents here), on the other hand,
Delgado’s union is in dispute. insist that the absence of a marriage certificate did not
of necessity mean that no marriage transpired. They
The question of whether Felisa Delgado and Ramon maintain that Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado
Osorio ever got married is crucial to the claimants were married on June 3, 1919 and from then on lived
because the answer will determine whether their together as husband and wife until the death of Josefa
successional rights fall within the ambit of the rule on September 8, 1972. During this period spanning
against reciprocal intestate succession between more than half a century, they were known among
legitimate and illegitimate relatives.13 If Ramon Osorio their relatives and friends to have in fact been
and Felisa Delgado had been validly married, then married. To support their proposition, oppositors
their only child Luis Delgado was a legitimate half- presented the following pieces of evidence:
blood brother of Josefa Delgado and therefore
excluded from the latter’s intestate estate. He and his 1. Certificate of Identity No. 9592 dated
heirs would be barred by the principle of absolute [December 1, 1944] issued to Mrs. Guillermo
separation between the legitimate and illegitimate J. Rustia by Carlos P. Romulo, then
families. Conversely, if the couple were never Resident Commissioner to the United States
married, Luis Delgado and his heirs would be entitled of the Commonwealth of the Philippines;
to inherit from Josefa Delgado’s intestate estate, as
they would all be within the illegitimate line.
2. Philippine Passport No. 4767 issued to
Josefa D. Rustia on June 25, 1947;
Petitioners allege that Ramon Osorio and Felisa
Delgado were never married. In support thereof, they
assert that no evidence was ever presented to 3. Veterans Application for Pension or
establish it, not even so much as an allegation of the Compensation for Disability Resulting from
date or place of the alleged marriage. What is clear, Service in the Active Military or Naval Forces
however, is that Felisa retained the surname Delgado. of the United States- Claim No. C-4, 004,
So did Luis, her son with Ramon Osorio. Later on, 503 (VA Form 526) filed with the Veterans
when Luis got married, his Partida de Administration of the United States of
Casamiento14 stated that he was "hijo natural de America by Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia wherein
Felisa Delgado" (the natural child of Felisa Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia himself [swore] to his
Delgado),15 significantly omitting any mention of the marriage to Josefa Delgado in Manila on 3
name and other circumstances of his June 1919;18
father.16 Nevertheless, oppositors (now respondents)
insist that the absence of a record of the alleged 4. Titles to real properties in the name of
marriage did not necessarily mean that no marriage Guillermo Rustia indicated that he was
ever took place. married to Josefa Delgado.
The alleged heirs of Guillermo Rustia the ampun-ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia. The
opposition was grounded on the theory that Luisa
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado never had any Delgado vda. de Danao and the other claimants were
children. With no children of their own, they took into barred under the law from inheriting from their
their home the youngsters Guillermina Rustia Rustia illegitimate half-blood relative Josefa Delgado.
and Nanie Rustia. These children, never legally
adopted by the couple, were what was known in the In November of 1975, Guillerma Rustia filed a motion
local dialect as ampun-ampunan. to intervene in the proceedings, claiming she was the
only surviving descendant in the direct line of
During his life with Josefa, however, Guillermo Rustia Guillermo Rustia. Despite the objections of the
did manage to father an illegitimate child,19 the oppositors (respondents herein), the motion was
intervenor-respondent Guillerma Rustia, with one granted.
Amparo Sagarbarria. According to Guillerma,
Guillermo Rustia treated her as his daughter, his own On April 3, 1978, the original petition for letters of
flesh and blood, and she enjoyed open and administration was amended to state that Josefa
continuous possession of that status from her birth in Delgado and Guillermo Rustia were never married but
1920 until her father’s demise. In fact, Josefa had merely lived together as husband and wife.
Delgado’s obituary which was prepared by Guillermo
Rustia, named the intervenor-respondent as one of On January 24, 1980, oppositors (respondents herein)
their children. Also, her report card from the University filed a motion to dismiss the petition in the RTC
of Santo Tomas identified Guillermo Rustia as her insofar as the estate of Guillermo Rustia was
parent/guardian.20 concerned. The motion was denied on the ground that
the interests of the petitioners and the other claimants
Oppositors (respondents here) nonetheless posit that remained in issue and should be properly threshed
Guillerma Rustia has no interest in the intestate estate out upon submission of evidence.
of Guillermo Rustia as she was never duly
acknowledged as an illegitimate child. They contend On March 14, 1988, Carlota Delgado vda. de de la
that her right to compulsory acknowledgement Rosa substituted for her sister, Luisa Delgado vda.
prescribed when Guillermo died in 1974 and that she de Danao, who had died on May 18, 1987.
cannot claim voluntary acknowledgement since the
documents she presented were not the authentic
writings prescribed by the new Civil Code.21 On May 11, 1990, the RTC appointed Carlota
Delgado vda. de de la Rosa as administratrix of both
estates.27 The dispositive portion of the decision read:
On January 7, 1974, more than a year after the death
of Josefa Delgado, Guillermo Rustia filed a petition for
the adoption22 of their ampun-ampunan Guillermina WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, petitioner
Rustia. He stated under oath "[t]hat he ha[d] no and her co-claimants to the estate of the late Josefa
legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural children Delgado listed in the Petitions, and enumerated
or natural children by legal fiction."23 The petition was elsewhere in this Decision, are hereby declared as the
overtaken by his death on February 28, 1974. only legal heirs of the said Josefa Delgado who died
intestate in the City of Manila on September 8, 1972,
and entitled to partition the same among themselves
Like Josefa Delgado, Guillermo Rustia died without a in accordance with the proportions referred to in this
will. He was survived by his sisters Marciana Decision.
Rustia vda. deDamian and Hortencia Rustia-Cruz,
and by the children of his predeceased brother
Roman Rustia Sr., namely, Josefina Rustia Albano, Similarly, the intervenor Guillerma S. Rustia is hereby
Virginia Rustia Paraiso, Roman Rustia, Jr., Sergio declared as the sole and only surviving heir of the late
Rustia, Francisco Rustia and Leticia Rustia Miranda.24 Dr. Guillermo Rustia, and thus, entitled to the entire
estate of the said decedent, to the exclusion of the
oppositors and the other parties hereto.
ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS
The respondent court likewise pointed out the trial The letters of administration of the intestate estate of
court’s pronouncements as to certain matters of Dr. Guillermo Rustia in relation to the intestate estate
of Josefa Delgado shall issue to the nominee of the
oppositors-appellants upon his or her qualification and (aa) That a man and a woman deporting themselves
filing of the requisite bond in the sum of FIVE as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00). contract of marriage;
Premises considered, we rule that two of the It is in this light that we see fit to appoint joint
claimants to the estate of Guillermo Rustia, namely, administrators, in the persons of Carlota Delgado vda.
intervenor Guillerma Rustia and the ampun- de de la Rosa and a nominee of the nephews and
ampunan Guillermina Rustia Rustia, are not lawful nieces of Guillermo Rustia. They are the next of kin of
heirs of the decedent. Under Article 1002 of the new the deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo
Civil Code, if there are no descendants, ascendants, Rustia, respectively.
illegitimate children, or surviving spouse, the collateral
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the WHEREFORE, the petition (which seeks to reinstate
deceased. Therefore, the lawful heirs of Guillermo the May 11, 1990 decision of the RTC Manila, Branch
Rustia are the remaining claimants, consisting of his 55) is hereby DENIED. The assailed October 24,
sisters,69 nieces and nephews.70 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals
is AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
Entitlement To Letters Of Administration
1. Guillermo Rustia’s June 15, 1973 affidavit
An administrator is a person appointed by the court to of self-adjudication is hereby ANNULLED.
administer the intestate estate of the decedent. Rule
78, Section 6 of the Rules of Court prescribes an 2. the intestate estate of Guillermo Rustia
order of preference in the appointment of an shall inherit half of the intestate estate of
administrator: Josefa Delgado. The remaining half shall
pertain to (a) the full and half-siblings of
Sec. 6. When and to whom letters of administration Josefa Delgado who survived her and (b) the
granted. – If no executor is named in the will, or the children of any of Josefa Delgado’s full- or
executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the half-siblings who may have predeceased
trust, or fail to give a bond, or a person dies intestate, her, also surviving at the time of her death.
administration shall be granted: Josefa Delgado’s grandnephews and
grandnieces are excluded from her estate. In
this connection, the trial court is hereby
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the ordered to determine the identities of the
case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the relatives of Josefa Delgado who are entitled
discretion of the court, or to such person as to share in her estate.
such surviving husband or wife, or next of
kin, requests to have appointed, if competent
and willing to serve; 3. Guillermo Rustia’s estate (including its
one-half share of Josefa Delgado’s estate)
shall be inherited by Marciana Rustia vda.
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the de Damian and Hortencia Rustia Cruz
case may be, or next of kin, or the person (whose respective shares shall
selected by them, be incompetent or be per capita) and the children of the late
unwilling, or if the husband or widow or next
Roman Rustia, Sr. (who survived Guillermo
Rustia and whose respective shares shall
be per stirpes). Considering that Marciana
Rustia vda. de Damian and Hortencia Rustia
Cruz are now deceased, their respective READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION IN jabbulao.com
shares shall pertain to their estates. under the category RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
RODOLFO DIED. HIS BROTHER FILED AT RTC PETITION FOR
ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. ANONUEVO
Anonuevo v. Intestate of Rodolfo Jalandoni,
ET AL INTERVENED. THEY SAID THEIR MOTHER SYLVIA
GR 178221 (2010) WAS DAUGHTER OF ISABEL AND JOHN. BUT AT THE TIME
OF RODOLFO’S DEATH, THEIR GRANDMOTHER ISABEL
Case digest WAS THE LAWFUL WIFE OF RODOLFO BASED ON A
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. RODOLFO’S BROTHER OPPOSED
CASE DIGEST 0008: MAY D. AÑONUEVO, ALEXANDER BLEE
THEIR INTERVENTION BECAUSE THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF
DESANTIS AND JOHN DESANTIS NERI, PETITIONERS VS.
SYLVIA STATES THAT ISABEL AND JOHN WERE MARRIED.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF RODOLFO G. JALANDONI,
THEREFORE ISABEL’S MARRIAGE TO RODOLFO WAS NULL
REPRESENTED BY BERNARDINO G. JALANDONI AS SPECIAL
AND VOID. ANONUEVO ET AL HOWEVER ARGUED THAT
ADMINISTRATOR, RESPONDENT (FIRS DIVISION, G.R. NO.
THE ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF SYLVIA COULD
178221, O1 DECEMBER 2010) SUBJECT: MARRIAGE;
NOT BE USED AS PROOF THAT ISABEL AND JOHN WERE
INTERVENTION IN INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS)
INDEED MARRIED. FURTHER, SUCH STATEMENT OF
Filed under: LEGAL DIGESTS, Uncategorized — Leave a MARRIAGE IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS JUST TO SAVE
comment December 12, 2010 FACE AND IS CUSTOMARY.
RULING:
On 2 July 2004, the intestate court issued an order One. The Court of Appeals exceeded the limits of
allowing the petitioners and their siblings to take part review under a writ of certiorari.35 In nullifying the
in the settlement proceedings.25 The intestate court intestate court’s order, the appellate court did not
was convinced that the evidence at hand adequately confine itself to the issue of whether the same was
establish Isabel’s status as the legal spouse of issued with grave abuse of discretion.36 Rather, it
Rodolfo and, by that token, permitted the petitioners chose to re-assess the evidence and touch upon the
and their siblings to intervene in the proceedings on issue pertaining to Isabel’s right to inherit from
her behalf.26 Rodolfo.37
The intestate court also held that the birth certificate Had the appellate court limited itself to the issue of
of Sylvia was insufficient to prove that there was a whether grave abuse of discretion exists, it would
previous marriage between Isabel and John have found that the intestate court did not act
Desantis.27 It ventured on the possibility that the whimsically or capriciously in issuing its assailed
entries in the birth record of Sylvia regarding her orders.38 Grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
legitimacy and the status of her parents, may have intestate court is belied by the fact that the said orders
been made only in order to save Isabel and her family may be supported by the two (2) marriage certificates
from the social condemnation of having a child out of between Isabel and Rodolfo.39
wedlock.28
Second. Assuming ex-gratia argumenti that the Court
The respondent sought for reconsideration, but was of Appeals was correct in addressing the issue of
denied by the intestate court in its order dated 26 whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that
January 2006.29 Undeterred, the respondent hoisted a Isabel has a right to inherit from Rodolfo, it
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. nevertheless erred in finding that there was none. 40 A
proper evaluation of the evidence at hand does not
On 31 May 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the support the conclusion that Isabel had a previous
petition and nullified the orders of the intestate court. 30 marriage with John Desantis.41
In coming to its conclusion, the Court of Appeals To begin with, the respondent was not able to
found that it was an error on the part of the intestate produce any marriage certificate executed between
court to have disregarded the probative value of Isabel and John Desantis.42 The conspicuous
Sylvia’s birth certificate.31 The appellate court, siding absence of such certificate can, in turn, only lend
with the respondent, held that Sylvia’s birth certificate credibility to the position that no such marriage ever
serves as prima facie evidence of the facts therein took place.
stated—which includes the civil status of her
parents.32 Hence, the previous marriage of Isabel with Moreover, the entries in the birth certificate of Sylvia
John Desantis should have been taken as do not carry the necessary weight to be able to prove
established. a marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.43 In
assessing the probative value of such entries, the
The Court of Appeals added that since the petitioners Court of Appeals should have taken note of a "typical"
and their siblings failed to offer any other evidence practice among unwed Filipino couples who, in order
proving that the marriage of Isabel with John Desantis to "save face" and "not to embarrass their families,"
had been dissolved by the time she was married to concoct the illusion of marriage and make it appear
Rodolfo, it then follows that the latter marriage—the that a child begot by them is legitimate.44
Isabel-Rodolfo union—is a nullity for being
bigamous.33 From that premise, Isabel cannot be Since the alleged previous marriage of Isabel with
considered as the legal spouse of Rodolfo. The John Desantis was not satisfactorily proven, the Court
petitioners and their siblings, therefore, failed to show of Appeals clearly erred in finding that her marriage
that Isabel has any interest in the estate of Rodolfo. with Rodolfo is bigamous.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Accordingly, the decision dated 31 May 2007 of the Marriage on the ground of bigamy on March 3, 1998,
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00576 is hereby claiming that she learned only in November 1997,
AFFIRMED. Rederick’s marriage with Editha Samson.
WE CONCUR:
The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown by
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the divorce decree issued was valid and recognized in the
Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized
Australian. However, there is absolutely no evidence that
Marriages celebrated outside the Philippines (lex loci proves respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner
celebrationis) though the former presented a divorce decree. The said
decree, being a foreign document was inadmissible to
Exceptions to the lex loci celebrationis court as evidence primarily because it was not
authenticated by the consul/ embassy of the country
Foreign divorce
where it will be used.
45. Garcia v. Recio, GR 138322 (2001)
xxxxxxxxx
First Issue:
Proving the Divorce Between Respondent and Editha
Samson (5) If previously married, how, when and where the
previous marriage was dissolved or annulled;
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts
hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.[43] Like any
official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian
publication or (2) a copy thereof attested[33] by the officer marital laws are not among those matters that judges are
having legal custody of the document. If the record is not supposed to know by reason of their judicial
kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied function.[44] The power of judicial notice must be exercised
by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject
officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the should be resolved in the negative.
foreign country in which the record is kept and (b)
authenticated by the seal of his office. [34]
The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Second Issue: Respondents Legal Capacity to Remarry
Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an
Australian family court.[35] However, appearance is not
sufficient; compliance with the aforementioned rules on Petitioner contends that, in view of the insufficient
evidence must be demonstrated. proof of the divorce, respondent was legally incapacitated
to marry her in 1994. Hence, she concludes that their
Fortunately for respondents cause, when the divorce marriage was void ab initio.
decree of May 18, 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel
for petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to Respondent replies that the Australian divorce decree,
the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil which was validly admitted in evidence, adequately
Registry of Cabanatuan City.[36] The trial court ruled that it established his legal capacity to marry under Australian
was admissible, subject to petitioners law.
qualification.[37] Hence, it was admitted in evidence and
Respondents contention is untenable. In its strict legal
accorded weight by the judge. Indeed, petitioners failure to
sense, divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union
object properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as a
for a cause arising after marriage. But divorces are of
written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Australia. [38]
different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce
Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa
of the Family Code is not necessary; respondent was no et thoro. The first kind terminates the marriage, while the
longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired second suspends it and leaves the bond in full
Australian citizenship in 1992.[39] Naturalization is the legal force.[45] There is no showing in the case at bar which type
act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the political of divorce was procured by respondent.
Respondent presented a decree nisi or an Recio (Filipino) and Editha D. Samson (Australian) on
interlocutory decree -- a conditional or provisional March 1, 1987 in Malabon, Metro Manila;[53] (d) Exhibit D
judgment of divorce. It is in effect the same as a separation Office of the City Registrar of Cabanatuan City
from bed and board, although an absolute divorce may Certification that no information of annulment between
follow after the lapse of the prescribed period during which Rederick A. Recio and Editha D. Samson was in its
no reconciliation is effected.[46] records;[54] and (e) Exhibit E Certificate of Australian
Citizenship of Rederick A. Recio;[55] (2) for respondent: (a)
Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court Exhibit 1 -- Amended Answer;[56] (b) Exhibit 2 Family Law
may under some foreign statutes and practices, still restrict Act 1975 Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage in the
remarriage. Under some other jurisdictions, remarriage may Family Court of Australia;[57] (c) Exhibit 3 Certificate of
be limited by statute; thus, the guilty party in a divorce Australian Citizenship of Rederick A. Recio;[58] (d) Exhibit
which was granted on the ground of adultery may be 4 Decree Nisi of Dissolution of Marriage in the Family
prohibited from marrying again. The court may allow a Court of Australia Certificate;[59] and Exhibit 5 -- Statutory
remarriage only after proof of good behavior.[47] Declaration of the Legal Separation Between Rederick A.
On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree Recio and Grace J. Garcia Recio since October 22, 1995.[60]
contains a restriction that reads: Based on the above records, we cannot conclude that
1. A party to a marriage who marries again respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen,
before this decree becomes absolute (unless was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12,
the other party has died) commits the 1994. We agree with petitioners contention that the court a
offence of bigamy.[48] quo erred in finding that the divorce decree ipso facto
clothed respondent with the legal capacity to remarry
This quotation bolsters our contention that the without requiring him to adduce sufficient evidence to
divorce obtained by respondent may have been restricted. It show the Australian personal law governing his status; or at
did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry the very least, to prove his legal capacity to contract the
according to his national law. Hence, we find no basis for second marriage.
the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that
the Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondents Neither can we grant petitioners prayer to declare her
capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this marriage to respondent null and void on the ground of
matter. bigamy. After all, it may turn out that under Australian law,
he was really capacitated to marry petitioner as a direct
We also reject the claim of respondent that the result of the divorce decree. Hence, we believe that the
divorce decree raises a disputable presumption or most judicious course is to remand this case to the trial
presumptive evidence as to his civil status based on Section court to receive evidence, if any, which show petitioners
48, Rule 39[49] of the Rules of Court, for the simple reason legal capacity to marry petitioner. Failing in that, then the
that no proof has been presented on the legal effects of the court a quo may declare a nullity of the parties marriage on
divorce decree obtained under Australian laws. the ground of bigamy, there being already in evidence two
existing marriage certificates, which were both obtained in
Significance of the Certificate of Legal Capacity the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro Manila dated
March 1, 1987 and the other, in Cabanatuan City dated
Petitioner argues that the certificate of legal capacity
January 12, 1994.
required by Article 21 of the Family Code was not
submitted together with the application for a marriage WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure
license. According to her, its absence is proof that and substantial justice, we REMAND the case to the court a
respondent did not have legal capacity to remarry. quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which
conclusively show respondents legal capacity to marry
We clarify. To repeat, the legal capacity to contract
petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the parties
marriage is determined by the national law of the party
marriage void on the ground of bigamy, as above
concerned. The certificate mentioned in Article 21 of the
discussed. No costs.
Family Code would have been sufficient to establish the
legal capacity of respondent, had he duly presented it in SO ORDERED.
court. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is
prima facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Sandoval-Gutierrez,
of the alien applicant for a marriage license.[50] JJ., concur.
On December 16, 1961 Crasus Iyoy and Ada Rosal-Iyoy Finally, Article 36 “is not to be confused with a divorce law
married each other, they had 5 children. In 1984, Fely thatcuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore
went to the US, inthe same year she sent letters to Crasus manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological
asking him to sign divorce papers. In 1985, Crasus learned illness afflicting aparty even before the celebration of
that Fely married an Americanand had a child. Fely went marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to
back to the Philippines on several occasions, during one deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities
she attended the marriage of one of her children inwhich of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.”
she used her husband’s last name as hers in the invitation.
Fulltext:
DECISION
March 25, 1997, Crasus filed a complaint for declaration of
nullity alleging that Fely’s acts brought “danger and
dishonor” to the family and were manifestations of her
psychological incapacity. Crasus submitted his testimony,
the certification of the recording of their marriage CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
contract, and the invitation where Fely used her
newhusband’s last name as evidences.
Does abandonment and sexual infidelity per se constitute 2001,[1] affirming the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court
psychological incapacity?
(RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 22, in Civil Case No. CEB-20077,
Philippines.
filing of a Complaint[3] for declaration of nullity of marriage American family in New Jersey, U.S.A. She had been openly
by respondent Crasus on 25 March 1997. According to the using the surname of her American husband in the
said Complaint, respondent Crasus married Fely on 16 Philippines and in the U.S.A. For the wedding of Crasus, Jr.,
December 1961 at Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Fely herself had invitations made in which she was named
Avenue, Cebu City. As a result of their union, they had five as Mrs. Fely Ada Micklus. At the time the Complaint was
children Crasus, Jr., Daphne, Debbie, Calvert, and Carlos filed, it had been 13 years since Fely left and abandoned
who are now all of legal ages. After the celebration of their respondent Crasus, and there was no more possibility of
marriage, respondent Crasus discovered that Fely was hot- reconciliation between them. Respondent Crasus finally
tempered, a nagger and extravagant. In 1984, Fely left the alleged in his Complaint that Felys acts brought danger and
Philippines for the United States of America (U.S.A.), dishonor to the family, and clearly demonstrated her
leaving all of their five children, the youngest then being psychological incapacity to perform the essential
only six years old, to the care of respondent Crasus. Barely obligations of marriage. Such incapacity, being incurable
a year after Fely left for the U.S.A., respondent Crasus and continuing, constitutes a ground for declaration of
received a letter from her requesting that he sign the nullity of marriage under Article 36, in relation to Articles
enclosed divorce papers; he disregarded the said request. 68, 70, and 72, of the Family Code of the Philippines.
married to an American, with whom she eventually had a Fely filed her Answer and Counterclaim[4] with
child. In 1987, Fely came back to the Philippines with her the RTC on 05 June 1997. She asserted therein that she was
American family, staying at Cebu Plaza Hotel in Cebu City. already an American citizen since 1988 and was now
their eldest child, Crasus, Jr.; in 1992, for the brain by respondent Crasus in his Complaint. She explained that
operation of their fourth child, Calvert; and in 1995, for she was no more hot-tempered than any normal person, and
she may had been indignant at respondent Crasus on certain respondent Crasus himself was presently living with
occasions but it was because of the latters drunkenness, another woman who bore him a child. She also accused
womanizing, and lack of sincere effort to find employment respondent Crasus of misusing the amount of P90,000.00
and to contribute to the maintenance of their household. which she advanced to him to finance the brain operation of
She could not have been extravagant since the family their son, Calvert. On the basis of the foregoing, Fely also
hardly had enough money for basic needs. Indeed, Fely left prayed that the RTC declare her marriage to respondent
for abroad for financial reasons as respondent Crasus had Crasus null and void; and that respondent Crasus be
no job and what she was then earning as the sole ordered to pay to Fely the P90,000.00 she advanced to him,
breadwinner in the Philippines was insufficient to support with interest, plus, moral and exemplary damages,
their family. Although she left all of her children with attorneys fees, and litigation expenses.
support to them, as well as, to respondent Crasus. After respondent Crasus and Fely had filed their respective
American citizenship. She argued that her marriage to her reiterated the allegations in his Complaint;[7] (2) the
American husband was legal because now being an Certification, dated 13 April 1989, by the Health
American citizen, her status shall be governed by the law of Department of Cebu City, on the recording of the Marriage
openly used her American husbands surname, Micklus.[9] The ground bearing defendants psychological
incapacity deserves a reasonable consideration.
As observed, plaintiffs testimony is decidedly
credible. The Court finds that defendant had
indeed exhibited unmistakable signs of
Felys counsel filed a Notice,[10] and, later on, a psychological incapacity to comply with her
marital duties such as striving for family unity,
Motion,[11] to take the deposition of witnesses, namely, observing fidelity, mutual love, respect, help and
support. From the evidence presented, plaintiff
Fely and her children, Crasus, Jr. and Daphne, upon written adequately established that the defendant
practically abandoned him. She obtained a
interrogatories, before the consular officers of the divorce decree in the United States of America
and married another man and has establish [sic]
Philippines in New York and California, U.S.A, where the another family of her own. Plaintiff is in an
anomalous situation, wherein he is married to a
said witnesses reside. Despite the Orders[12] and wife who is already married to another man in
another country.
Commissions[13] issued by the RTC to the Philippine
Consuls of New York and California, U.S.A., to take the Defendants intolerable traits may not have been
apparent or manifest before the marriage, the
depositions of the witnesses upon written interrogatories, FAMILY CODE nonetheless allows the annulment
of the marriage provided that these were
not a single deposition was ever submitted to the RTC. eventually manifested after the wedding. It
appears to be the case in this instance.
Taking into account that it had been over a year since
respondent Crasus had presented his evidence and that Certainly defendants posture being an
irresponsible wife erringly reveals her very low
Fely failed to exert effort to have the case progress, the regard for that sacred and inviolable institution
of marriage which is the foundation of human
RTC issued an Order, dated 05 October society throughout the civilized world. It is quite
evident that the defendant is bereft of the mind,
1998,[14] considering Fely to have waived her right to will and heart to comply with her marital
obligations, such incapacity was already there at
present her evidence. The case was thus deemed the time of the marriage in question is shown by
defendants own attitude towards her marriage
submitted for decision. to plaintiff.
error therein. It even offered additional ratiocination for It would be the height of unfairness if, under
these circumstances, plaintiff would still be
declaring the marriage between respondent Crasus and considered as married to defendant, given her
total incapacity to honor her marital covenants
Fely null and void, to wit to the former. To condemn plaintiff to remain
shackled in a marriage that in truth and in fact
Defendant secured a divorce from plaintiff- does not exist and to remain married to a spouse
appellee abroad, has remarried, and is now who is incapacitated to discharge essential
permanently residing in the United States. marital covenants, is verily to condemn him to a
Plaintiff-appellee categorically stated this as one perpetual disadvantage which this Court finds
of his reasons for seeking the declaration of abhorrent and will not countenance. Justice
nullity of their marriage dictates that plaintiff be given relief by affirming
the trial courts declaration of the nullity of the
marriage of the parties.[16]
Article 26 of the Family Code provides:
established after a full-blown trial, and that paragraph 2 of ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party
who, at the time of the celebration, was
Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
indeed applicable to the marriage of respondent Crasus and manifest only after its solemnization.
citizen. He further questioned the personality of petitioner Issues most commonly arise as to what constitutes
prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the trial court, not In Santos v. Court of Appeals,[20] the term psychological
(b) Juridical Antecedence It must be rooted in the (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity
must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
history of the party antedating the marriage, although the alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven
by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires
that the incapacity must be psychological - not
and physical, although its manifestations and/or
symptoms may be physical. The evidence must
convince the court that the parties, or one of
(c) Incurability It must be incurable or, even if it
them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an
extent that the person could not have known the
were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of obligations he was assuming, or knowing them,
could not have given valid assumption thereof.
the party involved.[22] Although no example of such incapacity need be
given here so as not to limit the application of
the provision under the principle of ejusdem
generis, nevertheless such root cause must be
identified as a psychological illness and its
More definitive guidelines in the interpretation and incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert
evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists
application of Article 36 of the Family Code of the and clinical psychologists.
(7) Interpretations given by the National evidence presented by respondent Crasus failed miserably
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling
to establish the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife
or decisive, should be given great respect by our
courts
Fely; therefore, there is no basis for declaring their
marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
The only substantial evidence presented by physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or
respondent Crasus before the RTC was his testimony, perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not
which can be easily put into question for being self-serving, warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said
Certification on the recording with the Register of Deeds of As has already been stressed by this Court in previous
the Marriage Contract between respondent Crasus and Fely, cases, Article 36 is not to be confused with a divorce law
such marriage being celebrated on 16 December 1961; and that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore
(2) the invitation to the wedding of Crasus, Jr., their eldest manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological
son, in which Fely used her American husbands surname. illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of
Even considering the admissions made by Fely herself in marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to
her Answer to respondent Crasuss Complaint filed with the deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities
RTC, the evidence is not enough to convince this Court that of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.[28]
from assuming the essential obligations of marriage. The evidence may have proven that Fely committed acts
It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36 of the Family the family. Her hot-temper, nagging, and extravagance; her
Code of the Philippines contemplates downright incapacity abandonment of respondent Crasus; her marriage to an
or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic American; and even her flaunting of her American family
marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, and her American surname, may indeed be manifestations
of her alleged incapacity to comply with her marital II
Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family
Code of the Philippines is not
obligations; nonetheless, the root cause for such was not applicable to the case at bar.
divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to instant Petition on behalf of the State. Article 48 provides
Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and
III
the Administrative Code of 1987, appoints the Solicitor
The Solicitor General is authorized to
intervene, on behalf of the Republic, in General as the principal law officer and legal defender of
proceedings for annulment and
declaration of nullity of marriages.
the Government.[33] His Office is tasked to represent the
lawyers.[34]
annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages; hence, the
The intent of Article 48 of the Family Code of the practical that even while the proceeding is still being held
Philippines is to ensure that the interest of the State is before the RTC, the Office of the Solicitor General can
represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and already exercise supervision and control over the conduct
declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal therein to better
between the parties, or the fabrication or suppression of guarantee the protection of the interests of the State.
the principal law officer and legal defender of the land, then In fact, this Court had already recognized and affirmed the
his intervention in such proceedings could only serve and role of the Solicitor General in several cases for annulment
contribute to the realization of such intent, rather than and declaration of nullity of marriages that were appealed
Ancheta[36]
said Rule are reproduced below Given the foregoing, this Court arrives at a conclusion
Sec. 18. Memoranda. The court may require the grounds to file for legal separation under Article 55 of the
parties and the public prosecutor, in consultation
with the Office of the Solicitor General, to file
Family Code of the Philippines, but not for declaration of
their respective memoranda in support of their
claims within fifteen days from the date the trial
is terminated. It may require the Office of the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the same Code.
Solicitor General to file its own memorandum if
the case is of significant interest to the State. No
other pleadings or papers may be submitted While this Court commiserates with respondent Crasus for
without leave of court. After the lapse of the
period herein provided, the case will be
considered submitted for decision, with or being continuously shackled to what is now a hopeless and
without the memoranda.
Felicisimo contracted three marriages. The first marriage
was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which
loveless marriage, this is one of those situations where
were born six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar,
Linda, Emilita and Manuel. On August 11, 1963, Virginia
neither law nor society can provide the specific answer to predeceased Felicisimo. The second was Merry Lee
Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias; and Felicidad
every individual problem.[39] San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos, with whom he had
no children with respondent but lived with her for 18
years from the time of their marriage up to his death.
THIRD DIVISION Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry
Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias. However, on
October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a
Complaint for Divorce 5 before the Family Court of the
G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 First Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States of America
(U.S.A.), which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce
and Awarding Child Custody on December 14, 1973. 6
EDGAR SAN LUIS, Petitioner,
vs.
On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad
FELICIDAD SAN LUIS, Respondent. San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos, before Rev. Fr.
William Meyer, Minister of the United Presbyterian at
Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. 7 He
x ---------------------------------------------------- x had no children with respondent but lived with her for 18
years from the time of their marriage up to his death on
December 18, 1992.
marry her by virtue of paragraph 2, 13 Article 26 of the
Family Code and the doctrine laid down in Van Dorn v.
Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of their Romillo, Jr. 14
conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of
Felicisimo’s estate. On December 17, 1993, she filed a
petition for letters of administration 8 before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City, docketed as SP. Proc. No. M- Thereafter, Linda, Rodolfo and herein petitioner Edgar San
3708 which was raffled to Branch 146 thereof. Luis, separately filed motions for reconsideration from the
Order denying their motions to dismiss. 15 They asserted
that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be
given retroactive effect to validate respondent’s bigamous
Respondent alleged that she is the widow of Felicisimo; marriage with Felicisimo because this would impair vested
that, at the time of his death, the decedent was residing at rights in derogation of Article 256 16 of the Family Code.
100 San Juanico Street, New Alabang Village, Alabang,
Metro Manila; that the decedent’s surviving heirs are
respondent as legal spouse, his six children by his first
marriage, and son by his second marriage; that the On April 21, 1994, Mila, another daughter of Felicisimo
decedent left real properties, both conjugal and exclusive, from his first marriage, filed a motion to disqualify Acting
valued at ₱30,304,178.00 more or less; that the decedent Presiding Judge Anthony E. Santos from hearing the case.
does not have any unpaid debts. Respondent prayed that
the conjugal partnership assets be liquidated and that
letters of administration be issued to her. On October 24, 1994, the trial court issued an Order 17
denying the motions for reconsideration. It ruled that
respondent, as widow of the decedent, possessed the legal
On February 4, 1994, petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of standing to file the petition and that venue was properly
the children of Felicisimo by his first marriage, filed a laid. Meanwhile, the motion for disqualification was
motion to dismiss 9 on the grounds of improper venue and deemed moot and academic 18 because then Acting
failure to state a cause of action. Rodolfo claimed that the Presiding Judge Santos was substituted by Judge Salvador
petition for letters of administration should have been S. Tensuan pending the resolution of said motion.
filed in the Province of Laguna because this was
Felicisimo’s place of residence prior to his death. He
further claimed that respondent has no legal personality to Mila filed a motion for inhibition 19 against Judge Tensuan
file the petition because she was only a mistress of on November 16, 1994. On even date, Edgar also filed a
Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death, was still motion for reconsideration 20 from the Order denying
legally married to Merry Lee. their motion for reconsideration arguing that it does not
state the facts and law on which it was based.
Unaware of the denial of the motions to dismiss, On April 24, 1995, 22 the trial court required the parties to
respondent filed on March 5, 1994 her opposition 12 submit their respective position papers on the twin issues
thereto. She submitted documentary evidence showing of venue and legal capacity of respondent to file the
that while Felicisimo exercised the powers of his public petition. On May 5, 1995, Edgar manifested 23 that he is
office in Laguna, he regularly went home to their house in adopting the arguments and evidence set forth in his
New Alabang Village, Alabang, Metro Manila which they previous motion for reconsideration as his position paper.
bought sometime in 1982. Further, she presented the Respondent and Rodolfo filed their position papers on
decree of absolute divorce issued by the Family Court of June 14, 24 and June 20, 25 1995, respectively.
the First Circuit, State of Hawaii to prove that the marriage
of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already been dissolved.
Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the legal capacity to
On September 12, 1995, the trial court dismissed the validly dissolved by virtue of the decree of absolute
petition for letters of administration. It held that, at the divorce issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit, State
time of his death, Felicisimo was the duly elected governor of Hawaii. As a result, under paragraph 2, Article 26,
and a resident of the Province of Laguna. Hence, the Felicisimo was capacitated to contract a subsequent
petition should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna and marriage with respondent. Thus –
not in Makati City. It also ruled that respondent was
without legal capacity to file the petition for letters of
administration because her marriage with Felicisimo was With the well-known rule – express mandate of paragraph
bigamous, thus, void ab initio. It found that the decree of 2, Article 26, of the Family Code of the Philippines, the
absolute divorce dissolving Felicisimo’s marriage to Merry doctrines in Van Dorn, Pilapil, and the reason and
Lee was not valid in the Philippines and did not bind philosophy behind the enactment of E.O. No. 227, — there
Felicisimo who was a Filipino citizen. It also ruled that is no justiciable reason to sustain the individual view —
paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be sweeping statement — of Judge Arc[h]angel, that "Article
retroactively applied because it would impair the vested 26, par. 2 of the Family Code, contravenes the basic policy
rights of Felicisimo’s legitimate children. of our state against divorce in any form whatsoever."
Indeed, courts cannot deny what the law grants. All that
the courts should do is to give force and effect to the
Respondent moved for reconsideration 26 and for the express mandate of the law. The foreign divorce having
disqualification 27 of Judge Arcangel but said motions been obtained by the Foreigner on December 14, 1992, 32
were denied. 28 the Filipino divorcee, "shall x x x have capacity to remarry
under Philippine laws". For this reason, the marriage
between the deceased and petitioner should not be
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which denominated as "a bigamous marriage.
reversed and set aside the orders of the trial court in its
assailed Decision dated February 4, 1998, the dispositive
portion of which states: Therefore, under Article 130 of the Family Code, the
petitioner as the surviving spouse can institute the judicial
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
WHEREFORE, the Orders dated September 12, 1995 and deceased. x x x 33
January 31, 1996 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE; the
Orders dated February 28 and October 24, 1994 are
REINSTATED; and the records of the case is REMANDED to Edgar, Linda, and Rodolfo filed separate motions for
the trial court for further proceedings. 29 reconsideration 34 which were denied by the Court of
Appeals.
"The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the Likewise, in Quita v. Court of Appeals, 57 the Court stated
bond of matrimony by a competent jurisdiction are to that where a Filipino is divorced by his naturalized foreign
change the existing status or domestic relation of husband spouse, the ruling in Van Dorn applies. 58 Although
and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The decided on December 22, 1998, the divorce in the said
marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to
bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife without a
case was obtained in 1954 when the Civil Code provisions
were still in effect.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
The significance of the Van Dorn case to the development him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
of limited recognition of divorce in the Philippines cannot capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Emphasis
be denied. The ruling has long been interpreted as supplied)
severing marital ties between parties in a mixed marriage
and capacitating the Filipino spouse to remarry as a
necessary consequence of upholding the validity of a
divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse. In his xxxx
treatise, Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino cited Van Dorn stating Legislative Intent
that "if the foreigner obtains a valid foreign divorce, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law." 59 In Garcia v. Recio, 60 the Court likewise
cited the aforementioned case in relation to Article 26. 61 Records of the proceedings of the Family Code
deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph 2 of
Article 26, according to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member
of the Civil Code Revision Committee, is to avoid the
In the recent case of Republic v. Orbecido III, 62 the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
historical background and legislative intent behind married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce,
paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code were discussed, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
to wit:
All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in As such, the Van Dorn case is sufficient basis in resolving a
accordance with the laws in force in the country where situation where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the
they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also alien spouse. With the enactment of the Family Code and
be valid in this country, except those prohibited under paragraph 2, Article 26 thereof, our lawmakers codified
Articles 35, 37, and 38. the law already established through judicial
precedent.1awphi1.net
X___________________________x
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at
48. Amor-Catalan v. CA, GR 167109 (2007) the time the respondents were married, or even in the
CD:Catalan vs. CA Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can
file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however,
G.R. No. 167109, February 6, 2007 only a party who can demonstrate “proper interest” can
file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage,
like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party in interestand must be based on
FACTS:
a cause of action. Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog, the Court held
that the children have the personality to file the petition to
declare the nullity of the marriage of their deceased father
Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.
Orlando on June 4, 1950 in Mabini, Pangasinan. Significantly, Section 2(a) of The Rule on Declaration of
Thereafter, they migrated to the United States of America Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
and allegedly became naturalized citizens thereof. After 38 Voidable Marriages, which took effect on March 15, 2003,
years of marriage, Felicitas and Orlando divorced in April now specifically provides: a petition for declaration of
1988. Two months after the divorce, or on June 16, 1988, absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the
Orlando married respondent Merope in Calasiao, husband or the wife.
Pangasinan. Contending that said marriage was bigamous
since Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with Eusebio FULL TEXT:
Bristol, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage with damages in the RTC of Dagupan City
against Orlando and Merope. Respondents filed a motion YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action as
petitioner was allegedly not a real party-in-interest, but it This petition for review assails the Decision1 of the Court
was denied. Trial on the merits ensued. of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69875 dated August 6, 2004,
which reversed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
ISSUE: (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 44, in Civil Case No. D-
10636, declaring the marriage between respondents
Whether or not petitioner has legal personality to file the
Orlando B. Catalan and Merope E. Braganza void on the
petition for nullity of marriage between Orlando and
ground of bigamy, as well as the Resolution3 dated
Merope
January 27, 2005, which denied the motion for
RULING: reconsideration.
I.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss8 on the ground of
lack of cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a WHETHER PETITIONER HAS THE REQUIRED STANDING IN
real party-in-interest, but it was denied.9 Trial on the COURT TO QUESTION THE NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE
merits ensued. BETWEEN RESPONDENTS;
xxxx
She then filed a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
In fine, petitioner’s personality to file the petition to on the ground of Vicente's alleged psychological
declare the nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained incapacity,
because of the absence of the divorce decree and the
foreign law allowing it. Hence, a remand of the case to the docketed as Civil Case No. 01-094. She sought dissolution
trial court for reception of additional evidence is necessary of the conjugal partnerships of gains with application for
to determine whether respondent Orlando was granted a support pendente lite for her and Alix. She also prayed
divorce decree and whether the foreign law which granted that Vicente be ordered to pay a permanent monthly
the same allows or restricts remarriage. If it is proved that support for their daughter Alix in the amount of P
a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not 220,000.00.
allow respondent Orlando’s remarriage, then the trial
court should declare respondents’ marriage as bigamous
and void ab initio but reduce the amount of moral On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
damages from ₱300,000.00 to ₱50,000.00 and exemplary grounds of lack of cause of action and that the petition is
damages from ₱200,000.00 to ₱25,000.00. On the barred by the prior judgment of divorce.
contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce decree was
obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial
court must dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of
marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas Amor- RTC denied Vicente's motion to dismiss. CA dismissed Civil
Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same. Case No. 01-094 and set aside RTC's incidental orders.
According the the CA, RTC ought to have granted Vicente's
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, let this case be motion to dismiss, since the marriage between the
REMANDED to the trial court for its proper disposition. No spouses is already dissolved when the divorce decree was
costs. granted since Rebecca was an American citizen when she
applied for the decree.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Issue:
Associate Justice
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by Rebecca in
WE CONCUR: Dominican Republic is valid.
Bayot v. CA, GR 155635 (2008)
The fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognised as a The Facts
Filipino citizen by force of the June 8, 2000 affirmation by
the DOJ Secretary of the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20, 1979 in
Recognition will not, stand alone, work to nullify or Sanctuario de San Jose, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. On
invalidate the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an its face, the Marriage Certificate[6] identified Rebecca,
American citizen in 1996. In determining whether or not a then 26 years old, to be an American citizen[7] born in
divorce is secured abroad would come within the pale of Agaa, Guam, USA to Cesar Tanchiong Makapugay,
the country's policy against absolute divorce, the American, and Helen Corn Makapugay, American.
reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time
a valid divorce is obtained.
On November 27, 1982 in San Francisco, California,
Fulltext: Rebecca gave birth to Marie Josephine Alexandra or Alix.
From then on, Vicente and Rebeccas marital relationship
seemed to have soured as the latter, sometime in 1996,
DECISION initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic.
Before the Court of the First Instance of the Judicial
VELASCO, JR., J.: District of Santo Domingo, Rebecca personally appeared,
while Vicente was duly represented by counsel. On To the motion to dismiss, Rebecca interposed an
February 22, 1996, the Dominican court issued Civil Decree opposition, insisting on her Filipino citizenship, as affirmed
No. 362/96,[8] ordering the dissolution of the couples by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and that, therefore,
marriage and leaving them to remarry after completing there is no valid divorce to speak of.
the legal requirements, but giving them joint custody and
guardianship over Alix. Over a year later, the same court
would issue Civil Decree No. 406/97,[9] settling the Meanwhile, Vicente, who had in the interim contracted
couples property relations pursuant to an Agreement[10] another marriage, and Rebecca commenced several
they executed on December 14, 1996. Said agreement criminal complaints against each other. Specifically,
specifically stated that the conjugal property which they Vicente filed adultery and perjury complaints against
acquired during their marriage consist[s] only of the real Rebecca. Rebecca, on the other hand, charged Vicente
property and all the improvements and personal with bigamy and concubinage.
properties therein contained at 502 Acacia Avenue,
Alabang, Muntinlupa.[11]
Rebecca moved[24] but was denied reconsideration of the (3) Rebeccas contention about the nullity of a divorce, she
aforementioned April 30, 2002 resolution. In the being a Filipino citizen at the time the foreign divorce
meantime, on May 20, 2002, the preliminary injunctive decree was rendered, was dubious. Her allegation as to
writ[25] was issued. Rebecca also moved for her alleged Filipino citizenship was also doubtful as it was
reconsideration of this issuance, but the CA, by Resolution not shown that her father, at the time of her birth, was still
dated September 2, 2002, denied her motion. a Filipino citizen. The Certification of Birth of Rebecca
issued by the Government of Guam also did not indicate
the nationality of her father.
The adverted CA resolutions of April 30, 2002 and
September 2, 2002 are presently being assailed in
Rebeccas petition for certiorari, docketed under G.R. No. (4) Rebecca was estopped from denying her American
155635 citizenship, having professed to have that nationality
Ruling of the CA status and having made representations to that effect
during momentous events of her life, such as: (a) during
her marriage; (b) when she applied for divorce; and (c)
when she applied for and eventually secured an American
Pending resolution of G.R. No. 155635, the CA, by a passport on January 18, 1995, or a little over a year before
Decision dated March 25, 2004, effectively dismissed Civil she initiated the first but later withdrawn petition for
Case No. 01-094, and set aside incidental orders the RTC nullity of her marriage (Civil Case No. 96-378) on March
issued in relation to the case. The fallo of the presently 14, 1996.
assailed CA Decision reads:
The Issues
In G.R. No. 155635, Rebecca raises four (4) assignments of We shall first address the petition in G.R. No. 163979, its
errors as grounds for the allowance of her petition, all of outcome being determinative of the success or failure of
which converged on the proposition that the CA erred in the petition in G.R. No. 155635.
enjoining the implementation of the RTCs orders which
would have entitled her to support pending final
resolution of Civil Case No. 01-094. Three legal premises need to be underscored at the
outset. First, a divorce obtained abroad by an alien
married to a Philippine national may be recognized in the
In G.R. No. 163979, Rebecca urges the reversal of the Philippines, provided the decree of divorce is valid
assailed CA decision submitting as follows: according to the national law of the foreigner.[31] Second,
the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the divorcing
I parties at birth or at the time of marriage, but their
citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad.
And third, an absolute divorce secured by a Filipino
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT married to another Filipino is contrary to our concept of
MENTIONING AND NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION IN public policy and morality and shall not be recognized in
ITS APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS THE FACT OF this jurisdiction.[32]
PETITIONERS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP AS CATEGORICALLY
STATED AND ALLEGED IN HER PETITION BEFORE THE
COURT A QUO. Given the foregoing perspective, the determinative issue
tendered in G.R. No. 155635, i.e., the propriety of the
granting of the motion to dismiss by the appellate court,
resolves itself into the questions of: first, whether
petitioner Rebecca was a Filipino citizen at the time the
divorce judgment was rendered in the Dominican Republic
on February 22, 1996; and second, whether the judgment
II of divorce is valid and, if so, what are its consequent legal
effects?
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING ONLY The Courts Rulin
ON ANNEXES TO THE PETITION IN RESOLVING THE The petition is bereft of merit.
MATTERS BROUGHT BEFORE IT.
Rebecca an American Citizen in the Purview of This Case
III
For clarity, we reproduce in full the contents of ID What begs the question is, however, how the above
Certificate No. RC 9778: certificate could have been issued by the Bureau on
October 11, 1995 when the Secretary of Justice issued the
required affirmation only on June 8, 2000. No explanation
To Whom It May Concern: was given for this patent aberration. There seems to be no
error with the date of the issuance of the 1st Indorsement
This is to certify that *MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY by Secretary of Justice Tuquero as this Court takes judicial
BAYOT* whose photograph and thumbprints are affixed notice that he was the Secretary of Justice from February
hereto and partially covered by the seal of this Office, and 16, 2000 to January 22, 2001. There is, thus, a strong valid
whose other particulars are as follows: reason to conclude that the certificate in question must be
spurious.
Place of Birth: Guam, USA Date of Birth: March 5, 1953
WE CONCUR:
The petition for review on certiorari is granted, the RTC
X______________________________________________x decision is reversed and Court ordered t6he remand of the
50. Corpuz v. Sto Tomas, GR 186571 (2010) case to the trial court for further proceedings in light of
the ruling.
Case digest: Nature of the Case: Direct Appeal from RTC
decision, a petition for review on certiorari Fulltext:
DECISION
(e) divorces;
In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by
the practice of reciprocal recognition of foreign judgments (f) legitimations;
between nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign
judgments of divorce serves as the deeper basis for (g) adoptions;
extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien (h) acknowledgment of natural children;
spouse bound by its terms. This same effect, as discussed
above, will not obtain for the Filipino spouse were it not (i) naturalization; and
for the substantive rule that the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code provides. (j) changes of name.
We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should Orlando B. Catalan, a naturalized American
not be construed as requiring two separate proceedings citizen,allegedly obtained a divorce in the United States
for the registration of a foreign divorce decree in the civil from his first wife, Felicitas Amor. He then contracted a
registry one for recognition of the foreign decree and second marriage with petitioner.
another specifically for cancellation of the entry under
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The recognition of the
When Orlando died intestate in the Philippines, 2. Whether the divorce obtained abroad by Orlando may
petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for the issuance of be recognized under Philippine jurisdiction.
letters of administration for her appointment as
administratrix of the intestate estate. While the case was
pending, respondent Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one of the HELD:
children of Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar
petition with the RTC. The two cases were consolidated.
LOUELLA A. CATALAN-LEE,
It appears that the trial court no longer required
petitioner to prove the validity of Orlando’s divorce
under the laws of the United States and the marriage Respondent.
between petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a
need to remand the proceedings to the trial court for
further reception of evidence to establish the fact of
divorce.
SECOND DIVISION
Present:
Petitioner,
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
PEREZ,
SERENO, and
REYES, JJ.
- versus -
Promulgated:
February 8, 2012
x--------------------------------------------
------x
Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of Spec. Proc. No. 232
on the ground of litis pendentia, considering that Spec.
Proc. No. 228 covering the same estate was already
pending.
Facts:
With regard to respondent's marriage to Felicisimo
allegedly solemnized in California, U.S.A., she submitted Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national
photocopies of the Marriage Certificate and the who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay
annotated text of the Family Law Act of California which (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The
purportedly show that their marriage was done in marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus,
accordance with the said law. As stated in Garcia, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides.
however, the Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign Eventually, they lost contact with each other.
laws as they must be alleged and proved.
vs. Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to
MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan
ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE which declared the marriage between Marinay and
NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, RESPONDENTS. Maekara void on the ground of bigamy.4 On 14 January
2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial
Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute
Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the Japanese
DECISION Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the
bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara be
declared void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the
CARPIO, J.: Family Code of the Philippines;5 and (3) for the RTC to
direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate
the Japanese Family Court judgment on the Certificate of
Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse
The Case
such annotation to the Office of the Administrator and
Civil Registrar General in the National Statistics Office
(NSO).6
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
redress of a wrong."10 In other words, the petition in the
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court RTC sought to establish (1) the status and concomitant
rights of Fujiki and Marinay as husband and wife and (2)
the fact of the rendition of the Japanese Family Court
A few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC judgment declaring the marriage between Marinay and
immediately issued an Order dismissing the petition and Maekara as void on the ground of bigamy. The petitioner
withdrawing the case from its active civil docket.7 The contended that the Japanese judgment was consistent
RTC cited the following provisions of the Rule on with Article 35(4) of the Family Code of the Philippines11
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and on bigamy and was therefore entitled to recognition by
Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10- Philippine courts.12
SC):
In any case, it was also Fujiki’s view that A.M. No. 02-11-
Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void 10-SC applied only to void marriages under Article 36 of
marriages. – the Family Code on the ground of psychological
incapacity.13 Thus, Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
provides that "a petition for declaration of absolute
(a) Who may file. – A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages may be filed solely by the
nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife." To apply Section 2(a) in bigamy
husband or the wife. would be absurd because only the guilty parties would be
permitted to sue. In the words of Fujiki, "[i]t is not, of
course, difficult to realize that the party interested in
having a bigamous marriage declared a nullity would be
xxxx the husband in the prior, pre-existing marriage."14 Fujiki
had material interest and therefore the personality to
nullify a bigamous marriage.
Sec. 4. Venue. – The petition shall be filed in the Family
Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the
respondent has been residing for at least six months prior Fujiki argued that Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
to the date of filing, or in the case of a non-resident Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court is
respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at applicable. Rule 108 is the "procedural implementation"
the election of the petitioner. x x x of the Civil Register Law (Act No. 3753)15 in relation to
Article 413 of the Civil Code.16 The Civil Register Law
imposes a duty on the "successful petitioner for divorce
The RTC ruled, without further explanation, that the or annulment of marriage to send a copy of the final
petition was in "gross violation" of the above provisions. decree of the court to the local registrar of the
The trial court based its dismissal on Section 5(4) of A.M. municipality where the dissolved or annulled marriage
No. 02-11-10-SC which provides that "[f]ailure to comply was solemnized."17 Section 2 of Rule 108 provides that
with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground entries in the civil registry relating to "marriages,"
for immediate dismissal of the petition."8 Apparently, "judgments of annulments of marriage" and "judgments
the RTC took the view that only "the husband or the declaring marriages void from the beginning" are subject
wife," in this case either Maekara or Marinay, can file the to cancellation or correction.18 The petition in the RTC
petition to declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki. sought (among others) to annotate the judgment of the
Japanese Family Court on the certificate of marriage
between Marinay and Maekara.
Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He argued
that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC contemplated ordinary civil
actions for declaration of nullity and annulment of Fujiki’s motion for reconsideration in the RTC also
marriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply. A asserted that the trial court "gravely erred" when, on its
petition for recognition of foreign judgment is a special own, it dismissed the petition based on improper venue.
proceeding, which "seeks to establish a status, a right or Fujiki stated that the RTC may be confusing the concept
a particular fact,"9 and not a civil action which is "for the of venue with the concept of jurisdiction, because it is
lack of jurisdiction which allows a court to dismiss a case The Manifestation and Motion of the Office of the
on its own. Fujiki cited Dacoycoy v. Intermediate Solicitor General and the Letters of Marinay and Maekara
Appellate Court19 which held that the "trial court cannot
pre-empt the defendant’s prerogative to object to the
improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing On 30 May 2011, the Court required respondents to file
the case."20 Moreover, petitioner alleged that the trial their comment on the petition for review.30 The public
court should not have "immediately dismissed" the respondents, the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and
petition under Section 5 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC because the Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the NSO,
he substantially complied with the provision. participated through the Office of the Solicitor General.
Instead of a comment, the Solicitor General filed a
Manifestation and Motion.31
On 2 March 2011, the RTC resolved to deny petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration. In its Resolution, the RTC
stated that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies because the The Solicitor General agreed with the petition. He prayed
petitioner, in effect, prays for a decree of absolute nullity that the RTC’s "pronouncement that the petitioner failed
of marriage.21 The trial court reiterated its two grounds to comply with x x x A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC x x x be set
for dismissal, i.e. lack of personality to sue and improper aside" and that the case be reinstated in the trial court
venue under Sections 2(a) and 4 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. for further proceedings.32 The Solicitor General argued
The RTC considered Fujiki as a "third person"22 in the that Fujiki, as the spouse of the first marriage, is an
proceeding because he "is not the husband in the decree injured party who can sue to declare the bigamous
of divorce issued by the Japanese Family Court, which he marriage between Marinay and Maekara void. The
now seeks to be judicially recognized, x x x."23 On the Solicitor General cited Juliano-Llave v. Republic33 which
other hand, the RTC did not explain its ground of held that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not
impropriety of venue. It only said that "[a]lthough the apply in cases of bigamy. In Juliano-Llave, this Court
Court cited Sec. 4 (Venue) x x x as a ground for dismissal explained:
of this case[,] it should be taken together with the other
ground cited by the Court x x x which is Sec. 2(a) x x x."24
(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition
a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the for recognition of foreign judgment would mean that the
trial court and the parties should follow its provisions,
including the form and contents of the petition,51 the evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
service of summons,52 the investigation of the public party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact."
prosecutor,53 the setting of pre-trial,54 the trial55 and Thus, Philippine courts exercise limited review on foreign
the judgment of the trial court.56 This is absurd because judgments. Courts are not allowed to delve into the
it will litigate the case anew. It will defeat the purpose of merits of a foreign judgment. Once a foreign judgment is
recognizing foreign judgments, which is "to limit admitted and proven in a Philippine court, it can only be
repetitive litigation on claims and issues."57 The repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e. , "want of
interpretation of the RTC is tantamount to relitigating the jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
case on the merits. In Mijares v. Rañada,58 this Court or clear mistake of law or fact." The rule on limited
explained that "[i]f every judgment of a foreign court review embodies the policy of efficiency and the
were reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be protection of party expectations,61 as well as respecting
forced back on his/her original cause of action, rendering the jurisdiction of other states.62
immaterial the previously concluded litigation."59
Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires
a foreign judgment or final order against a person creates proof of fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special
a "presumptive evidence of a right as between the proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the
parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1,
title." Moreover, Section 48 of the Rules of Court states Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] special
that "the judgment or final order may be repelled by proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to
establish a status, a right, or a particular fact." Rule 108
creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person’s life which
are recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Property rights are already substantive rights protected
Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of public by the Constitution,72 but a spouse’s right in a marriage
consequence such as birth, death or marriage,66 which extends further to relational rights recognized under Title
the State has an interest in recording. As noted by the III ("Rights and Obligations between Husband and Wife")
Solicitor General, in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court of the Family Code.73 A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC cannot
declared that "[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce "diminish, increase, or modify" the substantive right of
decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the spouse to maintain the integrity of his marriage.74 In
the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 any case, Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC preserves
of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status this substantive right by limiting the personality to sue to
or right of a party or a particular fact."67 the husband or the wife of the union recognized by law.
Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states: Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a
spouse of a subsisting marriage to question the validity of
a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On the
contrary, when Section 2(a) states that "[a] petition for
Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status filed solely by the husband or the wife"75—it refers to
of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage.
may file a verified petition for the cancellation or Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the marriages are void from the beginning. Thus, the parties
Regional Trial Court of the province where the in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the
corresponding civil registry is located. (Emphasis wife under the law. The husband or the wife of the prior
supplied) subsisting marriage is the one who has the personality to
file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize
the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the
marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which declares bigamous
of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil status marriages void from the beginning, is the civil aspect of
as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code,76 which penalizes
personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the bigamy. Bigamy is a public crime. Thus, anyone can
entry of marriage between Marinay and Maekara in the initiate prosecution for bigamy because any citizen has an
civil registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese interest in the prosecution and prevention of crimes.77 If
Family Court. anyone can file a criminal action which leads to the
declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage,78 there is
more reason to confer personality to sue on the husband
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal or the wife of a subsisting marriage. The prior spouse
and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the does not only share in the public interest of prosecuting
marriage he contracted and the property relations arising and preventing crimes, he is also personally interested in
from it. There is also no doubt that he is interested in the the purely civil aspect of protecting his marriage.
cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the
civil registry, which compromises the public record of his
marriage. The interest derives from the substantive right When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is
of the spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, in limited violated, the spouse is clearly an injured party and is
instances68) his most intimate human relation, but also therefore interested in the judgment of the suit.79
to protect his property interests that arise by operation Juliano-Llave ruled that the prior spouse "is clearly the
of law the moment he contracts marriage.69 These aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only
property interests in marriage include the right to be threatens the financial and the property ownership
supported "in keeping with the financial capacity of the aspect of the prior marriage but most of all, it causes an
family"70 and preserving the property regime of the emotional burden to the prior spouse."80 Being a real
marriage.71 party in interest, the prior spouse is entitled to sue in
order to declare a bigamous marriage void. For this However, this does not apply in a petition for correction
purpose, he can petition a court to recognize a foreign or cancellation of a civil registry entry based on the
judgment nullifying the bigamous marriage and judicially recognition of a foreign judgment annulling a marriage
declare as a fact that such judgment is effective in the where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign
Philippines. Once established, there should be no more country. There is neither circumvention of the
impediment to cancel the entry of the bigamous marriage substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under
in the civil registry. Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of Family Courts
under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign judgment
is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an action for
III. Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign
judgment, which presupposes a case which was already
tried and decided under foreign law. The procedure in
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to
In Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, recognize a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous
Negros Occidental, this Court held that a "trial court has marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the
no jurisdiction to nullify marriages" in a special foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the
proceeding for cancellation or correction of entry under jurisdiction of the foreign court.
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.81 Thus, the "validity of
marriage[] x x x can be questioned only in a direct action"
to nullify the marriage.82 The RTC relied on Braza in
dismissing the petition for recognition of foreign Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on
judgment as a collateral attack on the marriage between Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce
Marinay and Maekara. decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to
determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.
The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code
provides that "[w]here a marriage between a Filipino
Braza is not applicable because Braza does not involve a citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce
recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
foreign country. shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law." In
Republic v. Orbecido,88 this Court recognized the
legislative intent of the second paragraph of Article 26
To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an which is "to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino
entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after
to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino
prevent circumvention of the substantive and procedural spouse"89 under the laws of his or her country. The
safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code only
02-11-10-SC and other related laws. Among these authorizes Philippine courts to adopt the effects of a
safeguards are the requirement of proving the limited foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines
grounds for the dissolution of marriage,83 support does not allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the
pendente lite of the spouses and children,84 the case on the merits because it is tantamount to trying a
liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of case for divorce.
the spouses,85 and the investigation of the public
prosecutor to determine collusion.86 A direct action for
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage is also The second paragraph of Article 26 is only a corrective
necessary to prevent circumvention of the jurisdiction of measure to address the anomaly that results from a
the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997 marriage between a Filipino, whose laws do not allow
(Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for cancellation or divorce, and a foreign citizen, whose laws allow divorce.
correction of entries in the civil registry may be filed in The anomaly consists in the Filipino spouse being tied to
the Regional Trial Court "where the corresponding civil the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry
registry is located."87 In other words, a Filipino citizen under the laws of his or her country. The correction is
cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere expedient of made by extending in the Philippines the effect of the
changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry. foreign divorce decree, which is already effective in the
country where it was rendered. The second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code is based on this Court’s
decision in Van Dorn v. Romillo90 which declared that involving a citizen of a foreign country, Philippine courts
the Filipino spouse "should not be discriminated against only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino
in her own country if the ends of justice are to be party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article
served."91 15 of the Civil Code.
The principle in Article 26 of the Family Code applies in a For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1)
marriage between a Filipino and a foreign citizen who whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an
obtains a foreign judgment nullifying the marriage on the overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2)
ground of bigamy. The Filipino spouse may file a petition whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic
abroad to declare the marriage void on the ground of ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of
bigamy. The principle in the second paragraph of Article jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
26 of the Family Code applies because the foreign spouse, or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither
after the foreign judgment nullifying the marriage, is inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to
capacitated to remarry under the laws of his or her repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default,
country. If the foreign judgment is not recognized in the recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of
Philippines, the Filipino spouse will be discriminated—the nations. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
foreign spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse states that the foreign judgment is already "presumptive
cannot remarry. evidence of a right between the parties." Upon
recognition of the foreign judgment, this right becomes
conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for the
Under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family correction or cancellation of entry in the civil registry. The
Code, Philippine courts are empowered to correct a recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous
situation where the Filipino spouse is still tied to the marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a new
marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry. status, right and fact92 that needs to be reflected in the
Moreover, notwithstanding Article 26 of the Family Code, civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency
Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to extend the between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign
effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines to the judgment and the public records in the
extent that the foreign judgment does not contravene Philippines.1âwphi1
domestic public policy. A critical difference between the
case of a foreign divorce decree and a foreign judgment
nullifying a bigamous marriage is that bigamy, as a However, the recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying
ground for the nullity of marriage, is fully consistent with a bigamous marriage is without prejudice to prosecution
Philippine public policy as expressed in Article 35(4) of for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
the Family Code and Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.93 The recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying
Code. The Filipino spouse has the option to undergo full a bigamous marriage is not a ground for extinction of
trial by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of criminal liability under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised
marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, but this is not the Penal Code. Moreover, under Article 91 of the Revised
only remedy available to him or her. Philippine courts Penal Code, "[t]he term of prescription [of the crime of
have jurisdiction to recognize a foreign judgment bigamy] shall not run when the offender is absent from
nullifying a bigamous marriage, without prejudice to a the Philippine archipelago."
criminal prosecution for bigamy.
Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.
53. Enrico v. Heirs of Medinaceli, GR 173614 (2007) · Respondents, heirs of Spouses Eulogio B.
Medinaceli and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli filed an action
CASE DIGEST: for declaration of nullity of marriage of Eulogio and
petitioner Lolita D. Enrico.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNULMENT OR
DECLARATION OF NULLITY · Complaint alleged that Eulogio and Trinidad were
married on 14 June 1962 and begot seven children,
herein respondents, namely: Eduardo, Evelyn, Vilma,
ENRICO VS. MEDINACELI Mary Jane, Haizel, Michelle and Joseph Lloyd. On 1 May
2004, Trinidad died. On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married
G.R. NO. 173614, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 petitioner before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan.
Six months later, or on 10 February 2005, Eulogio passed
away.
Doctrine:
Coverage:
Petitioner maintained that she and Eulogio lived together
ü Marriages celebrated during effectivity of Civil Code as husband and wife under one roof for 21 years openly
and publicly; hence, they were exempted from the
requirement of a marriage license. As an affirmative
Coverage: defense, she sought the dismissal of the action on the
ground that it is only the contracting parties while living
ü Marriages celebrated on and after March 15, 2003 (this who can file an action for declaration of nullity of
rule being prospective) marriage.
ü How about marriages celebrated during the effectivity
of the Civil Code but the action was commenced only
after the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC? · RTC dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of
action, citing Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10-SC
promulgated by the Supreme Court which took effect on
March 15, 2003 provides in Section 2, par. (a) that a contrary to the opinion of the RTC, there is no need to
petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void reconcile the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC with the
Marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. ruling in Nial, because they vary in scope and application.
As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers
· Respondents filed a MR. marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and
· RTC reinstated the complaint on the ratiocination is prospective in its application.
that the assailed Order ignored the ruling in Nial v.
Bayadog, which was on the authority for holding that the
heirs of a deceased spouse have the standing to assail a Hence, in resolving the issue before us, we resort to
void marriage even after the death of the latter. It held Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which provides:
that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-20-SC, which provides
that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, void marriages. (a) Who may file. A petition for
applies only where both parties to a void marriage are declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
still living. filed solely by the husband or the wife.
ISSUE: Which applies in the case at bar: the case law as Rationale: Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a
embodied in Nial, or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute petition for annulment of voidable marriages or
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such
Marriages as specified in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC? petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs
of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the
belief that they do not have a legal right to file the
petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only
HELD: inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor,
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies because it is the law that and hence can only question the validity of the marriage
governs petitions for the declaration of nullity of of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a
marriage celebrated during the effectivity of the Family proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
Code. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other
celebrated on 26 August 2004. hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage
and not to seek its dissolution.
FULLTEXT:
While it is true that Nial allowed therein petitioners to
file a petition for the declaration of nullity of their DECISION
father’s marriage to therein respondent after the death
of their father, we cannot, however, apply its ruling for
the reason that the impugned marriage therein was CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code.
The Court in Nial recognized that the applicable law to
determine the validity of the two marriages involved
therein is the Civil Code, which was the law in effect at
the time of their celebration. What we have before us The instant Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of
belongs to a different milieu, i.e., the marriage sought to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assails the Order,[1]
be declared void was entered into during the effectivity dated 3 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
of the Family Code. As can be gleaned from the facts, Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, in Civil Case No. II-4057,
petitioners marriage to Eulogio was celebrated in 2004. granting reconsideration of its Order,[2] dated 11
October 2005, and reinstating respondents Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves
no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those
marriages entered into during the effectivity of the On 17 March 2005, respondents, heirs of Spouses Eulogio
Family Code which took effect on 3 August 1988. A.M. B. Medinaceli (Eulogio) and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli
No. 02-11-10-SC took effect on 15 March 2003. Thus, (Trinidad) filed with the RTC, an action for declaration of
nullity of marriage of Eulogio and petitioner Lolita D. The Complaint should be dismissed.
Enrico. Substantially, the complaint alleged, inter alia,
that Eulogio and Trinidad were married on 14 June 1962,
in Lal-lo, Cagayan.[3] They begot seven children, herein 1) Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10-SC promulgated
respondents, namely: Eduardo, Evelyn, Vilma, Mary Jane, by the Supreme Court which took effect on March 15,
Haizel, Michelle and Joseph Lloyd.[4] On 1 May 2004, 2003 provides in Section 2, par. (a)[11] that a petition for
Trinidad died.[5] On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage may
petitioner before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The language
Cagayan.[6] Six months later, or on 10 February 2005, of this rule is plain and simple which states that such a
Eulogio passed away.[7] petition may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.
The rule is clear and unequivocal that only the husband
or the wife may file the petition for Declaration of
In impugning petitioners marriage to Eulogio, Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage. The reading of this
respondents averred that the same was entered into Court is that the right to bring such petition is exclusive
without the requisite marriage license. They argued that and this right solely belongs to them. Consequently, the
Article 34[8] of the Family Code, which exempts a man heirs of the deceased spouse cannot substitute their late
and a woman who have been living together for at least father in bringing the action to declare the marriage null
five years without any legal impediment from securing a and void.[12] (Emphasis supplied.)
marriage license, was not applicable to petitioner and
Eulogio because they could not have lived together under
the circumstances required by said provision. The dispositive portion of the Order, thus, reads:
Respondents posited that the marriage of Eulogio to
Trinidad was dissolved only upon the latters death, or on
1 May 2004, which was barely three months from the
date of marriage of Eulogio to petitioner. Therefore, WHEREFORE, [the] Motion to Dismiss raised as an
petitioner and Eulogio could not have lived together as affirmative defense in the answer is hereby GRANTED.
husband and wife for at least five years. To further their Accordingly, the Complaint filed by the [respondents] is
cause, respondents raised the additional ground of lack hereby DISMISSED with costs de officio. [13]
of marriage ceremony due to Eulogios serious illness
which made its performance impossible.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
Following the filing by petitioner of her Comment to the
In her Answer, petitioner maintained that she and said motion, the RTC rendered an Order[14] dated 3 May
Eulogio lived together as husband and wife under one 2006, reversing its Order of 11 October 2005. Hence, the
roof for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they were RTC reinstated the complaint on the ratiocination that
exempted from the requirement of a marriage license. the assailed Order ignored the ruling in Nial v.
From their union were born Elvin Enrico and Marco Bayadog,[15] which was on the authority for holding that
Enrico, all surnamed Medinaceli, on 28 October 1988 and the heirs of a deceased spouse have the standing to assail
30 October 1991, respectively. She further contended a void marriage even after the death of the latter. It held
that the marriage ceremony was performed in the that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-20-SC, which provides
Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and solemnized by the that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative defense, she sought marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife,
the dismissal of the action on the ground that it is only applies only where both parties to a void marriage are
the contracting parties while living who can file an action still living.[16] Where one or both parties are deceased,
for declaration of nullity of marriage. the RTC held that the heirs may file a petition to declare
the marriage void. The RTC expounded on its stance,
thus:
DECISION
Parcel No. 2
PARCEL No. 4
The events that led to the institution of the instant suit A parcel of land (Lot 28-C of the subd. plan Psd-13-
are unveiled as follows: 007090, being a portion of Lot 28, Muntinlupa Estate,
L.R.C. Rec. No. 6137), situated in the Bo. of Alabang,
Mun. of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. Bounded on the NE,
Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. along lines 1-2 by Lot 27, Muntinlupa Estate; on the East
They left six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, & SE, along lines 2 to 6 by Mangangata River; and on the
Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. The lots West., along line 6-1, by Lot 28-B of the subd. plan x x x
are particularly described as follows: containing an area of ONE THUSAND AND SEVENTY-SIX
(1,076) SQUARE METERS.
PARCEL No. 5 On May 13, 1992, Teofilo died intestate. He was survived
by respondents Felicidad and their son, Teofilo Carlos II
(Teofilo II). Upon Teofilos death, Parcel Nos. 5 & 6 were
PARCELA DE TERRENO No. 50, Manzana No. 18, de la registered in the name of respondent Felicidad and co-
subd. de Solocan. Linda por el NW, con la parcela 49; por respondent, Teofilo II. The said two (2) parcels of land are
el NE, con la parcela 36; por el SE, con la parcela 51; y por covered by TCT Nos. 219877 and 210878, respectively,
el SW, con la calle Dos Castillas. Partiendo de un punto issued by the Registry of Deeds of Manila.
marcado 1 en el plano, el cual se halla a S. gds. 01'W,
72.50 mts. Desde el punto 1 de esta manzana, que es un
mojon de concreto de la Ciudad de Manila, situado on el In 1994, petitioner instituted a suit against respondents
esquina E. que forman las Calles Laong Laan y Dos. before the RTC in Muntinlupa City, docketed as Civil Case
Castillas, continiendo un extension superficial de CIENTO No. 94-1964. In the said case, the parties submitted and
CINCUENTA (150) METROS CUADRADOS. caused the approval of a partial compromise agreement.
Under the compromise, the parties acknowledged their
respective shares in the proceeds from the sale of a
PARCEL No. 6 portion of the first parcel of land. This includes the
remaining 6,691-square-meter portion of said land.
Parcel No. 4 was registered in the name of petitioner. The In August 1995, petitioner commenced an action,
lot is now covered by TCT No. 160401 issued by the docketed as Civil Case No. 95-135, against respondents
Registry of Deeds of Makati City. before the court a quo with the following causes of
action: (a) declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of
a child; (c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and
(e) sum of money and damages. The complaint was On January 5, 1996, petitioner opposed the motion for
raffled to Branch 256 of the RTC in Muntinlupa. summary judgment on the ground of irregularity of the
contract evidencing the marriage. In the same breath,
petitioner lodged his own motion for summary judgment.
In his complaint, petitioner asserted that the marriage Petitioner presented a certification from the Local Civil
between his late brother Teofilo and respondent Registrar of Calumpit, Bulacan, certifying that there is no
Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of the record of birth of respondent Teofilo II.
required marriage license. He likewise maintained that
his deceased brother was neither the natural nor the
adoptive father of respondent Teofilo Carlos II. Petitioner also incorporated in the counter-motion for
summary judgment the testimony of respondent
Felicidad in another case. Said testimony was made in
Petitioner likewise sought the avoidance of the contracts Civil Case No. 89-2384, entitled Carlos v. Gorospe, before
he entered into with respondent Felicidad with respect to the RTC Branch 255, Las Pias. In her testimony,
the subject real properties. He also prayed for the respondent Felicidad narrated that co-respondent Teofilo
cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the name II is her child with Teofilo.[5]
of respondents. He argued that the properties covered by
such certificates of title, including the sums received by
respondents as proceeds, should be reconveyed to him. Subsequently, the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Muntinlupa submitted to the trial court its report and
manifestation, discounting the possibility of collusion
Finally, petitioner claimed indemnification as and by way between the parties.
of moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees,
litigation expenses, and costs of suit.
RTC and CA Dispositions
4. Declaring plaintiff as the sole and exclusive owner of On October 15, 2002, the CA reversed and set aside the
the parcel of land, less the portion adjudicated to RTC ruling, disposing as follows:
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 11975, covered by TCT No.
139061 of the Register of Deeds of Makati City, and
ordering said Register of Deeds to cancel said title and to WHEREFORE, the summary judgment appealed from is
issue another title in the sole name of plaintiff herein; REVERSED and SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof, a new one is
entered REMANDING the case to the court of origin for
further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.[7]
5. Declaring the Contract, Annex K of complaint, between
plaintiff and defendant Sandoval null and void, and The CA opined:
ordering the Register of Deeds of Makati City to cancel TCT
No. 139058 in the name of Teofilo Carlos, and to issue
another title in the sole name of plaintiff herein; We find the rendition of the herein appealed summary
judgment by the court a quo contrary to law and public
policy as ensconced in the aforesaid safeguards. The fact
6. Declaring the Contract, Annex M of the complaint, that it was appellants who first sought summary
between plaintiff and defendant Sandoval null and void; judgment from the trial court, did not justify the grant
thereof in favor of appellee. Not being an action to
recover upon a claim or to obtain a declaratory relief, the
rule on summary judgment apply (sic) to an action to
7. Ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 210877 in the annul a marriage. The mere fact that no genuine issue
names of defendant Sandoval and defendant minor was presented and the desire to expedite the disposition
Teofilo S. Carlos II and ordering the Register of Deeds of of the case cannot justify a misinterpretation of the rule.
Manila to issue another title in the exclusive name of The first paragraph of Article 88 and 101 of the Civil Code
plaintiff herein; expressly prohibit the rendition of decree of annulment
of a marriage upon a stipulation of facts or a confession
of judgment. Yet, the affidavits annexed to the petition
8. Ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 210878 in the name for summary judgment practically amount to these
of defendant Sandoval and defendant Minor Teofilo S. methods explicitly proscribed by the law.
Carlos II and ordering the Register of Deeds of Manila to
issue another title in the sole name of plaintiff herein.
We are not unmindful of appellees argument that the
foregoing safeguards have traditionally been applied to
Let this case be set for hearing for the reception of prevent collusion of spouses in the matter of dissolution
plaintiffs evidence on his claim for moral damages, of marriages and that the death of Teofilo Carlos on May
exemplary damages, attorneys fees, appearance fees, 13, 1992 had effectively dissolved the marriage herein
and litigation expenses on June 7, 1996 at 1:30 o'clock in impugned. The fact, however, that appellees own brother
the afternoon. and appellant Felicidad Sandoval lived together as
husband and wife for thirty years and that the annulment
of their marriage is the very means by which the latter is
SO ORDERED.[6] sought to be deprived of her participation in the estate
left by the former call for a closer and more thorough
Dissatisfied, respondents appealed to the CA. In the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the case.
appeal, respondents argued, inter alia, that the trial court Rather that the summary nature by which the court a quo
resolved the issues in the case, the rule is to the effect If the non-presentation of the marriage contract the
that the material facts alleged in the complaint for primary evidence of marriage is not proof that a marriage
annulment of marriage should always be proved. Section did not take place, neither should appellants non-
1, Rule 19 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: presentation of the subject marriage license be taken as
proof that the same was not procured. The burden of
proof to show the nullity of the marriage, it must be
Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. Where an answer emphasized, rests upon the plaintiff and any doubt
fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material should be resolved in favor of the validity of the
allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court marriage.
may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such
pleading. But in actions for annulment of marriage or for
legal separation, the material facts alleged in the Considering that the burden of proof also rests on the
complaint shall always be proved. (Underscoring party who disputes the legitimacy of a particular party,
supplied) the same may be said of the trial courts rejection of the
relationship between appellant Teofilo Carlos II and his
putative father on the basis of the inconsistencies in
Moreover, even if We were to sustain the applicability of appellant Felicidad Sandovals statements. Although it
the rules on summary judgment to the case at bench, Our had effectively disavowed appellants prior claims
perusal of the record shows that the finding of the court a regarding the legitimacy of appellant Teofilo Carlos II, the
quo for appellee would still not be warranted. While it averment in the answer that he is the illegitimate son of
may be readily conceded that a valid marriage license is appellees brother, to Our mind, did not altogether
among the formal requisites of marriage, the absence of foreclose the possibility of the said appellants illegitimate
which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to filiation, his right to prove the same or, for that matter,
Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58 of the Civil Code the his entitlement to inheritance rights as such.
failure to reflect the serial number of the marriage license
on the marriage contract evidencing the marriage
between Teofilo Carlos and appellant Felicidad Sandoval, Without trial on the merits having been conducted in the
although irregular, is not as fatal as appellee represents it case, We find appellees bare allegation that appellant
to be. Aside from the dearth of evidence to the contrary, Teofilo Carlos II was merely purchased from an indigent
appellant Felicidad Sandovals affirmation of the existence couple by appellant Felicidad Sandoval, on the whole,
of said marriage license is corroborated by the following insufficient to support what could well be a minors total
statement in the affidavit executed by Godofredo Fojas, forfeiture of the rights arising from his putative filiation.
then Justice of the Peace who officiated the impugned Inconsistent though it may be to her previous
marriage, to wit: statements, appellant Felicidad Sandovals declaration
regarding the illegitimate filiation of Teofilo Carlos II is
more credible when considered in the light of the fact
That as far as I could remember, there was a marriage that, during the last eight years of his life, Teofilo Carlos
license issued at Silang, Cavite on May 14, 1962 as basis allowed said appellant the use of his name and the
of the said marriage contract executed by Teofilo Carlos shelter of his household. The least that the trial court
and Felicidad Sandoval, but the number of said marriage could have done in the premises was to conduct a trial on
license was inadvertently not placed in the marriage the merits in order to be able to thoroughly resolve the
contract for the reason that it was the Office Clerk who issues pertaining to the filiation of appellant Teofilo
filled up the blanks in the Marriage Contract who in turn, Carlos II.[8]
may have overlooked the same.
Our Ruling With the advent of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, known as Rule
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
I. The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the question on the
marriage must be proved. Neither judgment on the application of summary judgments or even judgment on
the pleadings in cases of nullity or annulment of marriage make sure that the evidence to be presented or laid
has been stamped with clarity. The significant principle down before the court is not fabricated.
laid down by the said Rule, which took effect on March
15, 2003[12] is found in Section 17, viz.:
To further bolster its role towards the preservation of
marriage, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages reiterates the duty of the public
prosecutor, viz.:
The new Rule recognizes that the husband and the wife As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers
are the sole architects of a healthy, loving, peaceful marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and
marriage. They are the only ones who can decide when is prospective in its application.[22] (Underscoring
and how to build the foundations of marriage. The supplied)
spouses alone are the engineers of their marital life. They
are simultaneously the directors and actors of their
matrimonial true-to-life play. Hence, they alone can and Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case
should decide when to take a cut, but only in accordance against respondent Felicidad in 1995. The marriage in
with the grounds allowed by law. controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law
would govern depends upon when the marriage took
place.[23]
The innovation incorporated in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC sets
forth a demarcation line between marriages covered by
the Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil The marriage having been solemnized prior to the
Code. The Rule extends only to marriages entered into effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the
during the effectivity of the Family Code which took Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its
effect on August 3, 1988.[18] celebration.[24] But the Civil Code is silent as to who may
bring an action to declare the marriage void. Does this
mean that any person can bring an action for the
The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity declaration of nullity of marriage?
of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the end of the
right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a nullity
We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in granted a divorce decree and whether the foreign law
the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any which granted the same allows or restricts remarriage. If
person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such person it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained and
must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited the same did not allow respondent Orlandos remarriage,
or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party then the trial court should declare respondents marriage
entitled to the avails of the suit.[25] Elsewise stated, as bigamous and void ab initio but reduced the amount
plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest. For it is basic of moral damages from P300,000.00 to P50,000.00 and
in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted exemplary damages from P200,000.00 to P25,000.00. On
and defended in the name of the real party-in- the contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce decree
interest.[26] was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then
the trial court must dismiss the instant petition to declare
nullity of marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas
Interest within the meaning of the rule means material Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same.[29]
interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the (Underscoring supplied)
decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from
mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere
incidental interest. One having no material interest to
protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as
plaintiff in an action. When plaintiff is not the real party- III. The case must be remanded to determine whether or
in-interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack not petitioner is a real-party-in-interest to seek the
of cause of action.[27] declaration of nullity of the marriage in controversy.
Illuminating on this point is Amor-Catalan v. Court of In the case at bench, the records reveal that when Teofilo
Appeals,[28] where the Court held: died intestate in 1992, his only surviving compulsory heirs
are respondent Felicidad and their son, Teofilo II. Under
the law on succession, successional rights are transmitted
from the moment of death of the decedent and the
compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force law.[30]
at the time the respondents were married, or even in the
Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can
file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however,
only a party who can demonstrate proper interest can file
the same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage, Upon Teofilos death in 1992, all his property, rights and
like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance
the name of the real party-in-interest and must be based are transmitted to his compulsory heirs. These heirs were
on a cause of action. Thus, in Nial v. Badayog, the Court respondents Felicidad and Teofilo II, as the surviving
held that the children have the personality to file the spouse and child, respectively.
petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their
deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their
successional rights. Article 887 of the Civil Code outlined who are compulsory
heirs, to wit:
xxxx
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to
their legitimate parents and ascendants;
In fine, petitioners personality to file the petition to
declare the nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained
because of the absence of the divorce decree and the
foreign law allowing it. Hence, a remand of the case to
the trial court for reception of additional evidence is
necessary to determine whether respondent Orlando was
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate
ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and of the decedent.[33]
descendants;
SO ORDERED.
ARTICLE 167. The child shall be considered legitimate
although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
(Underscoring supplied)
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
55. Ablaza v. Republic, GR 158298 (2010) reconsideration was likewise denied. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal order of the RTC
Case digest: on the ground that the action must be filed by the proper
SIDRO ABLAZA V. REPUBLIC party, which in this case should be filed by any of the
parties to the marriage. Hence, this appeal.
DOCTRINE:
Whether the petitioner is a real party in interest inthe
action to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage of
his deceased brother?
The plaintiff must be the party who stands to be
benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Every action must be prosecuted and defended
in the name of the real party in interest. Thus, only the HELD:
party who can demonstrate a “proper interest” can file
the action.
Yes. The applicable law when marriage was contracted
between Cresenciano and Leonila on December 26, 1949,
FACTS: is the old Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of the
celebration of the marriage. Hence, the rule on the
exclusivity of the parties to the marriage as having the
right to initiate the action for declaration of nullity of the
On October 17, 2000, the petitioner filed in the RTC in marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had absolutely no
Cataingan, Masbate a petition for the declaration of the application to the petitioner. The case was reinstated and
absolute nullity of the marriage contracted on December its records returned to RTC for further proceedings.
26, 1949 between his late brother Cresenciano Ablaza
and Leonila Honato.
Ratio:
On October 18, 2000, the RTC dismissed the petition on Assuming that the petitioner was as he claimed himself
the ground that petition is filed out of time and that to be, then he has a material interest in the estate of
petitioner is not a party to marriage. Motion for Cresenciano that will be adversely affected by any
judgment in the suit. Indeed, a brother like the
petitioner, albeit not a compulsory heir, has the right to
succeed to the estate of a deceased brother under the
conditions stated in Article 1001 and Article 1003 of the
Civil Code. The plaintiff must still be the party who stands Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Thereafter, the RTC
to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the issued the order declaring its decision declaring the
avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that marriage null and void as final and executory and
every action must be prosecuted and defended in the granting the Motion for Entry of Judgment filed by
name of the real party in interest. Thus, only the party Cynthia. Not in conformity, Danilo filed with the CA a
who can demonstrate a “proper interest” can file the petition forcertiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the
action. One having no material interest to protect cannot orders of the RTC as they were rendered with grave
invoke the jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, jurisdiction. Danilo also prayed that he be declared
the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of psychologically capacitated to render the essential
action. marital obligations to Cynthia, who should be declared
guilty of abandoning him, the family home and their
FULLTEXT: children.
X_____________________________X
56. Bolos v. Bolos, GR 186400 (2010) The CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside
CASE DIGEST: the assailed orders of the RTC declaring the nullity of
marriage as final and executory. The appellate court
BOLOS V. BOLOS stated that the requirement of a motion for
reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal under A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply in this case as the marriage
634 SCRA 429, [October 20, 2010] between Cynthia and Danilo was solemnized on February
14, 1980 before the Family Code took effect.
DOCTRINE:
Petitioner argues that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is also
applicable to marriages solemnized before the effectivity
of the Family Code. According to petitioner, the phrase
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; The Rule on “under the Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and to the word “petitions” rather than to the word
Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. “marriages.” Such that petitions filed after the effectivity
No. 02-11-10-SC, which the Court promulgated on 15 of the Family Code are governed by the A.M. No. even if
March 2003, extends only to those marriages entered the marriage was solemnized before the same. Danilo, in
into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took his Comment, counters that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is not
effect on 3 August 1988. applicable because his marriage with Cynthia was
solemnized on February 14, 1980, years before its
effectivity.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Petitioner Cynthia Bolos(Cynthia)filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Respondent
Danilo Bolos (Danilo) under Article 36 of the Family Code. Whether or not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC entitled “Rule on
After trial on the merits, the RTC granted the petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
annulment. A copy of said decision was received by Annulment of Voidable Marriages,” is applicable to the
respondent Danilo and he thereafter timely filed the case at bench.
Notice of Appeal.
HELD:
The RTC denied due course to the appeal for Danilo’s
failure to file the required motion for reconsideration or
new trial, in violation of Section 20 of the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and No, it does not.
RATIO: This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision
dated August 17, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 61762 and its subsequent Resolution dated
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void September 13, 2005, which affirmed the Decision of the
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89
contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court declaring petitioner Estrellita Juliano-Llave s (Estrellita)
promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. marriage to Sen. Mamintal A.J. Tamano (Sen. Tamano) as
Section 1 of the Rule, in fact, reads: void ab initio.
FULTEXT: ISSUE:
LLAVE V. REPUBLIC
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
RATIO: issued. Pending such ruling on the declaration of nullity
of the parties’ marriage, the Court finds no legal ground,
at this stage, to proceed with the reception of evidence in
The marriage between the late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda regard the issues on custody and property relations, since
was celebrated in 1958, solemnized under civil and these are mere incidents of the nullity of the parties’
Muslim rites. The only law in force governing marriage marriage.
relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims alike
was the Civil Code of 1950, under the provisions of which
only one marriage can exist at any given time. Under the FACTS:
marriage provisions of the Civil Code, divorce is not
recognized except during the effectivity of Republic Act
No. 394 which was not availed of during its effectivity. Eric Yu filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
As far as Estrellita is concerned, Sen. Tamano s prior marriage against Caroline T. Yu with the RTC of Pasig.
marriage to Zorayda has been severed by way of divorce Judge Suarez on May 30, 2006 issued an order stating
under PD 1083, the law that codified Muslim personal that Eric’s partial offer of evidence dated April 18, 2006
laws. However, PD 1083 cannot benefit Estrellita. Firstly, would be submitted for resolution after certain exhibits
Article 13(1) thereof provides that the law applies to have been remarked. But the exhibits were only relative
“marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, to the issue of the nullity of the marriage of Eric and
or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the Caroline. On September 12, 2006, Caroline moved to
marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or submit the case for resolution, considering that the
this Code in any part of the Philippines.” But Article 13 of incidents on custody, support, and property relations
PD 1083 does not provide for a situation where the (incidental issues) were mere consequences of the
parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites.” declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage.
HELD:
The petition is DENIED. Eric opposed this motion saying that the incident on
declaration of nullity cannot be resolved without
FULLTEXT: presentation of evidence for the incidents on custody,
support, and property relations. Eric added that the
X________________________________________x incidental issues and the issue on declaration of nullity
58. Yu v. Carpio, GR 189207 (2011) can both proceed and be simultaneously resolved. RTC
ruled in favour of Eric’s opposition.
CASE DIGEST:
HELD:
If petitioner’s contention would be allowed, a person
who commits bigamy can simply evade prosecution by
YES. The court held that it does not matter whether the immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity
case for declaration of nullity was filed before the case of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision
for bigamy was instituted, for as long as the offender is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint
contracted a subsequent marriage while his previous against him. We note that in petitioner’s case the
marriage is subsisting thereby not being able to secure a complaint was filed before the first marriage was
Declaration of Nullity of the First marriage AT THE TIME declared a nullity. It was only the filing of the Information
HE CONTRACTED THE SECOND MARRIAGE. that was overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his
first marriage. Following petitioner’s argument, even
assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such as in
this case, the offender can still escape liability provided
RATIO: that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage precedes
the filing of the Information in court. Such cannot be
allowed.
The instant case has all the elements of the crimeof
bigamy under Art. 346 of the RPC. Thus, the CA was FULLTEXT:
correct in affirming the conviction of petitioner. X_______________________________________X
Petitioner was legally married to Thelma on 26 November
1992. He contracted a second or subsequent marriage Void Marriages
with Edita on 10 December 2001. At the time of his
second marriage with Edita, his marriage with Thelma 60. Republic v. CA, GR GR 103047 (1994) [marriage
was legally subsisting. It is noted that the finality of the license]
decision declaring the nullity of his first marriage with Case digest:
Thelma was only on 27 June 2006 or about five (5) years
after his second marriage to Edita. Finally, the second or Republic vs CA and Castro
subsequent marriage of petitioner with Edita has all the
essential requisites for validity. Petitioner has in fact not Republic vs. CA and Castro
disputed the validity of such subsequent marriage. GR No. 103047, September 12, 1994
ISSUE: Whether or not the documentary and testimonial The respondent and Jerry were married on September
evidence resorted to by Castro is sufficient to establish 20, 1997. They lived together as husband and wife in
that no marriage license was issued to the parties prior to their conjugal dwelling in Agan Homes, Koronadal City,
the solemnization of their marriage. South Cotabato. Sometime in January 1998, the couple
had a violent quarrel brought about by: (1) the
respondent's inability to reach "sexual climax" whenever
HELD: she and Jerry would have intimate moments; and (2)
Jerry's expression of animosity toward the respondent's
father.
The court affirmed the decision of CA that the
certification issued by the Civil Registrar unaccompanied
by any circumstances of suspicion sufficiently prove that After their quarrel, Jerry left their conjugal dwelling and
the office did not issue a marriage license to the this was the last time that the respondent ever saw him.
contracting parties. Albeit the fact that the testimony of Since then, she had not seen, communicated nor heard
Castro is not supported by any other witnesses is not a anything from Jerry or about his whereabouts.
ground to deny her petition because of the peculiar
circumstances of her case. Furthermore, Cardenas was
duly served with notice of the proceedings, which he On May 21, 2002, or more than four (4) years from the
chose to ignore. time of Jerry's disappearance, the respondent filed
before the RTC a petition[4] for her husband's declaration
of presumptive death, docketed as SP Proc. Case No. 313-
Under the circumstances of the case, the documentary 25. She claimed that she had a well-founded belief that
and testimonial evidence presented by private Jerry was already dead. She alleged that she had inquired
respondent Castro sufficiently established the absence of from her mother-in-law, her brothers-in-law, her sisters-
the subject marriage license. in-law, as well as her neighbors and friends, but to no
avail. In the hopes of finding Jerry, she also allegedly
FULL TEXT: made it a point to check the patients' directory whenever
X________________________________________X she went to a hospital. All these earnest efforts, the
respondent claimed, proved futile, prompting her to file
61. Republic v. Cantor, GR 184621 (2010) [declaration of the petition in court.
presumptive death]
CASE DIGEST:
The Ruling of the RTC
G.R. No. 184621
The petitioner also posits that the respondent did not Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during
have a well-founded belief to justify the declaration of subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void,
her husband's presumptive death. It claims that the unless before the celebration of the subsequent
respondent failed to conduct the requisite diligent search marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four
for her missing husband. Likewise, the petitioner invites consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-
this Court's attention to the attendant circumstances founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.
surrounding the case, particularly, the degree of search In case of disappearance where there is danger of death
conducted and the respondent's resultant failure to meet under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of
the strict standard under Article 41 of the Family Code. Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years
shall be sufficient.
The Issues
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage
under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code A losing party in this proceeding, however, is not entirely
for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, left without a remedy. While jurisprudence tells us that
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the no appeal can be made from the trial court's judgment,
absent spouse. an aggrieved party may, nevertheless, file a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to question
any abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction that transpired.
Art. 247. The judgment of the court shall be immediately
final and executory. [underscores ours]
With the judgment being final, it necessarily follows that As held in De los Santos v. Rodriguez, et al.,[10] the fact
it is no longer subject to an appeal, the dispositions and that a decision has become final does not automatically
conclusions therein having become immutable and negate the original action of the CA to issue certiorari,
unalterable not only as against the parties but even as prohibition and mandamus in connection with orders or
against the courts.[8] Modification of the court's ruling, processes issued by the trial court. Certiorari may be
no matter how erroneous is no longer permissible. The availed of where a court has acted without or in excess of
final and executory nature of this summary proceeding jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and where
thus prohibits the resort to appeal. As explained in the ordinary remedy of appeal is not available. Such a
Republic of the Phils. v. Bermudez-Lorino,[9] the right to procedure finds support in the case of Republic v.
appeal is not granted to parties because of the express Tango,[11] wherein we held that:
mandate of Article 247 of the Family Code, to wit:
This case presents an opportunity for us to settle the rule
In Summary Judicial Proceedings under the Family Code, on appeal of judgments rendered in summary
there is no reglementary period within which to perfect proceedings under the Family Code and accordingly,
an appeal, precisely because judgments rendered refine our previous decisions thereon.
thereunder, by express provision of [Article] 247, Family
Code, supra, are "immediately final and executory." It
was erroneous, therefore, on the part of the RTC to give Article 238 of the Family Code, under Title XI: SUMMARY
due course to the Republic's appeal and order the JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY LAW, establishes
transmittal of the entire records of the case to the Court the rules that govern summary court proceedings in the
of Appeals. Family Code:
An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a "ART. 238. Until modified by the Supreme Court, the
judgment which, by express provision of law, is procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases
immediately final and executory. As we have said in provided for in this Code requiring summary court
Veloria vs. Comelec, "the right to appeal is not a natural proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an
right nor is it a part of due process, for it is merely a expeditious manner without regard to technical rules."
statutory privilege." Since, by express mandate of Article
247 of the Family Code, all judgments rendered in
summary judicial proceedings in Family Law are
"immediately final and executory," the right to appeal In turn, Article 253 of the Family Code specifies the cases
was not granted to any of the parties therein. The covered by the rules in chapters two and three of the
Republic of the Philippines, as oppositor in the petition same title. It states:
for declaration of presumptive death, should not be
treated differently. It had no right to appeal the RTC
decision of November 7, 2001. [emphases ours; italics "ART. 253. The foregoing rules in Chapters 2 and 3 hereof
supplied] shall likewise govern summary proceedings filed under
Articles 41, 51, 69, 73, 96, 124 and 217, insofar as they
Certiorari Lies to Challenge the Decisions, Judgments or are applicable." (Emphasis supplied.)
Final Orders of Trial Courts in a Summary Proceeding for
the Declaration of Presumptive Death Under the Family
Code
In plain text, Article 247 in Chapter 2 of the same title That the present spouse wishes to remarry;
reads:
b. On the Issue of the Existence of Well-Founded Belief Notably, Article 41 of the Family Code, compared to the
old provision of the Civil Code which it superseded,
imposes a stricter standard. It requires a "well-founded
belief" that the absentee is already dead before a
The Essential Requisites for the Declaration of petition for declaration of presumptive death can be
Presumptive Death Under Article 41 of the Family Code granted. We have had occasion to make the same
observation in Republic v. Nolasco,[14] where we noted
the crucial differences between Article 41 of the Family
Before a judicial declaration of presumptive death can be Code and Article 83 of the Civil Code, to wit:
obtained, it must be shown that the prior spouse had
been absent for four consecutive years and the present Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption
spouse had a well-founded belief that the prior spouse to arise has been shortened to four (4) years; however,
was already dead. Under Article 41 of the Family Code, there is need for a judicial declaration of presumptive
there are four (4) essential requisites for the declaration death to enable the spouse present to remarry. Also,
of presumptive death: Article 41 of the Family Code imposes a stricter standard
than the Civil Code: Article 83 of the Civil Code merely
That the absent spouse has been missing for four requires either that there be no news that such absentee
consecutive years, or two consecutive years if the is still alive; or the absentee is generally considered to be
disappearance occurred where there is danger of death dead and believed to be so by the spouse present, or is
under the circumstances laid down in Article 391, Civil presumed dead under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil
Code; Code. The Family Code, upon the other hand, prescribes
as "well founded belief" that the absentee is already
dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive (2) He sought the barangay captain's aid to locate her;
death can be granted.
The law did not define what is meant by "well-founded Despite these alleged "earnest efforts," the Court still
belief." It depends upon the circumstances of each ruled against the present spouse. The Court found that he
particular case. Its determination, so to speak, remains failed to present the persons from whom he allegedly
on a case-to-case basis. To be able to comply with this made inquiries and only reported his wife's absence after
requirement, the present spouse must prove that his/her the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in the RTC.
belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts
and inquiries to locate the absent spouse and that based
on these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that under
the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. It The Court also provided the following criteria for
requires exertion of active effort (not a mere passive determining the existence of a "well-founded belief"
one). under Article 41 of the Family Code:
The Court ruled that the present spouse's investigations Third, she did not present as witnesses Jerry's relatives or
were too sketchy to form a basis that his wife was their neighbors and friends, who can corroborate her
already dead and ruled that the pieces of evidence only efforts to locate Jerry. Worse, these persons, from whom
proved that his wife had chosen not to communicate she allegedly made inquiries, were not even named. As
with their common acquaintances, and not that she was held in Nolasco, the present spouse's bare assertion that
dead. he inquired from his friends about his absent spouse's
whereabouts is insufficient as the names of the friends
from whom he made inquiries were not identified in the
iv. The present case testimony nor presented as witnesses.
G.R. No. 173294 February 27, 2008 not medically or clinically identified. Worse, the same
was not even alleged in the petition filed in the
Renne Enrique Bier vs. Ma. Lourdes A. Bier and RP
court a quo. As such, it granted the appeal and reversed
Facts: Petitioner Renne Enrique E. Bier met respondent the decision of the trial court.
Ma. Lourdes A. Bier through his sister. On
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CA decision.
July 26, 1992, six months after their first meeting, they The same was denied. Hence, this petition.
were married at the UST Santissimo Rosario
Issue: Whether petition should be denied because of its
Parish Church. Everything went well for the first three non-observance from the requirements laid
years of their marriage. As petitioner was
down in the Molina case and whether the totality of
based in Saudi Arabia as an electronics technician evidence constitutes psychological incapacity.
at Saudia Airlines, the parties decided to
Ruling: The guidelines set in Molina incorporate the three
maintain two residences, one in the Philippines basic requirements earlier mandated by
and another in Saudi Arabia. They took turns
the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals: “psychological
shuttling between the two countries just so they could incapacity must be characterized by (a)
spend time together.
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The
The couple started experiencing marital problems foregoing guidelines do not require that a
after three years of marriage. She started
physician examine the person to be declared
becoming aloof towards him and began to spend more psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause
time with her friends than with him, refusing
may be “medically or clinically identified.” What is
even to have sexual relations with him for no apparent important is the presence of evidence that can
reason. She became an alcoholic and a
adequately establish the party's psychological
chain-smoker. She also started neglecting her husband's condition. For indeed, if the totality of evidence
needs and the upkeep of their home, and
presented is enough to sustain a finding of
became an absentee wife. After being gone from their psychological incapacity, then actual medical
home for days on end, she would return
examination of the person concerned need not be
without bothering to account for her absence. As a result, resorted to.
they frequently quarreled. Finally, on April
Dr. Tayag's report, which found respondent to be
10, 1997, respondent suddenly left for the United States. suffering from psychological incapacity, particularly
Petitioner has not heard from her since.
a narcissistic personality disorder, relied only on the
On April 1, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for the information fed by petitioner. This was admitted
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that
by petitioner in his petition for review on certiorari and
respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill memorandum filed in this Court. Furthermore,
her essential marital obligations to petitioner.
as already stated, the report also failed to CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING,
identify the root cause of respondent's narcissistic
Respondent.
personality disorder and to prove that it existed at the
inception of the marriage.
nevertheless still a need to prove the Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez-Ting first met in 1972
psychological incapacity while they were classmates in medical school. They fell in
love, and they were wed on July 26, 1975 in Cebu City
through independent evidence adduced by the person when respondent was already pregnant with their first
alleging said disorder.[16] child. On October 21, 1993, after being married for more
than 18 years to petitioner and while their youngest child
was only two years old, Carmen filed a verified petition
In the case at bar, petitioner was able to establish that before the RTC of Cebu City praying for the declaration of
respondent was remiss in her duties as a nullity of their marriage based on Article 36 of the Family
Code. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from
wife and had become a happy-go-lucky woman who psychological incapacity even at the time of the
failed to attend to her husband's needs and celebration of their marriage, which, however, only
who eventually abandoned him. However, the totality of became manifest thereafter.
her acts, as testified to by petitioner and his Carmens allegations of Benjamins psychological
brother, was not tantamount to a psychological incapacity consisted of the following manifestations:
incapacity, as petitioner would have us believe. 1. Benjamins alcoholism, which adversely affected his
Habitual alcoholism, chain-smoking, failure or refusal to family relationship and his profession;
meet one's duties and responsibilities as a 2. Benjamins violent nature brought about by his
married person and eventual abandonment of a spouse excessive and regular drinking;
do not suffice to nullify a marriage on the 3. His compulsive gambling habit, as a result of which
basis of psychological incapacity, if not shown to be Benjamin found it necessary to sell the family car twice
due to some psychological (as opposed to and the property he inherited from his father in order to
pay off his debts, because he no longer had money to pay
physical) illness. the same; and
Petition is denied and CA decision affirmed 4. Benjamins irresponsibility and immaturity as shown by
his failure and refusal to give regular financial support to
FULLTEXT: his family.
X__________________________X
64. Ting v. Velez-Ting, GR 166562 (2009) In his answer, Benjamin denied being psychologically
incapacitated. He maintained that he is a respectable
CASE DIGEST: person, as his peers would confirm. He also pointed out
that it was he who often comforted and took care of their
Ting vs Ting
children, while Carmen played mahjong with her friends
BENJAMIN G. TING, twice a week. Both presented expert witnesses
(psychiatrist) to refute each others claim. RTC ruled in
Petitioner, favor of the respondent declaring the marriage null and
void.
- versus -
65. Te v. Yu-Te, GR 116607 (2009)
Petitioner appealed to the CA. CA reversed RTC’s Case digest:
decision. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration,
arguing that the Molina guidelines should not be applied Te v. Te , GR 161793 February 13, 2009
to this case
ARTICLE 36 OF FAMILY CODE
Issues:
FACTS:
1. Whether the CA violated the rule on stare decisis when
On January 1996 Edward Kenneth Ngo Te a sophomore
it refused to follow the guidelines set forth under the
met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te a freshman in a
Santos and Molina cases,
gathering organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in
their college. They developed a certain degree of
closeness towards each other. On March 1996, Rowena
2. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the asked Edward that they elope. At first, he refused but
requirement of proof of psychological incapacity for the Rowena’s persistence made him relent. They left Manila
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on and went to Cebu that month. Edwards money lasted for
Article 36 of the Family Code has been liberalized, only a month and they could not find a job. On April
1996, they returned to Manila. Rowena proceeded to her
uncles house and Edward to his parents home. As his
3. Whether the CAs decision declaring the marriage family was away, Rowena threathened him that she
between petitioner and respondent null and void is in would commit suicide, Edward go to Rowena’s house. On
accordance with law and jurisprudence. April 23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought the two to a court
to get married. The couple continued to stay at Rowena’s
uncles place where Edward was treated like a prisoner
and was not allowed to go out unaccompanied. After a
Held:
month, Edward escaped from the house and stayed with
1. No. respondent’s argument that the doctrinal his parents. His family then hid him from Rowena. On
guidelines prescribed in Santos and Molina should not be June 1996, Edward was able to talk to Rowena and told
applied retroactively for being contrary to the principle of her that they should live with his parents but she said
stare decisis is no longer new. that it was better for them to live separate lives. On
January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the RTC
of Quezon City, for the annulment of his marriage to
Rowena on the basis of the latters psychological
2. The Case involving the application of Article 36 must be
incapacity. On July 30, 2001, the trial court rendered the
treated distinctly and judged not on the basis of a priori
marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that
assumptions, predilections or generalizations but
both parties were psychologically incapacitated to
according to its own attendant facts. Courts should
comply with the essential marital obligations. On review,
interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by
the appellate court reversed and set aside the trial’s
experience, the findings of experts and researchers in
court ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the
psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church
psychological incapacity of respondent, for the clinical
tribunals.
psychologist did not personally examine respondent, and
relied only on the information provided by petitioner. In
sum, the evidence adduced fell short of the requirements
3. There is no evidence that adduced by respondent stated in the Molina case needed for the declaration of
insufficient to prove that petitioner is psychologically nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a Because of dissatisfaction, petitioner filed before the SC
husband, and more particularly, that he suffered from the instant petition for review on certiorari. He posited
such psychological incapacity as of the date of the that the trial court declared the marriage void, not only
marriage eighteen (18) years ago. because of respondent’s psychological incapacity, but
rather due to both parties’ psychological incapacity. He
Fulltext:
also pointed out that there is no requirement for the
X_____________________________________X psychologist to personally examine respondent.
In 1987, Jose was incarcerated in Camp Crame for
rebellion for the alleged participation of the failed coup
ISSUE: d’etat. He heard circulation of rumors of Bona getting
caught having sex with his driver, Corporal Gagarin.
Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and On January 11, 1999, the dispositive portion of the trial
incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous court declared the marriage of Jose and Bona void ab
marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, initio on the ground of psychological incapacity of the
declared null and void. respondent under Article 36 of the Family Code. The
Court finds that Bona’s illness exhibited gravity,
antecedence, and incurability.
FULLTEXT OSG appealed the said ruling to the CA, and the CA
X__________________________________x subsequently granted the appeal and reversed the ruling
of the trial court decision.
66. Ochosa v. Alano, GR 167459 (2011)
Case digest:
Issue:
Bona’s illicit affairs with other men started at the onset Whether or not Bona should be deemed psychologically
of their marriage on October 27, 1973, when Jose was incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
assigned in various parts of the country as an officer in obligations.
the AFP. She continued her infidelity even when they
lived together at Fort Bonifacio, Makati City sometime in
1985, whenever Jose was out of their living quarters.
Ruling:
No. There is inadequate credible evidence that her Case digest: BACCAY VS BACCAY AND REPUBLIC, G.R. NO.
defects were already present at the inception of, or prior 173138
to, the marriage. Bona’s alleged psychological incapacity
did not satisfy the jurisprudential requisite of “juridical Posted by kaye lee on 7:04 PM
antecedence”. Her persistent sexual infidelity and G.R. No. 173138
abandonment are not badges of psychological incapacity
nor can’t it be traced to the inception of their marriage.
ISSUE:
The court held that both Enrique’s court testimony, as
well as Dr. Patac’s Psychiatric Evaluation Report fell short
in proving that the respondent was psychologically Whether there is basis to nullify the petitioner’s marriage
incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties. to the respondent on the ground of psychological
incapacity to comply with the essential marital
obligations.
FACTS:
HELD:
Petitioner Enrique Agraviador y Alunan
(Enrique)challenges the resolution of the Court of
Appeals (CA) which reversed the resolution of the No, the totality of evidence presented failed to establish
Regional Trial Court (RTC) MuntinlupaCity, declaring the the respondent’s psychological incapacity.
marriage of the petitioner and respondent Erlinda
Amparo-Agraviador (Erlinda) null and void on the ground
of the latter’s psychological incapacity. RATIO:
The court held that both Enrique’s court testimony,as Case digest:
well as Dr. Patac’s Psychiatric Evaluation Report fell short
in proving that the respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties.
First, petitioner’s claims should be distinguished from the
“difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect,” in the
performance of some marital obligations that
characterize some marriages to the level of psychological
incapacity that the law requires. He merely showed that
Erlinda had some personality defects that showed their
manifestation during the marriage; his testimony sorely
lacked details necessary to establish that the
respondent’s defects existed at the inception of the
marriage. His claims that Erlinda “does not accept her
fault,” “does not want to change,” and “refused to
reform” are insufficient to establish a psychological or
mental defect that is serious, grave, or incurable as
contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.
Fulltext:
X____________________________________x