Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
VOIDABLE
MARRIAGES
1.
GROUNDS
FOR
ANNULMENT
Family
Code
of
the
Philippines
Art.
45.
A
marriage
may
be
annulled
for
any
of
the
following
causes,
existing
at
the
time
of
the
marriage:
(1)
That
the
party
in
whose
behalf
it
is
sought
to
have
the
marriage
annulled
was
eighteen
years
of
age
or
over
but
below
twenty-one,
and
the
marriage
was
solemnized
without
the
consent
of
the
parents,
guardian
or
person
having
substitute
parental
authority
over
the
party,
in
that
order,
unless
after
attaining
the
age
of
twenty-one,
such
party
freely
cohabited
with
the
other
and
both
lived
together
as
husband
and
wife;
(2)
That
either
party
was
of
unsound
mind,
unless
such
party
after
coming
to
reason,
freely
cohabited
with
the
other
as
husband
and
wife;
(3)
That
the
consent
of
either
party
was
obtained
by
fraud,
unless
such
party
afterwards,
with
full
knowledge
of
the
facts
constituting
the
fraud,
freely
cohabited
with
the
other
as
husband
and
wife;
(4)
That
the
consent
of
either
party
was
obtained
by
force,
intimidation
or
undue
influence,
unless
the
same
having
disappeared
or
ceased,
such
party
thereafter
freely
cohabited
with
the
other
as
husband
and
wife;
(5)
That
either
party
was
physically
incapable
of
consummating
the
marriage
with
the
other,
and
such
incapacity
continues
and
appears
to
be
incurable;
or
(6)
That
either
party
was
afflicted
with
a
sexually-transmissible
disease
found
to
be
serious
and
appears
to
be
incurable.
(85a)
Art.
46.
Any
of
the
following
circumstances
shall
constitute
fraud
referred
to
in
Number
3
of
the
preceding
Article:
(1)
Non-disclosure
of
a
previous
conviction
by
final
judgment
of
the
other
party
of
a
crime
involving
moral
turpitude;
(2)
Concealment
by
the
wife
of
the
fact
that
at
the
time
of
the
marriage,
she
was
pregnant
by
a
man
other
than
her
husband;
(3)
Concealment
of
sexually
transmissible
disease,
regardless
of
its
nature,
existing
at
the
time
of
the
marriage;
or
(4)
Concealment
of
drug
addiction,
habitual
alcoholism
or
homosexuality
or
lesbianism
existing
at
the
time
of
the
marriage.
Isabel
Guidote
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. (86a) Art. 47. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein: (1) For causes mentioned in number 1 of Article 45 by the party whose parent or guardian did not give his or her consent, within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one, or by the parent or guardian or person having legal charge of the minor, at any time before such party has reached the age of twenty-one; (2) For causes mentioned in number 2 of Article 45, by the same spouse, who had no knowledge of the other's insanity; or by any relative or guardian or person having legal charge of the insane, at any time before the death of either party, or by the insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity; (3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Articles 45, by the injured party, within five years after the discovery of the fraud; (4) For causes mentioned in number 4 of Article 45, by the injured party, within five years from the time the force, intimidation or undue influence disappeared or ceased; (5) For causes mentioned in number 5 and 6 of Article 45, by the injured party, within five years after the marriage. (87a) Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. (88a)
already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
Emilio and Isabels annulment (CFI, Rizal) o Pending criminal case (parricide) o Emilio sought custody of children o Judgement rendered in his favor (decree of annulment) o Ratio of CFI: Schizophrenia Bereft of adequate understanding of right and wrong Art. 85(3), CC: either party of unsound mind, at the time of marriage Emilios schizo dated back to 1955 Respondents petition before the RTC Bulacan o Issuance of Letters of Administration of the Intestate Estate of Cristina o Legitimate grandchild appointed as administratix Petitioners opposition: o He is the surviving spouse o Respondent has been alienated from family > 30 years o He has been managing their conjugal properties o Art. 992, CC: illegitimate children have to right to succeed by right of representation o Motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration denied Motion to dismiss was timely filed o Sec. 1, Rule 16, Rules of Civil Procedure: motion to dismiss should be filed before answer o Filed two years after presentation of evidence by R Dispositive portion of decisionNULL and VOID = void marriage o Ambiguity in the decision is reconcilable o Clearly stated that the legal basis is Art. 85 of the CC which refers to voidable marriages R is an illegitimate child o Since the marriage was voidable, children born prior to the decree of annulment are considered legitimate (Art. 89(2), CC) o ANNULMENT (voidable marriages) = subsists but ceases to have legal effect upon termination through a court order o NULLITY (void marriages) = acknowledges the fact that there was never a marriage Disposition controls WoN Rs parents marriage was void or voidable o No conflict between body and disposition o Rule only applies when the disposition is definite, clear, and unequivocal o There is a need to harmonize the whole body of the decision HELD: R is a legitimate grandchild and may invoke her successional right of representation in her grandmothers estate. The court does not pass upon WoN the letters of administration should be granted in her favor.
P and R met in March 1938, they were married in September and November of that year After 89 days of living together as husband and wife, R gave birth P petitioned for annulment in 1939, claiming that he was defrauded into thinking that R was a virgin at the time he married her CFI Baguio rendered judgment in favor of R Marriage should be annulled on the grounds of fraud o It is improbable that the petitioner was unaware of his wifes pregnancy o P is a law student (assumes that he knows what the valid grounds for annulment are) o Marriage is a sacred institution; for it to be annulled he must be able to prove the presence of a valid ground HELD: Judgment affirmed. Not a valid ground for annulment.
R filed for annulment against P (CFI Manila, 1954) o His consent was allegedly obtained through force and intimidation o Case dismissed, but Ps counterclaim granted o During negotiations, P revealed that he had a pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his P filed for annulment R (Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Manila, 1966) o Ps allegation of fraud was legally insufficient to invalidate her marriage o She also claimed that R married her in an attempt to evade marrying his close relative Rs non-disclosure of his pre-marital relationship constitutes fraud and is therefore a valid ground for annulment o Art. 85, CC contemplates the various grounds for annulment o Art. 86 thereof specifically enumerates the fraud to be considered in the application of Art. 85 o If the legislators intended for it to apply to all kinds of fraud, they would not have included Art. 86 o Congress therefore, intended to exclude all other kinds of fraud as grounds for annulment (No other misrepresentation or deceit x x x shall constitute fraud as will give grounds for action of the annulment of marriage) Rs negligence of marital duties (cohabitation) is a valid ground for annulment o This is a separate allegation raised only in Ps reply o P is not permitted to amend her complaint in a reply o She should have discovered it within four years after the marriagedeclared barred HELD: Judgment appealed from is affirmed, there being no error committed by the CA.
o Only a 1 inch knife was found by the policeman Atty. Villavicencio threatened to obstruct Ps admission to the Bar o It is not such a duress as to constitute a reason for annulling the marriage o A man cannot invoke the invalidity of a marriage on the grounds of duress to avoid prosecution for seduction or bastardy Atty. Villavicencio threatened Ps safety by telling him he would be safe IF he went with them o It cannot be concluded that the opposite would be true if he didnt o He was not kidnapped!! There were other people there (it was a boarding house) He could have asked the policeman for help Evidence does not warrant a pronouncement that Ps consent to the marriage was obtained through force or intimidation Sec. 30, Act. No. 3613 considers the above as valid ground for annulment, if the force or intimidation employed is within the contemplation of Art. 1267 of the Civil Code HELD: Judgment affirmed. Neither violence nor duress attended the marriage celebration.
death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. 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 for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (83a) Art. 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio. A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested person, with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed. (n) Art. 43. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects: (1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered legitimate; (2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse; (3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law; (4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable; and (5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession. (n) Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. (n)
dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
485
SCRA
376
P:
Social
Security
System
R:
Teresita
Jarque
Vda.
de
Bailon
Clemente
G.
Bailon
was
said
to
have
married
thrice:
1. Alice
P.
Diaz
25
Apr.
1955
2. Elisa
Jayona
(cohabited)
1958
o Cecilia
o Norma
3. Teresita
Jarque
8
Aug.
1983
He
died
on
30
Jan.
1998
(SSS
Member,
Retiree
Pensioner
since
94)
o Funeral
benefits
claimed
by
R
P12,000
o Additional
claim
for
death
benefits
claimed
by
R
Cecilia
and
Norma
contested
the
granting
of
benefits
o Their
mother
was
allegedly
married
to
Clemente
o They
paid
for
the
hospital
and
funeral
expenses
o Alice
is
still
alive
and
she
never
even
disappeared
in
the
first
place
The
Social
Service
Commission
(SSC)
declared
R
as
just
a
common-law
wife,
therefore
not
entitled
to
any
benefits
o The
declaration
of
presumptive
death
of
Alice
was
fraudulently
obtained
o Their
marriage
was
never
dissolved
o Alice
is
the
rightful
beneficiary
of
Clementes
pension
CA
reversed
SSC
decision
o SSC
cannot
re-evaluate
RTCs
findings
(on
the
declaration
of
presumptive
death)
o Art.
87,
CC:
only
a
competent
court
can
nullify
a
marriage
o SSS
does
not
have
the
authority
to
declare
the
second
marriage
void
Under
the
CC,
no
judicial
declaration
is
required
for
the
purpose
of
remarriage
o Remarriage
when
one
spouse
is
presumed
to
be
dead
is
merely
voidable
o Terminated
by
final
judgment
of
annulment
o Art.
87(2),
CC:
action
for
annulment
only
during
the
lifetime
of
any
one
of
the
parties
The
reappearance
of
the
missing
Alice
renders
Clementes
marriage
to
R
void
o Art.
42,
FC:
marriage
terminated
upon
recording
of
the
affidavit
of
reappearance
with
due
notice
to
the
subsequent
spouse
o No
steps
taken
to
annul
the
subsequent
marriage
o Presumption
of
death
continues
until
marriage
is
terminated
by
law
Therefore,
presumption
is
also
towards
the
validity
of
the
second
marriage
Tolentino:
burden
is
on
the
person
invalidating
the
second
marriage
to
prove
that
the
first
marriage
is
still
subsisting
The
marriage
between
R
and
Clemente
can
still
be
assailed
o Cannot
be
collaterally
attacked
o Action
must
be
made
during
the
lifetime
of
the
parties
o Upon
Clementes
death,
the
marriage
was
made
good
ab
initio
HELD:
Petition
denied.
R
is
the
rightful
dependent
spouse-beneficiary
of
Bailon.
6
o o
A judicial declaration of presumptive death cannot be granted under the CC, the same is established by operation of law There being no legal impediment to Ps subsequent marriage to Virgilio at the time it was contracted, their marriage is VALID
Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void. Art. 54. Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.
Yu
v.
Yu
(2006)
484
SCRA
485
P:
Eric
Jonathan
Yu
R:
Caroline
T.
Yu
(A)
2002,
Jan.
11:
P
filed
for
habeas
corpus
before
the
CA
o R
unlawfully
withheld
from
him
the
custody
of
their
child,
Bianca
o Sole
custody
(B)
2002,
Mar.
3:
R
filed
for
annulment
before
the
Pasig
RTC
o Dissolution
of
absolute
community
of
property
o Sole
custody
2002,
Mar.
21:
P
awarded
sole
custody,
case
still
bending
2002,
Apr.
18:
An
Interim
Visitation
Agreement
(IVA)
was
entered
into
o R
moved
to
modify
the
agreement
o P
opposed,
saying
that
Ps
filing
for
annulment
before
the
Pasig
RTC
constituted
forum
shopping
o R
modified
her
petition
with
the
RTC
insofar
as
the
custody
aspect
is
concerned,
and
she
later
had
the
case
dismissed
(C)
2003,
Jun.
12:
P
filed
for
annulment
before
the
Pasig
RTC
o Dissolution
of
absolute
community
of
property
o Sole
custody
2003,
Jul.
3:
(A)
was
dismissed
for
being
moot
and
academic
(D)
2003,
Jul.
24:
R
filed
for
habeas
corpus
before
the
Pasay
RTC
o Enforcement
of
IVA
o Sole
custody
Isabel
Guidote
Both Pasay and Pasig RTC asserted their jurisdiction over the issue of Biancas custody The elements of litis pendentia have been established in the present case o Identity of parties o Identity of rights asserted and reliefs sought, relief founded on the same facts o Judgment rendered in the pending case would amount to res judicata in the other The Pasig RTC lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the custody issue o Art. 49, FC: pending actions for annulment court provides for custody o Art. 50, FC: final judgment of annulment provides for custody unless the matter has been previously adjudicated o By filing (C), P automatically submitted the custody issue to the jurisdiction of the Pasig RTC Sec. 21, Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages: Court decides custody of children (pursuant to Arts. 50, 51, FC) (1) when a final judgment has been rendered, and (2) upon motion of either party The case pending before the Pasig RTC (C) is the appropriate venue to litigate the custody of Bianca o A separate action for custody was not necessary since it was deemed pleaded by the action for annulment o The express provisions in the FC make the annulment case before the Pasig RTC the appropriate case o The pending habeas corpus case (D) before the Pasay RTC must be dismissed to avoid multiplicity of suits HELD: Petition dismissed. CA decision reversed. Pending habeas corpus case (D) before the Pasay RTC set aside. Further proceedings in annulment case (C) before Pasig RTC
Courts jurisdiction can only be made to depend on allegations in the COMPLAINT The jurisdiction of Sharia courts is exclusive, the marriage being solemnized under Muslim laws o Art. 13(2), P.D. No. 1083: marriages not solemnized in accordance with Muslim laws shall be governed by the CC o Since the marriage in question was also celebrated under the CC, the QC RTC has proper jurisdiction o Exclusive jurisdiction of Sharia courts for marriages celebrated ONLY under Muslim rites o Exclusive jurisdiction of RTCs for marriages celebrated BOTH under Muslim AND civil rites Par. 6, Sec. 19, B.P. Blg. 129: exclusive jurisdiction over cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of other courts HELD: Petition denied. CA and RTC decisions affirmed. Case remanded to court a quo for further proceedings
Isabel Guidote