Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 127406. November 27, 2000]


OFELIA P. TY, petitioner, vs. THE CORT OF APPEAL!, "#$
E%GAR%O &. REYE!, respondents.
% E C I ! I O N
'I!&(ING, J.)
This appeal seeks the reversal of the decision dated July 24 !""# of the Court of
$ppeals in C%$% & '%(% CV )*+"* ,hich affir-ed the decision of the (e.ional Trial
Court of /asi. 0ranch !#1 declarin. the -arria.e contract 2et,een private respondent
Ed.ardo 3% (eyes and petitioner Ofelia /% Ty null and void ab initio% It also ordered
private respondent to pay /!4111%11 as -onthly support for their children 5aye Eloise
(eyes and (achel $nne (eyes%
$s sho,n in the records of the case private respondent -arried $nna 3aria (e.ina
Villanueva in a civil cere-ony on 3arch 2" !"** in 3anila% Then they had a church
,eddin. on $u.ust 2* !"**% 6o,ever on $u.ust 4 !"+1 the Juvenile and Do-estic
(elations Court of 7ue8on City declared their -arria.e null and void ab initio for lack of
a valid -arria.e license% The church ,eddin. on $u.ust 2* !"** ,as also declared
null and void ab initio for lack of consent of the parties%
Even 2efore the decree ,as issued nullifyin. his -arria.e to $nna 3aria private
respondent ,ed Ofelia /% Ty herein petitioner on $pril 4 !"*" in cere-onies officiated
2y the 9ud.e of the City Court of /asay% On $pril 4 !"+2 they also had a church
,eddin. in 3akati 3etro 3anila%
On January ) !""! private respondent filed a Civil Case !+4):J ,ith the (TC of
/asi. 0ranch !#1 prayin. that his -arria.e to petitioner 2e declared null and void% 6e
alle.ed that they had no -arria.e license ,hen they .ot -arried% 6e also averred that
at the ti-e he -arried petitioner he ,as still -arried to $nna 3aria% 6e stated that at
the ti-e he -arried petitioner the decree of nullity of his -arria.e to $nna 3aria had not
2een issued% The decree of nullity of his -arria.e to $nna 3aria ,as rendered only on
$u.ust 4 !"+1 ,hile his civil -arria.e to petitioner took place on $pril 4 !"*"%
/etitioner in defendin. her -arria.e to private respondent pointed out that his
clai- that their -arria.e ,as contracted ,ithout a valid license is untrue% She
su2-itted their 3arria.e ;icense No% 4*)"""1 issued at (osario Cavite on $pril )
!"*" as E<h% !! !2 and !2:$% 6e did not =uestion this docu-ent ,hen it ,as
su2-itted in evidence% /etitioner also su2-itted the decision of the Juvenile and
Do-estic (elations Court of 7ue8on City dated $u.ust 4 !"+1 ,hich declared null
and void his civil -arria.e to $nna 3aria (e.ina Villanueva cele2rated on 3arch 2"
!"** and his church -arria.e to said $nna 3aria on $u.ust 2* !"**% These
docu-ents ,ere su2-itted as evidence durin. trial and accordin. to petitioner are
therefore dee-ed sufficient proof of the facts therein% The fact that the civil -arria.e of
private respondent and petitioner took place on $pril 4 !"*" 2efore the 9ud.-ent
declarin. his prior -arria.e as null and void is undisputed% It also appears indisputa2le
that private respondent and petitioner had a church ,eddin. cere-ony on $pril 4 !"+2%
>!?
The /asi. (TC sustained private respondent@s civil suit and declared his -arria.e
to herein petitioner null and void ab initio in its decision dated Nove-2er 4 !""!% 0oth
parties appealed to respondent Court of $ppeals% On July 24 !""# the appellate court
affir-ed the trial court@s decision% It ruled that a 9udicial declaration of nullity of the first
-arria.e Ato $nna 3ariaB -ust first 2e secured 2efore a su2se=uent -arria.e could 2e
validly contracted% Said the appellate courtC
De can accept ,ithout difficulty the doctrine cited 2y defendant@s counsel
that Eno 9udicial decree is necessary to esta2lish the invalidity of void
-arria.es%@ It does not say ho,ever that a second -arria.e -ay proceed
even ,ithout a 9udicial decree% Dhile it is true that if a -arria.e is null and
void ab initio there is in fact no su2sistin. -arria.e ,e are un,illin. to rule
that the -atter of ,hether a -arria.e is valid or not is for each -arried
spouse to deter-ine for hi-self & for this ,ould 2e the conse=uence of
allo,in. a spouse to proceed to a second -arria.e even 2efore a co-petent
court issues a 9udicial decree of nullity of his first -arria.e% The results ,ould
2e dis=uietin. to say the least and could not have 2een the intend-ent of
even the no,:repealed provisions of the Civil Code on -arria.e%
< < <
D6E(E5O(E upon the fore.oin. ratiocination De -odify the appealed
Decision in this ,iseC
!% The -arria.e contracted 2y plaintiff:appellant >herein private respondent? Eduardo
3% (eyes and defendant:appellant >herein petitioner? Ofelia /% Ty is declared null
and void ab initioF
2% /laintiff:appellant Eduardo 3% (eyes is ordered to .ive -onthly support in the
a-ount of /!4111%11 to his children 5aye Eloise (eyes and (achel $nne (eyes
fro- Nove-2er 4 !""!F and
)% Cost a.ainst plaintiff:appellant Eduardo 3% (eyes%
SO O(DE(ED%
>2?
/etitioner@s -otion for reconsideration ,as denied% 6ence this instant petition
assertin. that the Court of $ppeals erredC
I.
0OT6 IN T6E DECISION $ND T6E (ESO;GTION IN (E7GI(IN' 5O(
T6E V$;IDITH O5 /ETITIONE(@S 3$((I$'E TO (ES/ONDENT $
JGDICI$; DEC(EE NOT (E7GI(ED 0H ;$D%
II
IN T6E (ESO;GTION IN $//;HIN' T6E (G;IN' IN DOMINGO VS.
COURT OF APPEALS%
III
IN 0OT6 T6E DECISION $ND (ESO;GTION IN NOT CONSIDE(IN' T6E
CIVI; E55ECTS O5 T6E (E;I'IOGS ($TI5IC$TION D6IC6 GSED T6E
S$3E 3$((I$'E ;ICENSE%
I*
IN T6E DECISION NOT '($NTIN' 3O($; $ND EIE3/;$(H D$3$'ES
TO T6E DE5END$NT:$//E;;$NT%
The principal issue in this case is ,hether the decree of nullity of the first -arria.e
is re=uired 2efore a su2se=uent -arria.e can 2e entered into validlyJ To resolve this
=uestion ,e shall .o over applica2le la,s and pertinent cases to shed li.ht on the
assi.ned errors particularly the first and the second ,hich ,e shall discuss 9ointly%
In sustainin. the trial court the Court of $ppeals declared the -arria.e of petitioner
to private respondent null and void for lack of a prior 9udicial decree of nullity of the
-arria.e 2et,een private respondent and Villanueva% The appellate court re9ected
petitioner@s clai- that People v. Mendoza
>)?
and People v. Aa!on
>4?
are applica2le in this
case% 5or these cases held that ,here a -arria.e is void fro- its perfor-ance no
9udicial decree is necessary to esta2lish its invalidity% 0ut the appellate court said these
cases decided 2efore the enact-ent of the 5a-ily Code AE%O% No% 21" as a-ended 2y
E%O No% 22*B no lon.er control% $ 2indin. decree is no, needed and -ust 2e read into
the provisions of la, previously o2tainin.%
>4?
In refusin. to consider petitioner@s appeal favora2ly the appellate court also saidC
Tee v. Attone" Tee# Ad$. Ca%e No. &'()# ' *+l" ,))& is -andatory
precedent for this case% $lthou.h decided 2y the 6i.h Court in !""2 the facts
situate it ,ithin the re.i-e of the no,:repealed provisions of the Civil Code
as in the instant case%
< < <
5or purposes of deter-inin. ,hether a person is le.ally free to contract a
second -arria.e a 9udicial declaration that the first -arria.e ,as null and
void ab initio is essential% % % %
>#?
$t the outset ,e -ust note that private respondent@s first and second -arria.es
contracted in !"** and !"*" respectively are .overned 2y the provisions of the Civil
Code% The present case differs si.nificantly fro- the recent cases of -obi% v.
-obi%
>*?
and Me.ado v. Tan#
>+?
2oth involvin. a cri-inal case for 2i.a-y ,here the 2i.a-ous
-arria.e ,as contracted durin. the effectivity of the 5a-ily Code
>"?
under ,hich a
9udicial declaration of nullity of -arria.e is clearly re=uired%
/ertinent to the present controversy $rticle +) of the Civil Code provides thatC
$rt% +)% $ny -arria.e su2se=uently contracted 2y any person durin. the
lifeti-e of the first spouse of such person ,ith any person other than such first
spouse shall 2e ille.al and void fro- its perfor-ance unlessC
A!B The first -arria.e ,as annulled or dissolvedF or
A2B The first spouse had 2een a2sent for seven consecutive years at the ti-e
of the second -arria.e ,ithout the spouse present havin. ne,s of the
a2sentee 2ein. alive or if the a2sentee thou.h he has 2een a2sent for less
than seven years is .enerally considered as dead and 2efore any person
2elieved to 2e so 2y the spouse present at the ti-e of contractin. such
su2se=uent -arria.e or if the a2sentee is presu-ed dead accordin. to
articles )"1 and )"!% The -arria.e so contracted shall 2e valid in any of the
three cases until declared null and void 2y a co-petent court%
$s to ,hether a 9udicial declaration of nullity of a void -arria.e is necessary the
Civil Code contains no e<press provision to that effect% Jurisprudence on the -atter
ho,ever appears to 2e conflictin.%
Ori.inally in People v. Mendoza
>!1?
and People v. Aa!on
>!!?
this Court held that no
9udicial decree is necessary to esta2lish the nullity of a void -arria.e% 0oth cases
involved the sa-e factual -ilieu% $ccused contracted a second -arria.e durin. the
su2sistence of his first -arria.e% $fter the death of his first ,ife accused contracted a
third -arria.e durin. the su2sistence of the second -arria.e% The second ,ife initiated
a co-plaint for 2i.a-y% The Court ac=uitted accused on the .round that the second
-arria.e is void havin. 2een contracted durin. the e<istence of the first
-arria.e% There is no need for a 9udicial declaration that said second -arria.e is
void% Since the second -arria.e is void and the first one ter-inated 2y the death of his
,ife there are no t,o su2sistin. valid -arria.es% 6ence there can 2e no
2i.a-y% Justice $le< (eyes dissented in 2oth cases sayin. that it is not for the
spouses 2ut the court to 9ud.e ,hether a -arria.e is void or not%
In Go$ez v. Lipana
>!2?
and Con%+e!a v. Con%+e!a
>!)?
ho,ever ,e reco.ni8ed the
ri.ht of the second ,ife ,ho entered into the -arria.e in .ood faith to share in their
ac=uired estate and in proceeds of the retire-ent insurance of the hus2and% The Court
o2served that althou.h the second -arria.e can 2e presu-ed to 2e void ab initio as it
,as cele2rated ,hile the first -arria.e ,as still su2sistin. still there ,as a need for
9udicial declaration of such nullity Aof the second -arria.eB% $nd since the death of the
hus2and supervened 2efore such declaration ,e upheld the ri.ht of the second ,ife to
share in the estate they ac=uired on .rounds of 9ustice and e=uity%
>!4?
0ut in Oda"at v. A$ante A!"**B
>!4?
the Court adverted to Aa!on and Mendoza as
precedents% De e<onerated a clerk of court of the char.e of i--orality on the .round
that his -arria.e to 5ilo-ena $2ella in Octo2er of !"4+ ,as void since she ,as
already previously -arried to one Eliseo /ortales in 5e2ruary of the sa-e year% The
Court held that no 9udicial decree is necessary to esta2lish the invalidity of void
-arria.es% This rulin. ,as affir-ed in Tolentino v. Paa%.
>!#?
Het a.ain in /ie!el v. Se$pio0Di" A!"+#B
>!*?
the Court held that there is a need for a
9udicial declaration of nullity of a void -arria.e% In/ie!el ;ilia -arried 3a<ion in
!"*2% In !"*+ she -arried another -an Die.el% Die.el filed a petition ,ith the
Juvenile Do-estic (elations Court to declare his -arria.e to ;ilia as void on the .round
of her previous valid -arria.e% The Court e<pressly relyin. on Con%+e!a concluded
thatC
>!+?
There is like,ise no need of introducin. evidence a2out the e<istin. prior -arria.e
of her first hus2and at the ti-e they -arried each other for then such a -arria.e
thou.h void still needs accordin. to this Court a 9udicial declaration Acitin. Con%+e!aB
of such fact and for all le.al intents and purposes she ,ould still 2e re.arded as a
-arried ,o-an at the ti-e she contracted her -arria.e ,ith respondent Karl 6ein8
Die.elF accordin.ly the -arria.e of petitioner and respondent ,ould 2e re.arded VOID
under the la,% AE-phasis suppliedB%
In 1ap v. Co+t o2 Appeal%
>!"?
ho,ever the Court found the second -arria.e void
,ithout need of 9udicial declaration thus revertin. to theOda"at#
Mendoza and Aa!on rulin.s.
$t any rate the confusion under the Civil Code ,as put to rest under the 5a-ily
Code% Our rulin.s in Go$ez# Con%+e!a and /ie!el ,ere eventually e-2odied in
$rticle 41 of the 5a-ily Code%
>21?
$rticle 41 of said Code e<pressly re=uired a 9udicial
declaration of nullity of -arria.e &
$rt% 41% The a2solute nullity of a previous -arria.e -ay 2e invoked for
purposes of re-arria.e on the 2asis solely of a final 9ud.-ent declarin. such
previous -arria.e void%
In Tee v. Tee A!""2B
>2!?
the Court applyin. Go$ez#
Con%+e!a and /ie!el# cate.orically stated that a 9udicial declaration of nullity of a void
-arria.e is necessary% Thus ,e dis2arred a la,yer for contractin. a 2i.a-ous
-arria.e durin. the su2sistence of his first -arria.e% 6e clai-ed that his first -arria.e
in !"** ,as void since his first ,ife ,as already -arried in !"#+% De held that $tty%
Terre should have kno,n that the prevailin. case la, is that Lfor purposes of
deter-inin. ,hether a person is le.ally free to contract a second -arria.e a 9udicial
declaration that the first -arria.e ,as null and void ab initio is essential%M
The Court applied this rulin. in su2se=uent cases% In Do$in!o v. Co+t o2
Appeal% A!"")B
>22?
the Court heldC
Ca-e the 5a-ily Code ,hich settled once and for all the conflictin.
9urisprudence on the -atter% $ declaration of a2solute nullity of -arria.e is
no, e<plicitly re=uired either as a cause of action or a .round for
defense% A$rt% )" of the 5a-ily CodeB% Dhere the a2solute nullity of a
previous -arria.e is sou.ht to 2e invoked for purposes of contractin. a
second -arria.e the sole 2asis accepta2le in la, for said pro9ected -arria.e
to 2e free fro- le.al infir-ity is a final 9ud.-ent declarin. the previous
-arria.e void% A5a-ily Code $rt% 41F See also arts% !! !) 42 44 4+ 41 42
44 +# "" !4* !4+B%
>2)?
6o,ever a recent case applied the old rule 2ecause of the peculiar circu-stances
of the case% In Apia! v. Canteo A!""*B
>24?
the first ,ife char.ed a -unicipal trial 9ud.e of
i--orality for enterin. into a second -arria.e% The 9ud.e clai-ed that his first -arria.e
,as void since he ,as -erely forced into -arryin. his first ,ife ,ho- he .ot
pre.nant% On the issue of nullity of the first -arria.e ,e
applied Oda"at Mendozaand Aa!on% De held that since the second -arria.e took
place and all the children thereunder ,ere 2orn 2efore the pro-ul.ation of /ie!eland
the effectivity of the 5a-ily Code there is no need for a 9udicial declaration of nullity of
the first -arria.e pursuant to prevailin. 9urisprudence at that ti-e%
Si-ilarly in the present case the second -arria.e of private respondent ,as
entered into in !"*" 2efore /ie!el% $t that ti-e the prevailin. rule ,as found
in Oda"at# Mendoza and Aa!on% The first -arria.e of private respondent 2ein. void
for lack of license and consent there ,as no need for 9udicial declaration of its nullity
2efore he could contract a second -arria.e% In this case therefore ,e conclude that
private respondent@s second -arria.e to petitioner is valid%
3oreover ,e find that the provisions of the 5a-ily Code cannot 2e retroactively
applied to the present case for to do so ,ould pre9udice the vested ri.hts of petitioner
and of her children% $s held in *i%on v. Co+t o2 Appeal%#
>24?
the 5a-ily Code has
retroactive effect unless there 2e i-pair-ent of vested ri.hts% In the present case that
i-pair-ent of vested ri.hts of petitioner and the children is patent% $dditionally ,e are
not =uite prepared to .ive assent to the appellate court@s findin. that despite private
respondent@s Ldeceit and perfidyM in contractin. -arria.e ,ith petitioner he could
2enefit fro- her silence on the issue% Thus co-in. no, to the civil effects of the
church cere-ony ,herein petitioner -arried private respondent usin. the -arria.e
license used three years earlier in the civil cere-ony ,e find that petitioner no, has
raised this -atter properly% Earlier petitioner clai-ed as untruthful private respondent@s
alle.ation that he ,ed petitioner 2ut they lacked a -arria.e license% Indeed ,e find
there ,as a -arria.e license thou.h it ,as the sa-e license issued on $pril ) !"*"
and used in 2oth the civil and the church rites% O2viously the church cere-ony ,as
confir-atory of their civil -arria.e% $s petitioner contends the appellate court erred
,hen it refused to reco.ni8e the validity and salutary effects of said canonical -arria.e
on a technicality i%e% that petitioner had failed to raise this -atter as affir-ative defense
durin. trial% She ar.ues that such failure does not prevent the appellate court
fro- .ivin. her defense due consideration and ,ei.ht% She adds that the interest of
the State in protectin. the inviola2ility of -arria.e as a le.al and social institution
out,ei.hs such technicality% In our vie, petitioner and private respondent had
co-plied ,ith all the essential and for-al re=uisites for a valid -arria.e includin. the
re=uire-ent of a valid license in the first of the t,o cere-onies% That this license ,as
used le.ally in the cele2ration of the civil cere-ony does not detract fro- the
cere-onial use thereof in the church ,eddin. of the sa-e parties to the -arria.e for
,e hold that the latter rites served not only to ratify 2ut also to fortify the first% The
appellate court -i.ht have its reasons for 2rushin. aside this possi2le defense of the
defendant 2elo, ,hich undou2tedly could have tendered a valid issue 2ut ,hich ,as
not ti-ely interposed 2y her 2efore the trial court% 0ut ,e are no, persuaded ,e
cannot play 2lind to the a2surdity if not ine=uity of lettin. the ,ron.doer profit fro-
,hat the C$ calls Lhis o,n deceit and perfidy%M
On the -atter of petitioner@s counterclai- for da-a.es and attorney@s
fees% $lthou.h the appellate court ad-itted that they found private respondent acted
Lduplicitously and craftilyM in -arryin. petitioner it did not a,ard -oral da-a.es
2ecause the latter did not adduce evidence to support her clai-%
>2#?
;ike the lo,er courts ,e are also of the vie, that no da-a.es should 2e a,arded
in the present case 2ut for another reason% /etitioner ,ants her -arria.e to private
respondent held valid and su2sistin.% She is suin. to -aintain her status as le.iti-ate
,ife% In the sa-e 2reath she asks for da-a.es fro- her hus2and for filin. a 2aseless
co-plaint for annul-ent of their -arria.e ,hich caused her -ental an.uish an<iety
2es-irched reputation social hu-iliation and alienation fro- her parents% Should ,e
.rant her prayer ,e ,ould have a situation ,here the hus2and pays the ,ife da-a.es
fro- con9u.al or co--on funds% To do so ,ould -ake the application of the la,
a2surd% ;o.ic if not co--on sense -ilitates a.ainst such incon.ruity% 3oreover our
la,s do not co-prehend an action for da-a.es 2et,een hus2and and ,ife -erely
2ecause of 2reach of a -arital o2li.ation%
>2*?
There are other re-edies%
>2+?
+HEREFORE the petition is '($NTED% The assailed Decision of the Court of
$ppeals dated July 24 !""# and its (esolution dated Nove-2er * !""# are reversed
partially so that the -arria.e of petitioner Ofelia /% Ty and private respondent Ed.ardo
3% (eyes is here2y DEC;$(ED V$;ID $ND SG0SISTIN'F and the a,ard of the
a-ount of /!4111%11 is ($TI5IED and 3$INT$INED as -onthly support to their t,o
children 5aye Eloise (eyes and (achel $nne (eyes for as lon. as they are of -inor
a.e or other,ise le.ally entitled thereto% Costs a.ainst private respondent%
!O OR%ERE%.
-ello%illo# 3C4ai$an5# Mendoza# -+ena# and De Leon# *.# **.# concur%
>!?
See also Tison v%% C$ 2*# SC($ 4+2 4") A!""*BF 7ue2ral v%% C$ 242 SC($ )4) )#4 A!""#BF Son v%%
Son 24! SC($ 44# 4#4 A!""4BF re proof of facts cited%
>2?
Rollo pp% 4+:42%
>)?
44 /hil *)" A!"44B%
>4?
!11 SC($ !1)) A!"4*B%
>4?
Rollo p% 4*%
>#?
Rollo p% 4"%
>*?
'%(% No% !)+41" July )! 2111%
>+?
'%(% No% !)*!!1 $u.ust ! 2111% In his dissentin. and concurrin. opinion Justice Vitu. opined that the
necessity of a 9udicial declaration of nullity of a void -arria.e for the purpose of re-arria.e should 2e
held to refer -erely to cases ,here it can 2e said that a -arria.e at least ostensi2ly had taken
place% No such 9udicial declaration of nullity in his vie, should still 2e dee-ed essential ,hen the
N-arria.eN for instance is 2et,een persons of the sa-e se< or ,hen either or 2oth parties had not at all
.iven consent to the -arria.e% Indeed it is likely that $rticle 41 of the 5a-ily Code has 2een -eant and
intended to refer only to -arria.es declared void under the provisions of $rticles )4 )# )* )+ and 4)
thereof%
>"?
E%O% No% 21" ,hich took effect on $u.ust ) !"++%
>!1?
44 /hil *)" A!"44B%
>!!?
!11 SC($ !1)) A!"4*B%
>!2?
)) SC($ #!4 A!"*1B%
>!)?
)* SC($ )!4 A!"*!B%
>!4?
See also ;ao v% Dee 44 /hil *)" A!"24B and /isal2on v% 0e9ec *4 /hil ++ A!"4)B%
>!4?
** SC($ ))+ A!"**B%
>!#?
22 SC($ 424 A!"+)B%
>!*?
!4) SC($ 4"" A!"+#B%
>!+?
Id. at 41!%
>!"?
!44 SC($ 22" A!"+#B%
>21?
The 5a-ily Code took effect on $u.ust ) !"++%
>2!?
2!! SC($ * A!""2B%
>22?
22# SC($ 4*2 A!"")B%
>2)?
Id. at 4*"%
>24?
2#+ SC($ 4* A!""*B
>24?
2+# SC($ 4"4 4)1 A!""+B%
>2#?
Rollo p% 4!%
>2*?
Tolentino $rturo 3% Co$$entaie% and *+i%p+den.e on t4e Civil Code o2 t4e P4ilippine%# Vol%!
3anilaC !""1 p% 22)%
>2+?
$-on. the- le.al separation or prosecution for adultery and concu2ina.e%

Вам также может понравиться