DOMINGO VS CA, G.R. NO.

104818

void and a party should not declare for himself or

herself whether or not the marriage is void.

FACTS:
Roberto Domingo married Delia Soledad in 1976
while being married with Emerlina dela Paz.
He has been unemployed and completely dependent
upon Delia, who has been working in Saudi Arabia,
for support and subsistence.
Delia only found out about the prior marriage when
Emerlina sued them for bigamy in 1983.
In 1989, she found out that Roberto was cohabiting
with another woman and he was disposing of some
of her properties without her knowledge and consent.
In May 1991, Delia filed a petition for judicial
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Roberto and
separation of property.

ANTONIO A. S. VALDEZ, petitioner,

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 102, QUEZON
CITY, and CONSUELO M. GOMEZVALDEZ, respondents. July 31, 1996
Petition on a pure question of law
Facts:
1.

Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were

married on January 5, 1971 and later had 5 kids.

2.

On June 22, 1992, Antonio sought the

declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to
Art. 36 of the FC.

3.

The RTC of Quezon City rendered judgment and

declared the marriage null and void under Art.
36 of the FC on the ground of their mutual
psychological incapacity to comply with their
essential marital obligations and ordered the
liquidation of their common properties as
defined by Art. 147 of the FC and to comply with
the provisions of Art. 50, 51 and 52 of the FC

4.

Consuelo sought a clarification of the order of

the court and asserted that the FC did not have
provisions for the liquidation of common
property in unions without marriage

5.

The court explained in an order dated May 5,

1995 that the property including the family
home acquired during their union are presumed
to have been obtained through joined efforts and
the property would be owned by them in equal
shares and the liquidation and partition of
property would be governed by the regime of coownership

6.

The court also explained that Art 102 does not

apply since it refers to the procedure for
liquidation of conjugal partnership property. Art
129 also does not apply because it refers to
procedures for liquidation of the absolute
community of property

7.

Antonio moved for a reconsideration of the

order. The motion was denied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration of a
void marriage is necessary. If in affirmative, whether
the same should be filed only for purpose of
remarriage.
RULING:
Yes. A declaration of the absolute nullity of marriage
is now explicitly required either as a cause of action
or a ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of
a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for
purpose of contracting a second marriage, the sole
basis acceptable in law for the said projected
marriage be free from legal infirmity is a final
judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
The requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity
of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse
who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and
void, marries again. With the judicial declaration of
the nullity of his or her first marriage, the person who
marries again cannot be charged with bigamy.
Article 40 as finally formulated included the
significant clause denotes that final judgment
declaring the previous marriage void need not be
obtained only for purposes of remarriage. A person
can conceive of other instances other than
remarriage, such as in case of an action for
liquidation, partition, distribution and separation of
property between the spouses, as well as an action
for the custody and support of their common children
and the delivery of the latters' presumptive
legitimes. In such cases, however, one is required by
law to show proof that the previous one was an
absolute nullity.

Marriage is an inviolable social institution, is the

foundation of the family; as such, it shall be
protected by the State. As a matter of policy, there
should be a final judgment declaring the marriage

Issues:
WON Art 147 is the correct law governing the
disposition of property in the case at bar
WON Art 147 applies to marriages declared null and
void pursuant to Art. 36
Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the questioned orders, dated 05 May

1995 and 30 October 1995, of the trial court are
AFFIRMED

"Assuming arguendo that Article 147

applies to marriages declared void ab
initio on the ground of the psychological
incapacity of a spouse, the same may
be read consistently with Article 129.

"It is necessary to determine the parent

with whom majority of the children wish
to stay."

Ratio:
1.

In void marriages, the property relations of the

parties during the cohabitation period is
governed by the provisions of Art. 147 or Art.
148

2.

In the case at bar, Art. 147 applies because

there was no legal impediment to their marriage
and they were capacitated wherein the word
capacitated refers to legal capacity of a party to
contract marriage

NICDAO CARIO VS YEE CARIO

Notes:

G.R. No. 132529 February 2 2001

[Article 147 Family Code-Property Regime of Union
Without Marriage; Article 148 - Rules on Coownership regarding polygamous/bigamous
marriages, adulterous or concubinage relationships;
Article 40 - Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage]

Potential conflict between Art. 129 and Art. 147

FACTS:

Trial courts decision

SPO4 Santiago Cario married Susan Nicdao in 1969

without marriage license. They had two children. He
then married Susan Yee on November 10 1992, with
whom he had no children in their almost 10 year
cohabitation starting way back in 1982.

The three older children, Carlos Enrique

III, Antonio Quintin and Angela Rosario
shall choose which parent they would
want to stay with.

"Stella Eloisa and Joaquin Pedro shall be

placed in the custody of their mother,
herein respondent Consuelo GomezValdes.

"The petitioner and respondent shall

have visitation rights over the children
who are in the custody of the other.

The marriage of petitioner Antonio

Valdes and respondent Consuelo
Gomez-Valdes is hereby declared null
and void under Article 36 of the Family
Code on the ground of their mutual
psychological incapacity to comply with
their essential marital obligations;

The petitioner and respondent

are directed to start proceedings on the
liquidation of their common
properties as defined by Article 147 of
the Family Code, and to comply with the
provisions ofArticles 50, 51 and 52 of
the same code, within thirty (30) days
from notice of this decision.

Alleged Errors:
o

"Article 147 of the Family Code does not

apply to cases where the parties are
psychological incapacitated.

"Articles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to

Articles 102 and 129 of the Family Code
govern the disposition of the family
dwelling in cases where a marriage is
declared void ab initio, including a
marriage declared void by reason of the
psychological incapacity of the spouses.

He passed away on November 23 1992. The two

Susans filed with the RTC of Quezon City the claims
for monetary benefits and financial assistance
pertaining to the deceased from various government
agencies. Nicdao collected a total of P146,000 while
Yee received a total of P21,000.
Yee filed an instant case for collection of half the
money acquired by Nicdao, collectively denominated
as "death benefits." Yee admitted that her marriage
with the SPO4 took place during the subsistence of,
and without first obtaining a judicial declaration of
nullity, the marriage between Nicdao and the SPO4.
She however claimed that she became aware of the
previous marriage at the funeral of the deceased.
In 1995, the trial court ruled in favor of Yee. Nicdao
appealed to the CA, which the CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Yee can claim half the amount
acquired by Nicdao.
RULING:
No. SC held that the marriage between Yee and
Cario falls under the Article 148 of the Family Code,
which refers to the property regime of bigamous or
polygamous marriages, adulterous or concubinage
relationships.
Yee cannot claim the benefits earned by the SPO4 as
a police officer as her marriage to the deceased is
void due to bigamy. She is only entitled to the
properties acquired with the deceased through
their actual joint contribution. Wages and salaries
earned by each party belong to him or her
exclusively. Hence, they are not owned in common by
Yee and the deceased, but belong to the deceased

alone and Yee has no right whatsoever to claim the

same. By intestate succession, the said death
benefits of the deceased shall pass to his legal
heirs. And, Yee, not being the legal wife, is not one of
them.
As regards to the first marriage, the marriage
between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to
absence of a valid marriage license. Nicdao can claim
the death benefits by the deceased even if she did
not contribute thereto. Article 147 creates a coownership in respect thereto, entitling Nicdao to
share one-half of the benefits. As there is no
allegation of bad faith in the first marriage, she can
claim one-half of the disputed death benefits and the
other half to the deceased' to his legal heirs, by
intestate succession.
The marriage between Yee and SPO4 is likewise null
and void for the same has been solemnized without
the judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage
between Nicdao and SPO4. Under Article 40, if a
party who is previously married wishes to contract a
second marriage, he or she has to obtain first a
judicial decree declaring the first marriage void,
before he or she could contract said second
marriage, otherwise the second marriage would be
void. However, for purposes other than to remarry,
no prior and separate judicial declaration of nullity is
necessary.
Vincent Mercado vs Consuelo Tan
Judicial Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
FACTS:
In April 1976, Dr. Vincent Mercado married Ma.
Thelma Oliva. But in June 1991,Mercado married a
second time. He married a certain Consuelo Tan.
In October 1992, Tan filed a bigamy case
against Mercado.
In November 1992, Mercado filed an action to have
his first marriage with Oliva be declared void ab
initio under Article 36 of the Family Code
(psychological incapacity).
In January 1993, the prosecutor filed a criminal
information for bigamy againstMercado.
In May 1993, Mercados marriage with Oliva was
declared void ab initio. Mercado now sought the
dismissal of the bigamy case filed against him. He
contended that since his first marriage was declared
void ab initio, there was no first marriage to speak of,
hence, his second marriage with Tan was actually
his first marriage.

Article 40 of the Family Code expressly requires a

judicial declaration of nullity of the previous
marriage, as follows: "Article 40. The absolute nullity
of a previous, , marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring such marriage void."
A declaration of nullity of marriage is now necessary
before one can contract a second marriage. Absent
that declaration, one may be charged with and
convicted of bigamy. Such declaration is also
necessary even if the earlier marriage is
characterized by statute "void."
In the case at bar, Mercado was already married to
Tan but did not file a declaration of nullity of
marriage with Oliva until Tan filed bigamy case. The
crime had already been consummated by then. To
file a petition to have his first marriage void after Tan
charged him with bigamy is not a defense in a
bigamy charge.

Joel Jimenez, plaintiff-appellee vs.

Remedios Canizares, defendant and Republic of
the Philippines, intervenor-appellant GR No. L-12790
Aug 31, 1960
Facts:
Joel filed a complaint praying for a decree of
annulment of his marriage to Remedios upon the
ground that the orifice of her vagina was too small
for penetration. This condition made Joel leave the
conjugal home two nights and one day after they had
been married. He alleged that it existed at the time
of marriage. Remedios did not file an answer and so
the court directed the Zamboanga City Atty. to
inquire whether or not there was collusion and
intervene to see that evidence is not fabricated.
Remedios was also ordered to submit to a physical
examination, which failed as she had refused to be
examined.
Procedural history: After hearing, Remedios was not
present. The trial court entered a decree declaring
the marriage null and void. The city attorney filed an
MR contending that the impotency had not been
satisfactorily established since there was no physical
examination and that instead of annulling the
marriage, the court should have punished her for
contempt and compelled her to undergo physical
examination. He further argued that the decree
would open the door to collusion simply by alleging
impotency.
Issue: WON the marriage may be annulled on the
strength of the lone testimony of the husband who
claimed and testified that the wife was and is
impotent

ISSUE:

Held: NO

Whether or not Mercado committed bigamy in spite

of filing the declaration of nullity of his first marriage.

Rule: Article 45 (5) A marriage may be annulled for

any of the following causes, existing at the time of
the marriage that either party was physically
incapable of consummating the marriage with the
other, and such incapacity continues and appears to
be incurable;

RULING:
Yes.

Application: In the case at bar, the annulment of the

marriage in question was decreed upon the sole
testimony of the husband who was expected to give
testimony tending or aiming at securing the
annulment of his marriage he sought and seeks.
Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be
deemed to have been satisfactorily established,
because from the commencement of the proceedings
until the entry of the decree she had abstained from
taking part therein. Although her refusal to be
examined or failure to appear in court show
indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the
presumption arising out of the suppression of
evidence could not arise or be inferred because
women of this country are by nature coy, bashful and
shy and would not submit to a physical examination
unless compelled to by competent authority. This the
Court may do without doing violence to and
infringing in this case is not self-incrimination. She is
not charged with any offense. She is not being
compelled to be a witness against herself."Impotency
being an abnormal condition should not be
presumed. The presumption is in favor of
potency." The lone testimony of the husband that his
wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is
insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound
them together as husband and wife.
Dispositive Portion: The decree appealed from is set
aside and the case remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings in accordance with this decision,
without pronouncement as to costs.

of the legal provisions and requisites because of the

latters age, sickness, and bombardment; that
Menciano took advantage of the deceaseds
condition, forced the latter to marry her by means of
deceit and threat; and that the deceased was
congenitally sterile and impotent. Moreover, the
defendants also filed a counterclaim for the sum of
286,000 in cash, for jewels and certain properties
which, as presumed, were retained and illegally
disposed of by Matilde Menciano.
Issue:
1.

Was the marriage between the deceased

Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde Menciano
valid?

2.

Are the children Faustino Neri, Jr. and Carlo

Magno Neri the legitimate children of the
deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde
Menciano?

3.

Did Matilde Menciano have in her

possession and illegally disposed of the
cash, jewels, and certain properties
aforementioned?

Decision:
(1) Yes. The marriage between the two is
evidenced by: the 2 applications for a
marriage

Menciano vs. Neri San Jose

license, dated September 28, 1944, the first one,

signed by the deceased to marry

Posted on October 10, 2011 G.R. No. L-1967 May 28,

1951

Menciano and the other one, signed by Menciano to

marry the deceased; the certificate

Facts:

for immediate issuance of marriage license applied

for, signed by the Acting Local Civil

Matilde Menciano, in her and her childrens behalf,

filed a motion for declaration of
heirs, alleging that she is the widow of the deceased
Faustino Neri San Jose, to whom she was married on
September 28, 1944 before Rev. Father Isaias Edralin,
S.J.; that they lived together before the said
marriage, hence, Carlo Magno Neri was born on
March 9, 1940, the child having enjoyed the status of
a recognized natural child; that their second child
Faustino Neri, Jr., was born on April 25, 1945 and was
legitimized by the subsequent matrimony of his
parents, thus he is a legitimate child in lawful
wedlock.
On the other hand, on an amended answer, Paz Neri
San Jose (the executrix of the deceased) and Rodolfo
Pelaez (designated universal heir in the will of the
deceased dated
December 19, 1940), denied the substantial
allegations of Mencianos motion for declaration of
heirs and further alleged that the deceased was
suffering from senile dementia from 1943
which became worse a year later; that the marriage
between Menciano and the deceased was in violation

Registrar and the deceased and Menciano; the

marriage contract signed by the
deceased and Menciano as contracting parties, Rev.
Isaias Edralin as solemnizing officer,
and the witnesses L. B. Castaos and Samson
Pagan. The 4 documents are official and
public; there validity can be successfully assailed
only by strong, clear, and convincing
oral testimony. In this case, the oral evidence
presented by the defendants is not
convincing so as to declare the said marriage invalid.
A mere glance at the signatures of
the deceased in the aforesaid documents will
convince anyone that they could not have
been written by a man who is almost unconscious
and physically and intellectually
incapacitated, as the defendants witnesses
represent him to have been. Also, the tests

pertaining to testamentary capacity were applied to

show the capacity to contract

child and, consequently, cannot be legitimized by the

subsequent marriage of his

marriage of the deceased. Although the said doctrine

relates to testamentary capacity,

parents.

there is no reason why is should not be applied to the

capacity to contract marriage,
which requires the same mental condition. Thus, the
court did not err in declaring valid
the marriage of the deceased and Menciano.
(2) Yes. Faustino Neri, Jr. is a legitimate child of
the deceased and Menciano. The requisite

(3) No. After a careful and exhaustive review of

evidence, the trial court correctly reached
the conclusion that such allegation has not been
substantiated. The testimonies of
mother and son- Paz Neri San Jose and Rodolfo
Pelaez regarding the sum of money are
contradictory. Moreover, Clotilde Galarrita de
Labitads testimony is unbelievable. With

for potency being met, the necessary conclusion is

that the child Faustino Neri, Jr., is

regard to the jewels, no satisfactory evidence was

presented to prove that Menciano

conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of

the deceased with Menciano in lawful

misappropriated them.

wedlock.
No. The court declared that Carlo Magno Neri has not
been acknowledged as a natural

Page 70