Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Whether Morigo must have filed declaration for the nullity ISSUE:
of his marriage with Barrete before his second marriage in
order to be free from the bigamy case. Whether the registration of the foreign divorce decree was
properly made.
HELD:
HELD:
Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio
considering that there was no actual marriage ceremony Supreme Court held in the negative. Article 412 of the Civil
performed between them by a solemnizing officer instead Code declares that “no entry in a civil register shall be
they just merely signed a marriage contract. The changed or corrected, without judicial order.” The Rules of
petitioner does not need to file declaration of the nullity of Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code by
his marriage when he contracted his second marriage with specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by
Lumbago. Hence, he did not commit bigamy and is which entries in the civil registry may be judicially
acquitted in the case filed. cancelled or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets
in detail the jurisdictional and procedural requirements
that must be complied with before a judgment,
authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be
GERBERT CORPUZ VS. DAISYLYN STO. TOMAS annotated in the civil registry.
FACTS:
In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, On February 2, 1946, Paula and Lorenzo had a
Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract written agreement, dissolving their marital union,
a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is “validly suspending his support upon her, and waiving his
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or authority to file a case of adultery against her.
her to remarry.” A divorce obtained abroad by two aliens, Lorenzo returned to the US and filed for a divorce in
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is
1951 which was granted in 1952.
consistent with their respective laws. Therefore, before
our courts can recognize a foreign divorce, the party
pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and On January 16, 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia Fortuno,
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. in the Philippines; afterwhich, they bore three
In this case, the divorce decree between the respondent children: Raul, Luz, and Beverly. In 1981, Lorenzo
and Samson appears to be authentic, issued by an executed a will, bequeathing all his property to Alicia
Australian family court. Although, appearance is not and three children. Before the proceeding could be
sufficient, and compliance with the rules on evidence terminated, Lorenzo died in 1985.
the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage
license.
On Sept. 4, 1985, Paula filed with the RTC of Iriga a
petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s Issue:
estate, contending that she was Lorenzo’s surviving
spouse. Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for
declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological
incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of
In 1987, the RTC granted her petition, stating that
nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license?
Lorenzo’s divorce decree was void and inapplicable in
the Philippines and therefore his marriage to Alicia Held:
was void. The RTC entitled Paula to one-half of their
Res judicata applies. Mallion is simply invoking different
conjugal properties, and one-third of the estate – the
grounds for the same cause of action which is the nullity of
two-thirds would be divided equally among the
marriage. When the second case was filed based on
illegitimate children. Paula was appointed as legal another ground, there is a splitting of a cause of action
administratix of the estate. which is prohibited. He is estopped from asserting that the
first marriage had no marriage license because in the first
ISSUE: case he impliedly admitted the same when he did not
question the absence of a marriage license.
Whether or not Paula Llorente was entitled to inherit
Ninal vs. Bayadog
from the estate of Lorenzo Llorente.
328 SCRA 122
HELD:
FACTS:
Since Lorenzo was an American citizen, issues
Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on
arising from the case are governed by foreign law. September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely
The CA and RTC called to the fore th er en voi Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot
doctrine, where the case was referred back to the law inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24,
of the decedent’s domicile, in this case, the Philippine 1985 leaving the children under the guardianship of
law. Most US laws follow the domiciliary theory. Thus, Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and
the Philippine law applies when determining the Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license.
They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived
validity of Lorenzo’s will. The case was remanded to
together for at least 5 years exempting from securing the
the RTC for the ruling on the intrinsic validity of the
marriage license. Pepito died in a car accident on February
will of the deceased. 19, 1977. After his death, petitioners filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma
alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage
Mallion v. Alcantara
license.
GR No. 141528October 31, 2006
ISSUES:
Facts:
1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was
Oscar Mallion filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court void?
seeking adeclaration of nullity of his marriage with Editha
2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for
Alcantara due topsychological incapacity. The RTC denied
the declaration of the nullity of Pepito’s marriage after his
the petition.As the decision attained finality, Mallion filed
death?
another petition for a declarationof nullity of marriage,
this time alleging that his marriage was null and voiddue to
HELD: laws. The RTC found the evidences sufficient and granted
thedecree; it was affirmed in the CA.
The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of
the marriage license. They cannot be exempted even Issue:
though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they
cohabit for at least 5 years because from the time of Does abandonment and sexual infidelity per se constitute
Pepito’s first marriage was dissolved to the time of his psychological incapacity?
marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed.
Held:
Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and
thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with
The evidences presented by the respondent fail to
each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact
establish psychological incapacity.
remains that their five-year period cohabitation was not
the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his Furthermore, Article 36 “contemplates downright
marriage to Norma is still void. incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume
the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or
Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and
difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
cannot be the source of rights. It can be questioned even
spouse. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting
after the death of one of the parties and any proper
personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility,
interested party may attack a void marriage.
physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or
perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not
warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the
REPUBLIC VS IYOY (G.R. NO. 152577) said Article.”
The Court of Appeals erred in its opinion the Civil Code The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed and
Revision Committee intended to liberalize the application set aside the assailed decision; concluding that the
of Philippine civil laws on personal and family rights, and marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists
holding psychological incapacity as a broad range of and remains valid.
mental and behavioral conduct on the part of one spouse
indicative of how he or she regards the marital union, his
or her personal relationship with the other spouse, as well
as his or her conduct in the long haul for the attainment of
the principal objectives of marriage; where said conduct,
observed and considered as a whole, tends to cause the
union to self-destruct because it defeats the very
objectives of marriage, warrants the dissolution of the
marriage.
Republic vs. Orbecido have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a
valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin
472 SCRA 114 requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26
are both present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the “divorced”
Facts: Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros However, since Cipriano was not able to prove as fact his
Villanueva were married in Lam-an, Ozamis City and were wife’s naturalization he is still barred from remarrying.
blessed with a son and a daughter. In 1986, Lady Myros
left for the U. S. bringing along their son and after a few Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof, failed
years she was naturalized as an American citizen. to submit competent evidence showing his allegations that
his naturalized American wife had obtained a divorce
Sometime in 2000, respondent Orbecido learned from his decree and had remarried.
son – who was living with his wife in the States – that his
wife had remarried after obtaining her divorce decree.
Thereafter, he filed a petition for authority to remarry with
the trial court invoking par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code.
Issue:
Ruling: