Article 3 previous marriage is diriment impediment, which

would make the subsequent marriage null and void.

Manzano vs Sanchez
354 SCRA 1
The recommendation of the Court of
Fact of the Case:
Administrator is adopted with modification that the
In a sworn Complaint Affidavit filed with the
fine of P2,000 is increased to P20,000
Office of the Court Administrator on May 12, 1999,
complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano charges
respondent Judge Roque Sanchez with gross
Article 4
ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage
between her husband and other women, who were Atienza v Brillantes, Jr.

both bound by a prior existing marriage. 243 SCRA 32

Topic: Retroactive effects of law

Respondent Judge on his Comment claims
that when he officiated the marriage between
SF: An administrative case was filed by herein
Manzano and Payao, he did not know that Manzano
complainant against Judge Brilliantes of MTC,
was legally married. What he knew was that the two
Manila. Complainant alleges that he has
had been living together as husband and wife for
two children with De Castro who stays in Makati,
seven years already without the benefit of marriage,
Manila in the house he bought and stayed while he is
as manifested in their joint affidavit. Also in their
in Manila. Sometime in 1991 he saw Respondent
affidavits, Manzano and Payao expressly stated the
Judge sleeping on his bed, upon inquiry, he was told
fact of their prior existing marriage. Their marriage
by the houseboy that respondent was cohabiting with
contract indicated that both were “separated”. That
De Castro. Complainant further alleged that
their prior marriage had been marked by constant
respondent was married to a certain Zenaida
quarrels, they had both left their families and had
Ongkiko and begot five children.
never cohabited or communicated with their spouses
anymore. Judge Sanchez alleges that on the basis of
In reply respondent alleged that the complainant was
those affidavits, he agreed to solemnize the
not married to De Castro, he also denied having been
marriage. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed
married to Zenaida Ongkiko, however admitted
for lack of merit and for being designed merely to
having five children with her. He stated that the
harass him.
marriage between him and Ongkiko was not valid
The Court Administrator recommended that
since there was no marriage license and further
respondent Judge be found guilty and ordered to pay
claimed that when he married De Castro he believed
a fine P2,000 with a warning that a repetition will be
in all good faith of it’s intent and purpose.
dealt with more severely. Respondent Judge reiterate
his plea for the dismissal of the complaint.
I: Whether or not Article 40 of the Family Code that
required nullity of previous marriage for purpose of
Issue:
remarriage shall apply?
Whether or not the complaint of Borja-Manzano valid.

H: As a general rule provided in Article 4 of the NCC:

Held:
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the
Yes. The Judge demonstrated gross
contrary is provided.
ignorance of the law when he solemnized avoid and
bigamous marriage. Marital cohabitation for a long
R: Article 40 of the Family Code provides that a
period of time are merely exemption from marriage
Judicial Declaration of Nullity is required before a
license. It could not sever as a justification for
party can enter into second marriage however the
respondent Judge to solemnize a subsequent
said Code took effect only on August 3, 1988 and
marriage vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing
the marriages that respondent contracted was 1965
marriage. A Judge ought to know that a subsisting
and 1991 however the provisions of this code
shall apply regardless of the date of the marriage,
besides under Article 256 of the Family Code, said
Article is given “retroactive effects in so far as it does
not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws” this is
particularly true with Article 40 which is a rule of
Procedure, herein respondent has not shown any
vested rights that was impaired by the application of
Article 40 ti his case.
Carlos vs Sandoval
December 16, 2008
FACTS: Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios
Carlos were brothers who each have three parcels of
land by virtue of inheritance. Later Teofilo died
intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad
Sandoval and their son, Teofilo Carlos II. Upon
Teofilo’s death, two parcels of land were registered in
the name of Felicidad and Teofilo II. In August 1995,
Carlos commenced an action against respondents
before the court a quo. In his complaint, Carlos
asserted that the marriage between his late brother
and Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of
the required marriage license. He likewise maintained
that his deceased brother was neither the natural nor
the adoptive father of Teofilo Carlos II. He argued that
the properties covered by such certificates of title,
including the sums received by respondents as
proceeds, should be reconveyed to him.
ISSUE:
HELD: The grounds for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage must be proved. Neither
judgment on the pleadings nor summary
judgment is allowed. So is confession of
judgment disallowed. Carlos argues that the CA
should have applied Rule 35 of the Rules of Court
governing summary judgment, instead of the rule on
judgment on the pleadings. Petitioner is misguided.
Whether it is based on judgment on the pleadings or
summary judgment, the CA was correct in reversing
the summary judgment rendered by the trial court.
Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and
summary judgments have no place in cases of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in
annulment of marriage.
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriage may be filed solely by the husband
or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases
commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during the
effectivity of the Civil Code. Under the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
may not be filed by any party outside of the
marriage. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity
of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband
or the wife. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may
file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages
or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.
Such 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 inchoate rights prior to the death of
their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the
validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the
death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement
of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the
regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the
State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its
dissolution. The Rule extends only to marriages
entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code
which took effect on August 3, 1988.
The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the
end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse
to bring a nullity of marriage case against the
surviving spouse. But the Rule never intended to
deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their
successional rights.
While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition
for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be
filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not
mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are
without any recourse under the law. They can still
protect their successional right, for, as stated in the
Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable
Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still
question the validity of the marriage of the spouses,
not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon
the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed
in the regular courts.
It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not
apply to cases already commenced before March 15,
2003 although the marriage involved is within the
coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new
Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 is
prospective in its application.
Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case
against respondent Felicidad in 1995. The marriage
in controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962.
Which law would govern depends upon when the
marriage took place.

The marriage having been solemnized prior to the

effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is
the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time
of its celebration. 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 declaration of nullity of marriage?

True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in

force 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, like any
other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party-in-interest and must be based
on a cause of action. Thus, in Niñal v. Badayog, the
Court held that the children have the personality to
file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of
their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects
their successional rights.