Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

10. Wiegel vs.

Sempio-Diy Name of Digester: Fred Bucu

G.R. No. L-53703 Date: August 19, 1986 Ponente:

Subject / Syllabus Topic: VI. (G) Void Marriages (1) Kinds of Void Marriages (b) Bigamous and Polygamous Marriages
Petitioner: LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL Respondent: The Honorable ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY & KARL
HEINZ WIEGEL
Doctrine: Bigamous and polygamous marriages,
FC Art. 35(4), 39, 40, 41, 44
RPC Arts. 344, 349
Recit Summary:
 Petitioner Lilia Wiegel and respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel’s marriage is void on the grounds that Lilia had a pre-existing
marriage with Eduardo Maxion that was merely voidable but was not annulled.
Facts:
 Private respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel asked for the declaration of Nullity of his marriage celebrated on July 1978 with
petitioner Lilia Wiegel in an action filed before the erstwhile Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City on
the ground of Lilia’s previous marriage to Eduardo Maxion on June 25, 1972.
 Petitioner claimed that her first marriage was null and void, for she and the first husband Maxion have been allegedly
forced to enter said marital union and that the first husband, at the time of the marriage in 1972, was already married to
someone else. Petitioner then asked the respondent court for an opportunity to present evidence that her first marriage
was void. Respondent judge ruled against the presentation of evidence because the existence of force exerted on both
parties of the first marriage has already been agreed upon.

Issue/s: Ruling:
 Whether or not the petitioner’s prior marriage was  Petition is dismissed for lack of merit
merely voidable assuming the presence of force exerted
against both parties.
Holding:
 The Supreme Court upheld that there is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage was initiated by force
committed against both parties because assuming that this is so, the marriage will not be void but merely voidable
(Article 85, Civil Code) and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when
she married private respondent, she was still validly married to her first husband, consequently, her marriage to
respondent is void. Hence, petitioner’s prior marriage is merely voidable but valid until annulled.