Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
It may be
allowed in cases where the name is ridiculous, tainted with
The concept of and nature of marriage dishonor, or difficult to pronounce or write; a nickname is
habitually used; or if the change will avoid confusion. The
1. Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda 35 Phil 252 petitioner’s basis of the change of his name is that he
intends his first name compatible with the sex he thought
FACTS: he transformed himself into thru surgery. The Court says
that his true name does not prejudice him at all, and no
Luisa Goitia y de la Camara, petitioner, and Jose Campos law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to
y Rueda, respondent, were married on January 7, 1915 sex on the ground of sex reassignment. The Court denied
and had a residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino the petition.
Manila. They stayed together for a month before
petitioner returned to her parent’s home. Goitia filed a 3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. VICTORIANO
complaint against respondent for support outside the DELA CRUZ y LORENZO, Appellant.
conjugal home. It was alleged that respondent G.R. No. 187683 February 11, 2010
demanded her to perform unchaste and lascivious acts on
his genital organs. Petitioner refused to perform such acts FACTS:
and demanded her husband other than the legal and
valid cohabitation. Since Goitia kept on refusing, Victoriano testified that, at around 6:30 p.m. on August 18,
respondent maltreated her by word and deed, inflicting 2002, he came home very drunk from a friend's house.
injuries upon her lops, face and different body parts. The Before he could enter their house, his wife, Anna, started
trial court ruled in favor of respondent and stated that nagging him saying, "Hindi ka naman pala namamasada,
Goitia could not compel her husband to support her nakipag-inuman ka pa." He asked her to go inside their
except in the conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a house but she refused. Thus, Victoriano slapped Anna and
judicial decree granting her separation or divorce from dragged her inside their house.
respondent. Goitia filed motion for review.
Due to the continuous nagging of Anna, Victoriano
ISSUE: pushed her aside so he could go out of the house.
However, she fell on a jalousie window, breaking it in the
Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support process. When he helped her stand up, Victoriano noticed
her outside the conjugal home. that her back was punctured by a piece of shattered glass
of the jalousie. He brought her outside immediately and
HELD: asked the help of his neighbors who were playing tong-its
nearby. Victoriano admitted that Joel accompanied him
YES. and his wife to the hospital.
The obligation on the part of the husband to support his
wife is created merely in the act of marriage. The law At the hospital, Victoriano was taken into custody by
provides that the husband, who is obliged to support the policemen for questioning. It was only in the following
wife, may fulfil the obligation either by paying her a fixed morning that Victoriano learned of his wife’s passing.
pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his
option. However, this option given by law is not Victoriano also testified that he does not usually drink; that
absolute. The law will not permit the husband to evade or he consumed hard liquor at the time of the incident; that
terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife is Anna was not immediately treated in the hospital; that he
driven away from the conjugal home because of his loved his wife; and that he did not intentionally hurt her.
wrongful acts. In the case at bar, the wife was forced to
leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs Joel Song (Joel) testified that between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m.
and physical assault of the husband, she can therefore on August 18, 2002, he and two others, including the aunt
claim support from the husband for separate of Victoriano, were playing a card game known as tong-
maintenance even outside the conjugal home. its just three to four arms length away from the latter’s
house.
2. Silverio v. Republic October 22, 2007 (GR. No. 174689) While playing, Joel saw Victoriano punching and kicking
his wife, herein victim Anna Liza Caparas-dela Cruz (Anna),
FACTS: in front of their house. Joel knew the wife’s name as "Joan."
Victoriano then dragged Anna inside the house by pulling
On November 26, 2002, Silverio field a petition for the the latter's hair, then slammed the door. Joel overheard
change of his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely” and the couple shouting while they were already inside the
his sex from male to female in his birth certificate in the RTC house.
of Manila, Branch 8, for reason of his sex reassignment. He
alleged that he is a male transsexual, he is anatomically Suddenly, Victoriano and Anna came out of the house,
male but thinks and acts like a female. The Regional Trial together with their young daughter. Victoriano was behind
Court ruled in favor of him, explaining that it is consonance Anna, with his arms wrapped around her. He asked for
with the principle of justice and equality. Joel’s help. Joel noticed blood spurting out of Anna’s
The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari mouth. He took the couple’s daughter and gave her to
in the Court of Appeals alleging that there is no law Victoriano's aunt. He then went with them to the Bulacan
allowing change of name by reason of sex alteration. Provincial Hospital (hospital) on board a tricycle. However,
Petitioner filed a reconsideration but was denied. Hence, Anna died.
this petition. RTC – guilty beyond reasonable doubt of PARRICIDE.
CA – affirmed RTC’s decision with modifications. Deleted
ISSUE: exemplary damages, lowered civil liability from 60K to 50K.
Hence, this appeal.
WON change in name and sex in birth certificate are
allowed by reason of sex reassignment. ISSUE:
Pursuant to existing laws, the foregoing entries are 1. [G.R. No. 145226. February 6, 2004.]
accorded prima facie weight. They are presumed to be
true. Hence, unless rebutted by clear and convincing
evidence, they can, and will, stand as proof of the facts LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
attested. In the case at bench, the petitioners and their PHILIPPINES, respondent.
siblings offered no such rebuttal.
FACTS:
The petitioners did no better than to explain away the
entries in Sylvia’s birth certificate as untruthful statements Morigo and Barrete were board mates in Bohol for a
made only in order to "save face." They urge this Court to period of four (4) years. After school year 1977-78, they lost
take note of a "typical" practice among unwed Filipino contact with each other until Morogo received a letter
couples to concoct the illusion of marriage and make it from Barrete. After several exchanges, they became
appear that a child begot by them is legitimate. That, the sweethearts.
Court cannot countenance.
In 1990, Barrete proposed to petition Morigo to join her in
The allegations of the petitioners, by themselves and
Canada. Both agreed to get married, thus they were
unsupported by any other evidence, do not diminish the
married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina
probative value of the entries. This Court cannot, as the
Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.
petitioners would like Us to do, simply take judicial notice
of a supposed folkway and conclude therefrom that the
usage was in fact followed. It certainly is odd that the On August 19, 1991, Barrete filed with the Ontario Court
petitioners would themselves argue that the document on (General Division) a petition for divorce against appellant
which they based their interest in intervention contains which was granted by the said court.
untruthful statements in its vital entries.
On October 4, 1992, Morigo married Maria Jececha
Ironically, it is the evidence presented by the petitioners Lumbago 4 at theVirgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran
and their siblings themselves which, properly appreciated, City, Bohol.
supports the finding that Isabel was, indeed, previously
married to John Desantis. Consequently, in the absence of On September 21, 1993, Morigo filed a complaint for
any proof that such marriage had been dissolved by the judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional
time Isabel was married to Rodolfo, the inescapable Trial Court of Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No. 6020 on the
conclusion is that the latter marriage is bigamous and, ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place.
therefore, void ab initio.
On October 19, 1993, Morigo was charged with Bigamy
The inability of the petitioners and their siblings to present
and thereafter, found guilty. The court held that want of a
evidence to prove that Isabel’s prior marriage was
valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of
dissolved results in a failure to establish that she has interest
bigamy.
in the estate of Rodolfo. Clearly, an intervention by the
petitioners and their siblings in the settlement proceedings
cannot be justified. We affirm the Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals.
5. [A.C. No. 9081. October 12, 2011.] Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, the trial court rendered
a decision in Civil Case No. 6020 declaring the marriage
RODOLFO A. ESPINOSA and MAXIMO A. between Lucio and Lucia void ab initio since no marriage
GLINDO, complainants, vs. ATTY. JULIETA A. ceremony actually took place.
OMAÑA, respondent.
(3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and WON there was a valid marriage?
(4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had RULING:
it not been for the existence of the first.
Yes.
Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we note
that during the pendency of the criminal case, the RTC General Orders, No. 68, section 6, is as follows:
where the nullity case was filed rendered judgment
declaring the nullity of marriage after finding that there "No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is
was no actual marriage ceremony performed between required, but the parties must declare, in the presence of
Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what the person solemnizing the marriage, that they take each
transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by other as husband and wife."
the two, without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The
trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio, in
Zacarias Esmero, one of the witnesses, testified that upon
accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code. In
the occasion in question the justice of the peace said
other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned from
nothing until after the document was signed and then
the date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab
addressing himself to the plaintiff and the defendant said,
initio to the date of the celebration of the first marriage,
"You are married." The petition signed by the plaintiff and
the accused was, under the eyes of the law, never
defendant contained a positive statement that they had
married."
mutually agreed to be married and they asked the justice
of the peace to solemnize the marriage. The document
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the signed by the plaintiff, the defendant, and the justice of
accused must have been legally married. But in this case, the peace, stated that they ratified under oath, before the
legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to justice, the contents of the petition and that witnesses of
Barrete. Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of. Under the marriage were produced. A marriage took place as
the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared shown by the certificate of the justice of the peace, signed
void ab initio, the two were never married “from the by both contracting parties, which certificate gives rise to
beginning.” The contract of marriage is null; it bears no the presumption that the officer authorized the marriage
legal effect. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, in due form, the parties before the justice of the peace
for legal purposes, petitioner was not married to Lucia at declaring that they took each other as husband and wife,
the time he contracted the marriage with Maria Jececha. unless the contrary is proved, such presumption being
The existence and the validity of the first marriage being corroborated in this case by the admission of the woman
an essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical to the effect that she had contracted the marriage
that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained certified to in the document signed by her, which
where there is no first marriage to speak of. The petitioner, admission can only mean that the parties mutually agreed
must, perforce be acquitted of the instant charge. IAETSC to unite in marriage when they appeared and signed the
said document which so states before the justice of the
1-A. [G.R. No. 4904. February 5, 1909.] peace who authorized the same. It was proven that both
the plaintiff and the defendant were able to read and
ROSALIA MARTINEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. write the Spanish language, and that they knew the
ANGEL TAN, defendant-appellee. contents of the document which they signed; and under
the circumstances in this particular case we are satisfied,
and so hold, that what took place before the justice of the
FACTS: peace on this occasion amounted to a legal marriage.
There was received in evidence at the trial what is called 2. G.R. No. 187417, February 24, 2016
an expediente de matrimonio civil. It is written in Spanish
and consists, first, of a petition directed to the justice of the
peace, dated on the 25th of September, 1907, signed by CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ, Petitioner, v. BRENT HOSPITAL
the plaintiff and the defendant, in which they state that AND COLLEGES, INC., Respondent.
they have mutually agreed to enter into a contract of
marriage before the justice of the peace, and ask that the FACTS:
justice solemnize the marriage. Following this is a Cadiz was the Human Resource Officer of respondent
document dated on the same day, signed by the justice Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. (Brent) at the time of her
of the peace, by the plaintiff, by the defendant, and by indefinite suspension from employment in 2006. The cause
of suspension was Cadiz's Unprofessionalism and Unethical
4 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
Behavior Resulting to Unwed Pregnancy. It appears that each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out of
Cadiz became pregnant out of wedlock, and Brent wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view
imposed the suspension until such time that she marries her of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral
boyfriend in accordance with law. conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS." (Cheryll
Santos Lens v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove and/or
Cadiz then filed with the Labor Arbiter (LA) a complaint for Sr. Edna Quiambao, OSB).
Unfair Labor Practice, Constructive Dismissal, Non-
Payment of Wages and Damages with prayer for
Reinstatement.4 3. G.R. No. 183896 January 30, 2013
ISSUE:
SYED AZHAR ABBAS, Petitioner, vs. GLORIA GOO
Whether or not Christine Joy Cadiz’ premarital relations
ABBAS, Respondent.
with her boyfriend and the resulting pregnancy out of
wedlock constitute immorality, hence a valid ground for
dismissal? FACTS:
Petitioner Syed Azhar Abbas (Syed) filed for the
RULING: declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gloria Goo-Abbas
(Gloria) with the RTC of Pasay City. Syed alleged the
No. To resolve this, the Court makes reference to the absence of a marriage license, as provided for in Article 4,
recently promulgated case of Cheryll Santos Leus v. St. Chapter I, Title 1 of Executive Order No. 269, otherwise
Scholastica's College Westgrove and/or Sr. Edna known as the Family Code of the Philippines, as a ground
Quiambao, OSB. The Court ruled in Leus that the for the annulment of his marriage to Gloria.
determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or
immoral involves a two-step process: first, a consideration Syed, a Pakistani citizen, and Gloria, a Filipino citizen, met
of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the in Taiwan in 1991. He arrived in the Philippines and on
conduct; and second, an assessment of the said January 9, 1993, at around 5 o’clock in the afternoon, he
circumstances vis-a-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, was at his mother-in-law’s residence, in Malate, Manila,
i.e., what the society generally considers moral and when his mother-in-law arrived with two men. He was told
respectable. that he was going to undergo some ceremony, one of the
requirements for his stay in the Philippines, but was not told
In the present case, the surrounding facts leading to of the nature of said ceremony where he and Gloria
Cadiz's dismissal are straightforward - she was employed signed a document. He claimed that he only found out
as a human resources officer in an educational and that it was a marriage contract when Gloria told him. He
medical institution of the Episcopal Church of the further testified that he did not go to Carmona, Cavite to
Philippines; she and her boyfriend at that time were both apply for a marriage license, and that he had never
single; they engaged in premarital sexual relations, which resided in that area.
resulted into pregnancy. The labor tribunals characterized
these as constituting disgraceful or immoral conduct. They In July of 2003, he went to the Office of the Civil Registrar
also sweepingly concluded that as Human Resource of Carmona, Cavite, to check on their marriage license.
Officer, Cadiz should have been the epitome of proper The Municipal Civil Registrar, issued a certification stating
conduct and her indiscretion "surely scandalized the Brent that the marriage license number appearing in the
community." marriage contract he submitted was the number of
another marriage license issued to another couple. He
The foregoing circumstances, however, do not readily also alleged that Gloria had filed bigamy cases against
equate to disgraceful and immoral conduct. Brent’s Policy him in 2001 and 2002. On the other hand, Gloria presented
Manual and Employee’s Manual of Policies do not define her own side. Rev. Mario Dauz, a minister of the Gospel
what constitutes immorality; it simply stated immorality as and a brgy captain stated that he is authorized to
a ground for disciplinary action. Instead, Brent erroneously solemnize marriage and that he was doing it since 1982
relied on the standard dictionary definition of fornication and he is familiar with the requirements. There were two
as a form of illicit relation and proceeded to conclude that witnesses, one of them was Atty. Sanchez who handed
Cadiz’ acts fell under such classification, thus constituting him the marriage license on the day of the wedding.
immorality. Gloria testified that a certain Qualin went to their house
and said that he will get the marriage license for them, and
Jurisprudence has already set the standard of morality after several days returned with an application for
with which an act should be gauged - it is public and marriage license for them to sign, which she and Syed did.
secular, not religious. Whether a conduct is considered After Qualin returned with the marriage license, they gave
disgraceful or immoral should be made in accordance the license to Atty. Sanchez who gave it to Rev. Dauz, the
with the prevailing norms of conduct, which, as stated solemnizing officer. Gloria also alleged that she has a
in Leus, refer to those conducts which are proscribed daughter with Syed. She filed a bigamy case because
because they are detrimental to conditions upon which Syed married a certain Maria Corazon Buenaventura.
depend the existence and progress of human society. The
fact that a particular act does not conform to the The Ruling of the RTC
traditional moral views of a certain sectarian institution is No valid marriage license was issued by the Municipal Civil
not sufficient reason to qualify such act as immoral unless Registrar of Carmona, Cavite in favor of Gloria and Syed,
it, likewise, does not conform to public and secular as Marriage License No. 9969967 had been issued to
standards. More importantly, there must be substantial Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan, and the
evidence to establish that premarital sexual relations and Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite had certified
pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or that no marriage license had been issued for Gloria and
immoral. The labor tribunals' respective conclusion that Syed.
Cadiz's "indiscretion" "scandalized the Brent community" is
speculative, at most, and there is no proof adduced by The Ruling of the CA
Brent to support such sweeping conclusion. The CA gave credence to Gloria’s arguments, and
granted her appeal. It held that the certification of the
Hence, "premarital sexual relations between two Municipal Civil Registrar failed to categorically state that a
consenting adults who have no impediment to marry diligent search for the marriage license of Gloria and Syed
4. G.R. No. 201061 July 3, 2013 Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except
SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Petitioner, vs. as stated in Article 35(2).
BENJAMIN BANGAYAN, JR., Respondent.
Thus, Under Article 35 of the Family Code, a marriage
DOCTRINE: A marriage solemnized without a license, solemnized without a license, except those covered by
except those covered by Article 34 where no license is Article 34 where no license is necessary, "shall be void
necessary, "shall be void from the beginning." from the beginning."
First, Benjamin’s marriage to Azucena on 10 September
FACTS: 1973 was duly established before the trial court,
On 15 March 2004, Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. (Benjamin) evidenced by a certified true copy of their marriage
filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage contract. At the time Benjamin and Sally entered into a
and/or declaration of nullity of marriage before the purported marriage on 7 March 1982, the marriage
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 43 (trial court). between Benjamin and Azucena was valid and subsisting.
Benjamin alleged that on 10 September 1973, he married In this case, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was
Azucena Alegre (Azucena) in Caloocan City. They had solemnized without a license. It was duly established that
6 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
no marriage license was issued to them and that Marriage Palaypayon contends that marriage between Abellano &
License No. N-07568 did not match the marriage license Edralin falls under Article 34 of the Civil Code thus
numbers issued by the local civil registrar of Pasig City for exempted from the marriage license
the month of February 1982. The case clearly falls under requirement. According to him, he gave strict instructions
Section 3 of Article 3520 which made their marriage void to complainant Sambo to furnish the couple copy of the
ab initio. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was marriage contract and to file the same with the civil
also non-existent. Applying the general rules on void or registrar but the latter failed to do so. In order to solve the
inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, problem, the spouses subsequently formalized the
contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious are marriage by securing a marriage license and executing
"inexistent and void from the beginning."21 Thus, the Court their marriage contract, a copy of which was then filed
of Appeals did not err in sustaining the trial court’s ruling with the civil registrar. The other five marriages were not
that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was null illegally solemnized because Palaypayon did not sign their
and void ab initio and non-existent. marriage contracts and the date and place of marriage
are not included. It was alleged that copies of these
2. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the property marriage contracts are in the custody of complainant
relations of Benjamin and Sally is governed by Article 148 Sambo. The alleged marriage of Selpo & Carrido, Terrobias
of the Family Code which states: & Gacer, Gamay & Belga, Sabater & Nacario were not
celebrated by him since he refused to solemnize them in
the absence of a marriage license and that the marriage
Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the
of Bocaya & Bismonte was celebrated even without the
preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of
requisite license due to the insistence of the parties to
the parties through their actual joint contribution of
avoid embarrassment with the guests which he again did
money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in
not sign the marriage contract.
common in proportion to their respective contributions. In
the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions
and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The An illegal solemnization of marriage was charged against
same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of the respondents.
money and evidences of credit.
5. JUVY N. COSCA, EDMUNDO B. PERALTA, RAMON C. By solemnizing alone a marriage without a marriage
SAMBO, and APOLLO A. VILLAMORA, complainants, vs. license, he is the one responsible for the irregularity in not
HON. LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON, JR., Presiding Judge, and complying (with) the formal requ(i)sites of marriage and
NELIA B. ESMERALDA-BAROY, Clerk of Court II, both of the under Article 4(3) of the Family Code of the Philippines, he
Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.
respondents. The fact alone that he did not sign the marriage certificate
or contract, the same did not bear a date and the parties
and the Local Civil Registrar were not furnished a copy of
Doctrine: If the parties really did not have a marriage the marriage certificate, do not by themselves show that
license and the judge required to apply such after they he did not solemnize the marriage.
were solemnized, the marriage is void.
FACTS: Contracting parties declare that they take each other as
husband and wife before the solemnizing officer. This
alleged practice and procedure, if true, is highly improper
Juvy N. Cosca, Edmundo B. Peralta, Ramon C. Sambo, and irregular, if not illegal, because the contracting parties
and Apollo Villamora, are Stenographer I, Interpreter I, are supposed to be first asked by the solemnizing officer
Clerk II, and Process Server, respectively, of the Municipal and declare that they take each other as husband and
Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Respondents wife before the solemnizing officer in the presence of at
Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. and Nelia B. Esmeralda- least two (2) witnesses before they are supposed to sign
Baroy are respectively the Presiding Judge and Clerk of their marriage contracts (Art. 6, Family Code).
Court II of the same court.
Integrity in a judicial office is more than a virtue, it is a
Complainants alleged that Palaypayon solemnized necessity. We here emphasize once again our adjuration
marriages even without the requisite of a marriage that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected
license. Hence, the following couples were able to get with an office charged with the dispensation of justice,
married just by paying the marriage fees to respondent from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be
Baroy: Alano P. Abellano & Nelly Edralin; Francisco Selpo & circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His
Julieta Carrido; Eddie Terrobias & Maria Gacer; Renato conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by
Gamay & Maricris Belga; Arsenio Sabater & Margarita propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be
Nacario; Sammy Bocaya & Gina Bismonte. As a beyond suspicion. Every employee should be an example
consequence, the marriage contracts of the following of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Integrity in a judicial
couples did not reflect any marriage license number. In office is more than a virtue, it is a necessity. 6 It applies,
addition, Palaypayon did not sign the marriage contracts without qualification as to rank or position, from the judge
and did not indicate the date of solemnization reasoning to the least of its personnel, they being standard-bearers
out that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license of the exacting norms of ethics and morality imposed upon
to be submitted by the parties which happens usually a Court of justice.
several days after the marriage ceremony.
Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P.129, 2. Whether or not the acts of Judge Domagtoy exhibits
the authority of the regional trial court judges and judges gross misconduct, inefficiency in office and ignorance of
of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confined to their the law?
territorial jurisdiction as defined by the Supreme Court.
An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has RULING:
jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize
marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the The court held that the marriage between Tagadan and
requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges Borja was void and bigamous there being a subsisting
who are appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate marriage between Tagadan and his wife,
in weddings only within said areas and not beyond. Where notwithstanding, the latter was gone for seven years and
a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court’s the spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent
jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal spouse was dead, Tagadan did not institute a summary
requisite laid down in Article 3, which while it may not proceeding as provided in the Civil Code for the
affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
officiating official to administrative liability. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the
absent spouse. With regard to the marriage of Sumaylo
In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent and Del Rosario, the said marriage was solidified as valid,
judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Albeit, Judge Domagtoy was not authorized to solemnize
Sur. His act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario as against Article
Orobia in Nabua, may not amount to gross ignorance of 3 (1) of the Family Code with regard to irregularity of formal
the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of requisites of marriage. In addition, article 4 par 3 of the
Family Code of the Philippines states that formal requisites
9 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
shall not affect the validity of marriage but the party or
parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, On 8 December 1982 he and respondent, without securing
criminally and administratively liable. Hence, Domagtoy the required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall
was held administratively liable because of the latter’s for the purpose of looking for a person who could arrange
failure to apply the legal principles applicable in these a marriage for them. They met a person who, for a fee,
cases, the Court find Domagtoy have acted in gross arranged their wedding. They got married on the same
ignorance of the law and because of this he was day. Another marriage was held in a church in Tondo. The
suspended for a period of six months. marriage was likewise celebrated without the parties
securing a marriage license. The alleged marriage
E. Marriage License license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the
marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a
1. Sy vs. CA, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000 resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to
apply for a license with the local civil registrar of the said
FACTS: place. A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by
petitioner against respondent. Rosita however asserts the
Lourdes in Quezon City. After some time, Fernando left validity of their marriage and maintains that there was a
their conjugaldwelling. Two children were born out of the marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification
marriage. Frederick, their son went to his father’s from the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona,
residence. Filipina filed for legal separation. The Trial Cavite. Restituto has a mistress with whom he has three
Court dissolved their conjugal partnership of gains and children. Restituto only filed the annulment of their
granted the custody of their children to her. Later marriage to evade prosecution for concubinage. Rosita,
on, Filipina was punched at the different parts of her body in fact, has filed a case for concubinage against Restituto.
and was even choked by him when she started spanking
their son when the latter ignored her while she was talking ISSUE:
to him.
Whether or not their marriage is valid.
The Trial Court convicted him for slight physical injuries
only. A new action for legal separation was granted by RULING:
repeated physical violence and
sexual infidelity. Filipinathen filed for the declaration of A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Art
absolute nullity of their marriage citing psychological 53 of NCC. Their marriage contract reflects a marriage
incapacity. The Trial Court and Appellate Court denied license number. A certification was also issued by the local
her petition. On her petition to this Court, she assailed for civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite. The certification is
the first time that there was no marriage license during their precise since it specifically identified the parties to whom
marriage. the marriage license was issued. Issuance of a marriage
license where none of the parties is resident, is just an
ISSUES: irregularity. Marriage is still valid even if the marriage
license is issued in a place not the domicile of the parties.
1) Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and
private respondent is void from the beginning for lack of a
marriage license at the time of the ceremony; and 3. G.R. No. 133778 , March 14, 2000
2) Whether or not private respondent is psychologically ENGRACE NIÑAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of
incapacitated at the time of said marriage celebration to the minors BABYLINE NIÑAL, INGRID NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL
warrant a declaration of its absolute nullity. & PEPITO NIÑAL, JR., petitioners, vs. NORMA BAYADOG,
respondent.
RULING:
Doctrine: A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage
The date of celebration of their marriage on November 15, under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the absence of which
1973, is admitted both by petitioner and private renders the marriage void ab initio. However, there are
respondent. The pieces of evidence on record showed several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a
that on the day of the marriage ceremony, there was no marriage license is dispensed with, one of which is that
marriage license. A marriage license is a formal provided in Article 76, referring to the marriage of a man
requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab and a woman who have lived together and exclusively
initio. In addition, the marriage contract shows that the with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and
marriage license, numbered 6237519, was issued in unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage.
Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor private
respondent ever resided in Carmona. The marriage license FACTS: Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on
was issued on September 17,1974, almost one year after September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely Babyline,
the ceremony took place on November 15, 1973. The Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by
ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving
contracted without a marriage license. Under Article 80 of the children under the guardianship of EngraceNinal. 1
the Civil Code: those solemnized without a marriage year and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got
license, save marriages of exceptional character, are void married without any marriage license. They instituted an
ab initio. This is clearly applicable in this case. The affidavit stating that they had lived together for at least 5
remaining issue on the psychological incapacity of private years exempting from securing the marriage license.
respondent need no longer detain the Court. It is mooted
by the conclusion that the marriage of petitioner to Pepito died in a car accident on February 19, 1977. After
respondent is void ab initio for lack of a marriage license his death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of
at the time their marriage was solemnized. nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that
said marriage was void for lack of marriage license. The
case was filed under the assumption that the validity or
2. Alcantara v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 167746, Aug. 28, 2007 invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioner’s
successional rights.Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the
FACTS: ground that petitioners have no cause of action since they
ISSUE: Whether or not a previous final judgment denying a Petitioner, however, forgets that he is simply invoking
petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of different grounds for the same cause of action. By
psychological incapacity bar a subsequent petition for definition, a cause of action is the act or omission by which
declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage a party violates the right of another. In both petitions,
license. petitioner has the same cause - the declaration of nullity
of his marriage to respondent. What differs is the ground
RULING: Yes. Res judicata is defined as "a matter upon which the cause of action is predicated. These
adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a grounds cited by petitioner essentially split the various
thing or matter settled by judgment. It also refers to the rule aspects of the pivotal issue that holds the key to the
that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of resolution of this controversy, that is, the actual status of
competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the petitioner and respondent's marriage.
parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters
determined in the former suit." Furthermore, the instant case is premised on the claim that
the marriage is null and void because no valid celebration
This doctrine is a rule which pervades every well-regulated of the same took place due to the alleged lack of a
system of jurisprudence and is founded upon the following marriage license. In Civil Case No. SP 4341-95, however,
precepts of common law, namely: (1) public policy and petitioner impliedly conceded that the marriage had
necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that been solemnized and celebrated in accordance with law.
there should be an end to litigation, and (2) the hardship Petitioner is now bound by this admission.
on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the
same cause. A contrary doctrine would subject the public Therefore, having expressly and impliedly conceded the
peace and quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and validity of their marriage celebration, petitioner is now
prefer the gratification of the litigious disposition on the deemed to have waived any defects therein. For this
part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquillity reason, the Court finds that the present action for
and happiness. declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of
marriage license is barred by the decision in Civil Case No.
Section 47 (b) and (c) of Rule 49 of the Rules of Court SP 4341-95.
outlines the dual aspect of res judicata. Section 47 (b)
pertains to it in its concept as "bar by prior judgment" or 6. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. JOSE A.
"estoppels by verdict," which is the effect of a judgment as DAYOT, Respondent.
a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the
same claim, demand or cause of action. On the other
G.R. No. 175581 March 28, 2008
hand, section 47 (c) pertains to res judicata in its concept
as "conclusiveness of judgment" or otherwise known as the
rule of auter auction pendant which ordains that issues FACTS:
actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again
be raised in any future case between the same parties On 24 November 1986, Jose and Felisa were married. In
involving a different cause of action. Res judicata in its lieu of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a
concept as a bar by prior judgment obtains in the present sworn affidavit attesting that both of them had attained
case. the age of maturity, and that being unmarried, they had
lived together as husband and wife for at least five years.
Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrence of the
following requisites: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is
For the exception to apply, it is a sine qua non thereto that Hence, this petition.
the man and the woman must have attained the age of
majority, and that, being unmarried, they have lived ISSUE:
together as husband and wife for at least five years. The
minimum requisite of five years of cohabitation is an
Is the marriage between Syed and Gloria null and void?
indispensability carved in the language of the law. It is
embodied in the law not as a directory requirement, but
as one that partakes of a mandatory character. RULING: YES
It is indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not In Republic vs. CA, The Court held that the certification
lived together for five years at the time they executed their issued by the civil registrar enjoyed probative value, as his
sworn affidavit and contracted marriage. The Republic duty was to maintain records of data relative to the
admitted that Jose and Felisa started living together only issuance of a marriage license.
in June 1986, or barely five months before the celebration
of their marriage. The Court of Appeals also noted Felisa’s Also, in the case of Cariño v. Cariño, following the case of
testimony that Jose was introduced to her by her neighbor, Republic, it was held that the certification of the Local Civil
Teresita Perwel, sometime in February or March 1986. The Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage
appellate court also cited Felisa’s own testimony that it license was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said
was only in June 1986 when Jose commenced to live in her license.
house. Therefore, the falsity of the affidavit dated 24
November 1986, executed by Jose and Felisa, is beyond The Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite, where
question. the marriage license of Gloria and Syed was allegedly
issued, issued a certification to the effect that no such
If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a lie, then it is marriage license for Gloria and Syed was issued, and that
but a mere scrap of paper, without force and effect. the serial number of the marriage license pertained to
Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at all. another couple, Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan.
Later, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the 2. No, in a previous case (Nicdao Carino vs. Yee Carino),
RTC and ruled in favor of Veronica Kho. the Supreme Court considered the certification issued by
the local civil registrar, that their office had no record of a
Raquel Kho filed a petition for review on certiorari with the marriage license, was adequate to prove the non-
Supreme Court. issuance of said license.
ISSUE:
Noveras, who was born on 4 November 1990 and JenaT.
Noveras, born on 2 May 1993. David was engaged in
courier service business while Leticia worked as a nurse in 1. Whether the marriage between David and Leticia has
San Francisco, California. been dissolved pursuant to the divorce decree issued by
the Superior Court of California;
During the marriage, they acquired properties in the
Philippines and in the USA: 2. Whether the filing of the judicial separation of property
is proper in accordance with the Family Code
The Sampaloc property used to beowned by David’s
parents. The parties herein secured a loan from a bank RULING:
and mortgaged the property. When said property was
about to be foreclosed, the couple paid a total of ₱1.5 1. The trial court erred in recognizing the divorce decree
Million for the redemption of the same. which severed the bond of marriage between the parties.
Foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as
Due to business reverses, David left the USA and returned facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s
to the Philippines in 2001. In December 2002,Leticia applicable national law to show the effect of the
executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing judgment on the alien himself or herself. A copy of the
David to sell the Sampaloc property for ₱2.2 Million. foreign judgment may be admitted in evidence and
According to Leticia, sometime in September 2003, David proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in
abandoned his family and lived with Estrellita Martinez in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
Aurora province. Leticia claimed that David agreed toand
executed a Joint Affidavit with Leticia in the presence of Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public
David’s father, Atty. Isaias Noveras, on 3 December 2003 documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be
stating that: 1) the ₱1.1Million proceeds from the sale of proved by: (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy
the Sampaloc property shall be paid to and collected by attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof.
Leticia; 2) that David shall return and pay to Leticia Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if
₱750,000.00, which is equivalent to half of the amount of the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate
the redemption price of the Sampaloc property; and 3) that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The
that David shall renounce and forfeit all his rights and certificate may be issued by any of the authorized
interest in the conjugal and real properties situated in the Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the
Philippines.5 David was able to collect ₱1,790,000.00 from foreign country in which the record is kept, and
the sale of the Sampaloc property, leaving an unpaid authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation
balance of ₱410,000.00. must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy
of the original, or a specific part thereof, asthe case may
Upon learning that David had an extra-marital affair, be, and must be under the official seal of the attesting
Leticia filed a petition for divorce with the Superior Court officer.
of California, County of San Mateo, USA. The California
court granted the divorce on 24 June 2005 and judgment Section 25 of the same Rule states that whenever a copy
was duly entered on 29 June 2005.6 The California court of a document or record is attested for the purpose of
granted to Leticia the custody of her two children, as well evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that
as all the couple’s properties in the USA.7 the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be
On 8 August 2005, Leticia filed a petition for Judicial under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be
Separation of Conjugal Property before the RTC of Baler,
15 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under prejudicial question in determining the guilt of petitioner
the seal of such court. for the crime of bigamy.
Based on the records, only the divorce decree was Finally, the trial court found that, in the first place, petitioner
presented in evidence. The required certificates to prove had never been married to Eusebio Bristol.
its authenticity, as well as the pertinent California law on
divorce were not presented. Even if we apply the doctrine ISSUES:
of processual presumption,divorce is not recognized
between Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid
1. Whether the acquittal of petitioner in the criminal case
recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the
for bigamy meant that the marriage with Bristol was still
parties are still legally married in the Philippines. The trial
valid.
court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation.
Thereafter, on 28 February 2005, petitioner filed with the Second, it is imperative to note that at the time the bigamy
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City a Petition for case in Crim. Case No. 2699-A was dismissed, we had
the issuance of letters of administration for her already ruled that under the principles of comity, our
appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a
Orlando. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings spouse of foreign nationality. This doctrine was established
(Spec. Proc.) No. 228. as early as 1985 in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.7 wherein we
said:
On 3 March 2005, while Spec. Proc. No. 228 was pending,
respondent Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one of the children of It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied
Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar petition with in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are
the RTC docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 232. covered by the policy against absolute divorces[,] the
same being considered contrary to our concept of public
The two cases were subsequently consolidated. policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines,
provided they are valid according to their national law. In
Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of Spec. Proc. No. 232
this case, the divorce in Nevada released private
on the ground of litis pendentia, considering that Spec.
respondent from the marriage from the standards of
Proc. No. 228 covering the same estate was already
American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage
pending.
2. The burden of proof lies with the "party who alleges the
On the other hand, respondent alleged that petitioner was
existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or
not considered an interested person qualified to file a
defense of an action." In civil cases, plaintiffs have the
petition for the issuance of letters of administration of the
burden of proving the material allegations of the
estate of Orlando. In support of her contention,
complaint when those are denied by the answer; and
respondent alleged that a criminal case for bigamy was
defendants have the burden of proving the material
filed against petitioner before Branch 54 of the RTC of
allegations in their answer when they introduce new
Alaminos, Pangasinan, and docketed as Crim. Case No.
matters. Since the divorce was a defense raised by
2699-A.
respondent, the burden of proving the pertinent Australian
law validating it falls squarely upon him.
Apparently, Felicitas Amor filed a Complaint for bigamy,
alleging that petitioner contracted a second marriage to
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot
Orlando despite having been married to one Eusebio
take judicial notice of foreign laws.1âwphi1 Like any other
Bristol on 12 December 1959.
facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital
laws are not among those matters that judges are
On 6 August 1998, the RTC had acquitted petitioner of supposed to know by reason of their judicial function. The
bigamy.3 The trial court ruled that since the deceased was power of judicial notice must be exercised with caution,
a divorced American citizen, and since that divorce was and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be
not recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, the marriage resolved in the negative. (Emphasis supplied)
between him and petitioner was not valid.
It appears that the trial court no longer required petitioner
Furthermore, it took note of the action for declaration of to prove the validity of Orlando’s divorce under the laws
nullity then pending action with the trial court in Dagupan of the United States and the marriage between petitioner
City filed by Felicitas Amor against the deceased and and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to remand the
petitioner. It considered the pending action to be a
The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. (Emphasis JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS, petitioner, vs. FELICIDAD
supplied.) SANDOVAL, also known as FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE CARLOS
or FELICIDAD SANDOVAL CARLOS or FELICIDAD SANDOVAL
The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves VDA. DE CARLOS, and TEOFILO CARLOS II, respondents.
no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those
marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family FACTS:
Code which took effect on 3 August 1988.[24]
Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate.
Moreover, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took effect on 15 March They left six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo
2003, following its publication in a newspaper of general Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. During the
circulation. Thus, contrary to the opinion of the RTC, there lifetime of Felix Carlos, he agreed to transfer his estate to
is no need to reconcile the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10- Teofilo. The agreement was made in order to avoid the
SC with the ruling in Niñal, because they vary in scope and payment of inheritance taxes. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to
application. As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10- deliver and turn over the share of the other legal heir,
SC covers marriages under the Family Code of the petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. On May 13, 1992, Teofilo
Philippines, and is prospective in its application. The died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad
marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26 and their son, Teofilo Carlos II (Teofilo II).
August 2004, and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC.
In August 1995, petitioner commenced an action,
docketed as Civil Case No. 95-135, against respondents
There is no ambiguity in the Rule. Absolute sententil before the court a quo with the following causes of action:
expositore non indiget. When the language of the law is (a) declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child;
clear, no explanation of it is required. Section 2(a) of A.M. (c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) sum
No. 02-11-10-SC, makes it the sole right of the husband or of money and damages. The complaint was raffled to
the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity Branch 256 of the RTC in Muntinlupa.
of void marriage.
In his complaint, petitioner asserted that the marriage
The Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable between his late brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad
Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void was a nullity in view of the absence of the required
Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders marriage license. He likewise maintained that his
explicates on Section 2(a) in the following manner, viz: deceased brother was neither the natural nor the
adoptive father of respondent Teofilo Carlos II.
1. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file
petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and ISSUES:
declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages. Such petitions cannot be filed by the 1. Whether or not the petition for declaration of
compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
the State. [Section 2; Section 3, paragraph a] solely by the husband or wife.
2. Whether or not petitioner is a real-party-in-interest
Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage in
annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of controversy.
absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be
filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by RULING:
the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not
have a legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or
1. No. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases
intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death
commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-
of their predecessor, and hence can only question the
11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during
validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a
the effectivity of the Civil Code.
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 Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
marriage and not to seek its dissolution.[25] (Emphasis Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the
supplied.) petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may
not be filed by any party outside of the marriage. The Rule
made it exclusively a right of the spouses by stating:
Respondents clearly have no cause of action before the
court a quo. Nonetheless, all is not lost for
respondents. While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a SEC. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage marriages. -
may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not
mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are already
18 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
(a) Who may file. - A petition for declaration of absolute petitioner alleged that the marriage between
nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband Cresenciano and Leonila had been celebrated without a
or the wife. (Underscoring supplied) marriage license, due to such license being issued only on
January 9, 1950, thereby rendering the marriage void
While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for ab initio for having been solemnized without a marriage
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed license. He insisted that his being the surviving brother of
solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that Cresenciano who had died without any issue entitled him
the compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse to one-half of the real properties acquired by Cresenciano
under the law. They can still protect their successional right, before his death, thereby making him a real party in
for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of interest; and that any person, himself included, could
Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of impugn the validity of the marriage between Cresenciano
Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still and Leonila at any time, even after the death of
question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in Cresenciano, due to the marriage being void ab initio.
a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death
of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the ISSUE:
estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
Whether or not the petitioner is a real party in interest in the
2. YES. only the presence of descendants, ascendants or action to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage of
illegitimate children excludes collateral relatives from his deceased brother.
succeeding to the estate of the decedent. The presence
of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of RULING:
the deceased precludes succession by collateral
relatives.32 Conversely, if there are no descendants,
YES. The Court has to clarify the impact to the issue posed
ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
herein of Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 02-11-10-SC
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
(Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages
decedent.33
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), which took effect
on March 15, 2003.
If respondent Teofilo II is declared and finally proven not to
be the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo,
Section 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly
petitioner would then have a personality to seek the nullity
provides the limitation that a petition for declaration of
of marriage of his deceased brother with respondent
absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the
Felicidad. This is so, considering that collateral relatives, like
husband or wife. Such limitation demarcates a line to
a brother and sister, acquire successional right over the
distinguish between marriages covered by the Family
estate if the decedent dies without issue and without
Code and those solemnized under the regime of the Civil
ascendants in the direct line.
Code.9 Specifically, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC extends only to
marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect
The records reveal that Teofilo was predeceased by his on August 3, 1988, but, being a procedural rule that is
parents. He had no other siblings but petitioner. Thus, if prospective in application, is confined only to proceedings
Teofilo II is finally found and proven to be not a legitimate, commenced after March 15, 2003.10
illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo, petitioner succeeds
to the other half of the estate of his brother, the first half
Based on Carlos v. Sandoval,11 the following actions for
being allotted to the widow pursuant to Article 1001 of the
declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage are excepted
New Civil Code. This makes petitioner a real-party-interest
from the limitation, to wit:
to seek the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of
his deceased brother with respondent Felicidad. If the
subject marriage is found to be void ab initio, petitioner 1. Those commenced before March 15, 2003, the
succeeds to the entire estate. effectivity date of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and
It bears stressing, however, that the legal personality of 2. Those filed vis-à-vis marriages celebrated during the
petitioner to bring the nullity of marriage case is contingent effectivity of the Civil Code and, those celebrated under
upon the final declaration that Teofilo II is not a legitimate, the regime of the Family Code prior to March 15, 2003.
adopted, or illegitimate son of Teofilo.
Considering that the marriage between Cresenciano and
Thus, the Court finds that a remand of the case for trial on Leonila was contracted on December 26, 1949, the
the merits to determine the validity or nullity of the subject applicable law was the old Civil Code, the law in effect at
marriage is called for. But the RTC is strictly instructed to the time of the celebration of the marriage. Hence, the
dismiss the nullity of marriage case for lack of cause of rule on the exclusivity of the parties to the marriage as
action if it is proven by evidence that Teofilo II is a having the right to initiate the action for declaration of
legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted son of Teofilo nullity of the marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had
Carlos, the deceased brother of petitioner. absolutely no application to the petitioner.
3. G.R. No. 158298 August 11, 2010 The old and new Civil Codes contain no provision on who
can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage, and
when. Accordingly, in Niñal v. Bayadog,12 the children
ISIDRO ABLAZA, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
were allowed to file after the death of their father a
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
petition for the declaration of the nullity of their father’s
marriage to their stepmother contracted on December 11,
FACTS: 1986 due to lack of a marriage license. There, the Court
distinguished between a void marriage and a voidable
On October 17, 2000, the petitioner filed in the Regional one, and explained how and when each might be
Trial Court (RTC) in Cataingan, Masbate a petition for the impugned.
declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage
contracted on December 26, 1949 between his late
brother Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Honato. The
19 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
According to Carlos v. Sandoval,14 the plaintiff must still be RULING:
the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the
party entitled to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in YES. First, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, this Court finds
procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and that the root cause of psychological incapacity was
defended in the name of the real party in interest. 15 Thus, stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree with the
only the party who can demonstrate a "proper interest" manifestation of respondent that the family backgrounds
can file the action.16Interest within the meaning of the rule of both petitioner and respondent were discussed in the
means material interest, or an interest in issue to be complaint as the root causes of their psychological
affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as incapacity. Moreover, a competent and expert
distinguished from mere curiosity about the question psychologist clinically identified the same as the root
involved or a mere incidental interest. One having no causes.
material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of the court as plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is
Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both
not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the
parties was of such grave a nature as to bring about a
ground of lack of cause of action.17
disability for them to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. The psychologist reported that respondent
Here, the petitioner alleged himself to be the late suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic
Cresenciano’s brother and surviving heir. Assuming that Features. Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers
the petitioner was as he claimed himself to be, then he has from Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality
a material interest in the estate of Cresenciano that will be Disorder.lawph!1 The incapacity of both parties to perform
adversely affected by any judgment in the suit. Indeed, a their marital obligations was alleged to be grave,
brother like the petitioner, albeit not a compulsory heir incorrigible and incurable.
under the laws of succession, has the right to succeed to
the estate of a deceased brother.
Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital
obligations that were not complied with were alleged in
4. G.R. No. 175367 June 6, 2011 the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality of
the petition, respondent’s allegations fall under Article 68
DANILO A. AURELIO, Petitioner, vs. VIDA MA. CORAZON P. of the Family Code which states that "the husband and the
AURELIO, Respondent. wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support."
FACTS:
5. G.R. No. 159594 : November 12, 2012
Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma.
Corazon Aurelio were married on March 23, 1988. They REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT
have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel. OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION), AND EDUARDO C. DE
QUINTOS, .JR., Respondents.
On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, a Petition for DOCTRINE:
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.4 In her petition,
respondent alleged that both she and petitioner were Marriage; psychological incapacity;
psychologically incapacitated of performing and elements. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of
complying with their respective essential marital the Family Code contemplates an incapacity or inability
obligations. to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital
obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal, or
The psychological make-up of private respondent was neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will.
evaluated by a psychologist, who found that the It consists of: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the
psychological incapacity of both husband and wife to essentials of marriage; (b) the inability must refer to the
perform their marital obligations is grave, incorrigible and essential obligations of marriage, that is, the conjugal act,
incurable. Private respondent suffers from a Histrionic the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual
Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features; whereas help, and the procreation and education of offspring; and
petitioner suffers from passive aggressive (negativistic) (c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological
personality disorder that renders him immature and abnormality. Proving that a spouse failed to meet his or her
irresponsible to assume the normal obligations of a responsibility and duty as a married person is not enough;
marriage.5 it is essential that he or she must be shown to be incapable
of doing so due to some psychological illness.
Petitioner anchors his petition on the premise that the
allegations contained in respondent’s petition are Marriage; psychological incapacity; expert evidence;
insufficient to support a declaration of nullity of marriage thorough and in-depth assessment required. The expert
based on psychological incapacity. Specifically, evidence presented in cases of declaration of nullity of
petitioner contends that the petition failed to comply with marriage based on psychological incapacity presupposes
three of the Molina guidelines, namely: that the root cause a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the
of the psychological incapacity must be alleged in the psychologist or expert to make a conclusive diagnosis of a
complaint; that such illness must be grave enough to bring grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological
about the disability of the party to assume the essential incapacity.
obligations of marriage; and that the non-complied
marital obligation must be stated in the petition.17 Marriage; psychological incapacity; proof of natal or
disabling supervening factor required. It is not enough that
ISSUE: the respondent, alleged to be psychologically
incapacitated, had difficulty in complying with his marital
Whether or not the petition for declaration of the nullity of obligations, or was unwilling to perform these obligations.
marriage are sufficient for the court to declare the nullity Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor – an
of the marriage between Vida and Danilo. adverse integral element in the respondent’s personality
structure that effectively incapacitated him from
20 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
complying with his essential marital obligations – must be compliance with the requirement of sufficiently explaining
shown. the gravity, root cause and incurability of Catalina’s
purported psychological incapacity. Rather, they were
Marriage; psychological incapacity; Santos and Molina liberal in their appreciation of the scanty evidence that
guidelines. The pronouncements Eduardo submitted to establish the incapacity. Both lower
in Santos and Molina have remained as the precedential courts noticeably relied heavily on the results of the neuro-
guides in deciding cases grounded on the psychological psychological evaluation by Dr. Reyes despite the paucity
incapacity of a spouse. But the Court has declared the of factual foundation to support the claim of Catalina’s
existence or absence of the psychological incapacity psychological incapacity. The report claims that
based strictly on the facts of each case and not on a Catalina’s behavior and attitude before and after the
priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations. marriage is highly indicative of a very immature and
Indeed, the incapacity should be established by the childish person, rendering her psychologically
totality of evidence presented during trial, making it incapacitated to live up and meet the responsibilities
incumbent upon the petitioner to sufficiently prove the required in a commitment like marriage. However, it was
existence of the psychological incapacity. ostensibly vague about the root cause, gravity and
incurability of Catalina’s supposed psychological
incapacity. In other words, the totality of evidence
FACTS:
presented fell short of the required standards. Immaturity
alone did not constitute psychological incapacity.
On 1998, Eduardo filed a petition for the declaration of the
nullity of his marriage to wife Catalina, citing psychological
With respect to the allegation of abandonment (to live with
incapacity on the part of Catalina. Catalina did not
another man), the Court held that such was established
interpose an objection but prayed to be given a share in
and even admitted by Catalina in her Answer. Yet,
the conjugal house and lot.
abandonment was not one of the grounds for the nullity of
marriage under the Family Code. It did not also constitute
Eduardo’s allegations with respect to Catalina’s before psychological incapacity, it being instead a ground for
are as follows: that Catalina always left their house without legal separation under Article 55(10) of the Family Code.
his consent; that she engaged in petty arguments with
him; that she constantly refused to give in to his sexual
On the other hand, her sexual infidelity was not a valid
needs; that she spent most of her time gossiping with
ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
neighbors instead of doing the household chores and
Family Code, considering that there should be a showing
caring for their adopted daughter; that she squandered
that such marital infidelity was a manifestation of a
by gambling all his remittances as an overseas worker in
disordered personality that made her completely unable
Qatar since 1993; and that she abandoned the conjugal
to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
home in 1997 to live with Bobbie Castro, her paramour.
Needless to state, Eduardo did not adduce such
evidence, rendering even his claim of her infidelity bereft
Results of the neuro-psychiatric evaluation administered of factual and legal basis.
on Catalina by a psychiatrist showed that she had traits of
Borderline Personality Disorder, and Catalina’s disorder
6. MENDOZA V. REPUBLIC (G.R. No. 157854, November, 12
was mainly characterized by her immaturity. For her part,
2012)
Catalina admitted her psychological incapacity but
denied abandoning the conjugal home without
Eduardo’s consent. She also said that she had only one DOCTRINE:
live-in partner.
Marriage; petition for nullity of marriage; AM No. 02-11-10;
RTC and CA granted the petition. The RTC ruled that appearance by the Office of the Solicitor General still
Catalina’s infidelity, her spending more time with friends required. The Resolution nowhere stated that appeals by
rather than with her family, and her incessant gambling the OSG were no longer required. On the contrary, the
constituted psychological incapacity that affected her Resolution explicitly required the OSG to actively
duty to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. participate in all stages of the proceedings.
It also held that the results of the neuro-psychiatric
evaluation by Dr. Reyes was the best evidence of Marriage; psychological incapacity; three basic
Catalina’s psychological incapacity. requirements. To entitle petitioner spouse to a declaration
of the nullity of his or her marriage, the totality of the
Hence, this petition. evidence must sufficiently prove that respondent spouse’s
psychological incapacity was grave, incurable and
existing prior to the time of the marriage.
ISSUE:
In November 1995, Dominic gave her a car as a birthday REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MARELYN
present only to find out that he did not pay for it, forcing TANEDO MANALO, Respondent.
her to rely on her father-in-law for the payment of the car.
Dominic eventually got fired from his job because of he FACTS:
ran away with P164,000 belonging to his employer. He was
charged with estafa. Petitioner also found out that he Respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a
swindled many of his clients some of them threatening her petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil
and their family. Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a judgment
of divorce rendered by the Japanese court. Manalo was
On October 15, 1997, Dominic abandoned the conjugal allowed to testify. Among the documents that were
abode because petitioner asked him for “time and space offered and admitted were: (1) Court Order finding the
to think things over.” A month later, she refused his attempt petition and its attachments to be sufficient in form and in
at reconciliation, causing him to threaten to commit substance; (2) Affidavit of Publication; (3) Certificate of
suicide. She and her family immediately left the house to Marriage between Manalo and her former Japanese
live in another place concealed from him. husband; (4) Divorce Decree of the Japanese court; (5)
Authentication/Certificate issued by the Philippine
On August 5, 1998, petitioner filed in the RTC her petition Consulate General in Osaka, Japan of the Notification of
for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage with Divorce; and (6) Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce.
Dominic based on his psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC found that all the The Office of the Solicitor’s General, as it appeared for the
characteristics of psychological incapacity which are petitioner Republic of the Philippines, did not present any
gravity, antecedence and incurability, were attendant, controverting evidence to rebut the allegations of
establishing Dominic’s psychological incapacity. Manalo.
The Republic appealed to the CA, arguing that there was The trial court denied the petition for lack of merit. It
no showing that Dominic’s personality traits either opined that, based on Article of Article 15 of the New Civil
constituted psychological incapacity existing at the time Code, the Philippine law “does not afford Filipinos the right
of the marriage or were of the nature contemplated by to file for a divorce, whether they are in the country or
Article 36 of the Family Code; that the testimony of the living abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to
expert witness was not conclusive upon the court, and that foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in the
the real reason for the parties’ separation had been their Philippines or in another country.
frequent quarrels over financial matters and the criminal
cases brought against Dominic. CA reversed the decision On appeal, the CA overturned the RTC decision. It held
of RTC. Hence, this petition. that Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines is
applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce
ISSUE: against her Japanese husband because the decree they
obtained makes the latter no longer married to the former
Whether or not psychological incapacity of Dominic was capacitating him to remarry.
established, and thus their marriage is null and void. -NO
ISSUE:
RULING:
Whether or not the marriage between a foreigner and a
The appeal has no merit. The CA correctly indicated that Filipino was dissolved through a divorce filed abroad by
the ill-feelings that the petitioner harbored against the latter?
Yes. Article 26 of the Family Code which reads: Vicenta Escaño, 27, exchanged marriage vows with Pastor
Tenchavez, 32, on February 24, 1948, before a Catholic
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in chaplain. The marriage was duly registered with the local
accordance with the laws in force in the country where civil registrar. However, the two were unable to live
they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also together after the marriage and as of June 1948, they
be valid in this country, except those prohibited under were already estranged. Vicenta left for the United Stated
Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. in 1950. On the same year she filed a verified complaint for
divorce against Tenchavez in the State of Nevada on the
ground of “Extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character.”
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
A decree of divorce, “final and absolute” was issued in
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
open court by the said tribunal. She married an American,
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
lived with him in California, had several children with him
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
and, on 1958, acquired American Citizenship.
capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by
Executive Order 227)
On 30 July 1955, Tenchavez filed a complaint in the Court
of First Instance of Cebu, and amended on 31 May 1956,
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on the
against Vicenta F. Escaño, her parents, Mamerto and
Philippine Courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce
Mena Escaño whom he charged with having dissuaded
decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to
and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and
determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage. It
alienating her affections, and against the Roman Catholic
authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a foreign
Church, for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal, decreed
divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not
the annulment of the marriage, and asked for legal
allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on the
separation and one million pesos in damages. Vicenta’s
merits because it is tantamount to trying a divorce case.
parents denied that they had in any way influenced their
Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a
daughter’s acts, and counterclaimed for moral damages.
valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign nationality,
but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on custody, care, and
support of the children or property relations of the spouses, ISSUE:
must still be determined by our court.
1. Whether or not the divorce sought by Vicenta Escaño is
The Court state the twin elements for the application of valid and binding upon courts of the Philippines.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:
2. Whether or not the parents of Vicenta alienated the
1. There is a valid marriage that has been affections of their daughter and influenced her conduct
celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and toward her husband.
NO. Private respondent was not declared an heir. Before the outbreak of the Pacific War, Lorenzo departed
Although it was stated in the aforementioned records of for the United States and Paula stayed in the conjugal
birth that she and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947, home
their marriage was clearly void since it was celebrated
during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner.
November 30, 1943: Lorenzo was admitted to United States
citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization
The provision relied upon by respondent court is clear: If
there is a controversy before the court as to who are the
1945: When Lorenzo was granted an accrued leave to visit
lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive
his wife and he visited the Philippines, He discovered that
shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the
his wife Paula was pregnant and was “living in” and having
controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary
an adulterous relationship with his brother, Ceferino
cases.
Llorente
In the present proceeding, petitioner's citizenship is 2. they would dissolve their marital union in accordance
brought anew to the fore by private respondent. She even with judicial proceedings
furnishes the Court with the transcript of stenographic
notes taken on 5 May 1995 during the hearing for the 3. they would make a separate agreement regarding
reconstitution of the original of a certain transfer certificate their conjugal property acquired during their marital life;
title as well as the issuance of new owner's duplicate copy and
thereof before another trial court. When asked whether
she was an American citizen petitioner answered that she
was since 1954.19 Significantly, the decree of divorce of 4. Lorenzo would not prosecute Paula for her adulterous
petitioner and Arturo was obtained in the same year. act since she voluntarily admitted her fault and agreed to
separate from Lorenzo peacefully.
CA: Affirmed with modification Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha
Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on March
1, 1987. 4 They lived together as husband and wife in
ISSUE:
Australia. On May 18, 1989, 5 a decree of divorce,
purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an
W/N the divorce is valid and proven Australian family court.
The burden of proof lies with the "party who alleges the WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and
existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or substantial justice, we REMAND the case to the court a
defense of an action." 41 In civil cases, plaintiffs have the quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which
burden of proving the material allegations of the conclusively show respondent's legal capacity to marry
complaint when those are denied by the answer; and petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the parties'
defendants have the burden of proving the material marriage void on the ground of bigamy, as above
allegations in their answer when they introduce new discussed.
matters. 42 Since the divorce was a defense raised by
respondent, the burden of proving the pertinent Australian 8. Republic v Orbecido, GR No. 154380, October 5, 2005
law validating it falls squarely upon him.
FACTS:
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot
take judicial notice of foreign laws. 43 Like any other facts, The petition herein filed is a petition for authority to remarry
they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws filed before the RTC, a declaratory relief governed by Rule
are not among those matters that judges are supposed to 63, ROC. The antecedent facts are as follows.
know by reason of their judicial function. 44 The power of
judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and every
Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros M. Villanueva, both
reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in
Filipinos got married on May 24, 1981 at the United Church
the negative.
of Christ in the Philippines, Ozamis City. The marriage was
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
After all the foregoing, the Court now declares in the 10. G.R. No. 169766 March 30, 2011
present petition that Par 2, Art 26 should be interpreted to
include cases involving parties who, at the time of the ESTRELLITA JULIANO-LLAVE, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
declaration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later PHILIPPINES, HAJA PUTRI ZORAYDA A. TAMANO and ADIB
on, one of them becomes naturalized as foreign citizen AHMAD A. TAMANO,Respondents.
and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should
be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner
at the time of the solemnization of marriage. The PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the
time of the celebration of marriage, but their citizenship at This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision
the time the valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien dated August 17, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. The twin G.R. CV No. 61762 and its subsequent Resolution dated
elements to validly apply this law are as follows: 1) There is September 13, 2005, which affirmed the Decision of the
a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89
Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2) A valid divorce is declaring petitioner Estrellita Juliano-Llave s (Estrellita)
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or marriage to Sen. Mamintal A.J. Tamano (Sen. Tamano) as
her to remarry. void ab initio.
Whether the marriage between Estrellita and the late Sen. ISSUES:
Tamano was bigamous.
1. Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
RULING: Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
(A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.
Yes. The civil code governs the marriage of Zorayda and
late Sen. Tamano; their marriage was never invalidated by 2. Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file
PD 1083. Sen. Tamano’s subsequent marriage to Estrellita is a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the
void ab initio. subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a
foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
The marriage between the late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda
was celebrated in 1958, solemnized under civil and Muslim 3. Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the
rites. The only law in force governing marriage relationships foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or
between Muslims and non-Muslims alike was the Civil correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of
Code of 1950, under the provisions of which only one the Rules of Court.
marriage can exist at any given time. Under the marriage
provisions of the Civil Code, divorce is not recognized RULING:
except during the effectivity of Republic Act No. 394 which
was not availed of during its effectivity.
1. No. Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M.
As far as Estrellita is concerned, Sen. Tamano s prior No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize
marriage to Zorayda has been severed by way of divorce a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage
under PD 1083, the law that codified Muslim personal laws. where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country.
However, PD 1083 cannot benefit Estrellita. Firstly, Article Moreover, in Juliano-Llave v. Republic, this Court held that
13(1) thereof provides that the law applies to “marriage the rule in A.M. No. 02- 11-10-SC that only the husband or
and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein wife can file a declaration of nullity or annulment of
only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is marriage “does not apply if the reason behind the petition
solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in is bigamy.” While the Philippines has no divorce law, the
any part of the Philippines.” But Article 13 of PD 1083 does Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent with
not provide for a situation where the parties were married Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are
both in civil and Muslim rites.” declared void from the beginning under Article 35(4) of
the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the
11. G.R. No. 196049 June 26, 2013 Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence
of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance
MINORU FUJIKI, PETITIONER, vs. MARIA PAZ GALELA with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39,
MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.
QUEZON CITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL
REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS 2. Yes, the recognition of the foreign divorce decree may
OFFICE,RESPONDENTS. be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of
special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules
FACTS: of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a
party or a particular fact.”
Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who
married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay)
in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in
sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status
his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost of persons which has been recorded in the civil
contact with each other. register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional
Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara
registry is located. (Emphasis supplied)
(Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved,
Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in
Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and
Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical material interest in maintaining the integrity of the
abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to marriage he contracted and the property relations arising
contact Fujiki. from it.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to 3. Yes, there is neither circumvention of the substantive
reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay and procedural safeguards of marriage under Philippine
obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which law, nor of the jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No.
declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara 8369. A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action
void on the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki to nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to
filed a petition in the RTC entitled: “Judicial Recognition of recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which
xxx
The findings in the 2010 Memorandum of the Office of the
Court Administrator are supported by the evidence on
JUDGE GIL R. ACOSTA is guilty of gross inefficiency or record and applicable law and jurisprudence.
neglect of duty for failure to make sure that the
solemnization fee has been paid. He is also guilty of gross
This Court has long held that court officials and employees
ignorance of the law for solemnizing marriages under
are placed with a heavy burden and responsibility of
Article 34 of the Family Code wherein one or both of the
keeping the faith of the public.
contracting parties were minors during the cohabitation.
65 In Obañana, Jr. v. Ricafort, we said that:
JUDGE EDGEMELO C. ROSALES is guilty of gross inefficiency
or neglect of duty for solemnizing marriages with
questionable documents, for failure to make sure that the Any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in
solemnization fee has been paid and for solemnizing the performance of official functions must be avoided. This
marriages wherein one of the contracting parties is a Court shall not countenance any conduct, act or omission
foreigner who submitted a mere affidavit of his capacity on the part of all those involved in the administration of
to marry in lieu of the required certificate from his embassy. justice which would violate the norm of public
He is also guilty of gross ignorance of the law for accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the
solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage Judiciary.6
license.
Liability of Judge Anatalio S. Necessario
JUDGE ROSEBELLA M. TORMIS is guilty of gross inefficiency
or neglect of duty for solemnizing marriages with The OCA reported that Judge Necessario solemnized a
questionable documents, for failure to make sure that the total of one thousand one hundred twenty-three (1,123)
solemnization fee has been paid, for solemnizing marriages from 2005 to 2007.67 However, only one hundred
marriages wherein one of the contracting parties is a eighty-four (184) marriage certificates were actually
foreigner who submitted a mere affidavit of his capacity examined by the judicial audit team.68 Out of the 184
to marry in lieu of the required certificate from the embassy marriages, only seventy-nine (79) were solemnized with a
and for solemnizing a marriage with an expired license. marriage license while one hundred five (105) were
solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code. Out of the
xxx 79 marriages with license, forty-seven (47) of these licenses
were issued by the Local Civil Registrar of Liloan, Cebu. This
translates to 42.93% of the marriages he solemnized with
HELEN MONGGAYA is guilty of grave misconduct for
marriage license coming from Liloan for over a period of
violating Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for
years.69 There were also twenty-two (22) marriages
Court Personnel that prohibits court personnel from
solemnized by the judge with incomplete documents such
soliciting or accepting any gift, favor or benefit based on
missing as marriage license, certificate of legal capacity
any or explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor
to marry, and the joint affidavit of cohabitation.70
or benefit shall influence their official actions and for giving
false information for the purpose of perpetrating an
irregular marriage. Judge Necessario solemnized nine (9) marriages that had
questionable supporting documents such as marriage
licenses.71 The OCA found that the place of residence of
RHONA RODRIGUEZ is guilty of gross misconduct for
the contracting parties appearing in the supporting
violating Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for
documents differ from the place where they obtained
Court Personnel and for inducing Maricel Albater to falsify
their marriage license.72 The documents invited suspicion
the application for marriage license by instructing her to
because of erasures and superimpositions in the entries of
indicate her residence as Barili, Cebu.
residence.73 Likewise, in lieu of the required certificate of
legal capacity to marry, a mere affidavit was submitted by
DESIDERIO ARANAS and REBECCA ALESNA are guilty of the parties.74 Variations in the signatures of the contracting
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for parties were also apparent in the documents.75
providing couples who are to be married under Article 34
of the Family Code with the required affidavit of
To summarize, the liabilities of the judges are the following:
cohabitation.
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender
for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and has been legally married; (b) the marriage has not been
legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead
appearance of the contracting parties before the according to the Civil Code; (c) that he contracts a
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or
they take each other as husband and wife in the presence subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for
of not less than two witnesses of legal age. (53a, 55a) validity. The felony is consummated on the celebration of
the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential
in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second
Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except
32 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be declared Lea's first marriage to Bautista null and void ab
valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. initio.
In this case, it appears that when respondent contracted On 23 March 2007, the RTC declared the marriage
a second marriage with Silverio in 1983, her first marriage between Lea and Renato null and void ab initio on the
with Socrates celebrated in 1976 was still subsisting as the ground that it was a bigamous marriage under Article 41
same had not yet been annulled or declared void by a of the Family Code.
competent authority. Clearly, the annulment of
respondent's first marriage on the ground of psychological The RTC said that the fact that Lea's marriage to Bautista
incapacity was declared only in 2003. was subsisting when she married Renato on 6 January
1979, makes her marriage to Renato bigamous, thus
In Mercado v. Tan, we ruled that the subsequent judicial rendering it void ab initio. The lower court dismissed Lea's
declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was argument that she need not obtain a judicial decree of
immaterial, because prior to the declaration of nullity, the nullity and could presume the nullity of a prior subsisting
crime of bigamy had already been consummated. marriage. The RTC stressed that so long as no judicial
declaration exists, the prior marriage is valid and existing.
Lastly, it also said that even if respondent eventually had
her first marriage judicially declared void, the fact remains
that the first and second marriage were subsisting before
As far back as 1995, in Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr., the Court
the first marriage was annulled, since Lea failed to obtain
already made the declaration that Article 40, which is a
a judicial decree of nullity for her first marriage to Bautista
rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively
before contracting her second marriage with Renato.
because Article 256 of the Family Code itself provides that
said "Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does
not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights." The Petitioner moved for reconsideration insofar as the
Court went on to explain, thus: “The fact that procedural distribution of their properties were concerned. His motion,
statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not however, was denied by the RTC. Thereafter, both
preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. petitioner and Respondent filed their respective Notices of
The retroactive application of procedural laws is not Appeal.
violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is
adversely affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no The CA reversed and set aside the RTC's Decision and
vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural Order and upheld the validity of the parties' marriage. In
laws.” GRANTED. reversing the RTC, the CA said that since Lea's marriages
were solemnized in 1972 and in 1979, or prior to the
2. G.R. No. 189607 April 18, 2016 effectivity of the Family Code on 3 August 1988, the Civil
Code is the applicable law since it is the law in effect at
the time the marriages were celebrated, and not the
RENATO A. CASTILLO, Petitioner, vs. LEA P. DE LEON
Family Code. Furthermore, the CA ruled that the Civil
CASTILLO, Respondent.
Code does not state that a judicial decree is necessary in
order to establish the nullity of a marriage.
SERENO, CJ:
Petitioner's MR was denied. Hence, this Petition for Review
DOCTRINE: on Certiorar under Rule 45.
On 28 May 2001, Renato filed before the RTC a Petition for The subsequent marriage of Lea and Renato is valid in
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, praying that his view of the invalidity of her first marriage with Bautista
marriage to Lea be declared void due to her subsisting because of the absence of a marriage license. That there
marriage to Bautista and her psychological incapacity was no judicial declaration that the first marriage was void
under Article 36 of the Family Code ab initio before the second marriage was contracted is
immaterial as this is not a requirement under the Civil
Code. Nonetheless, the subsequent Decision of the RTC
Respondent opposed the Petition and contended that her
declaring Lea’s marriage to Bautista null, only serves to
marriage to Bautista was null and void as they had not
strengthen the conclusion that her subsequent marriage
secured any license therefor, and neither of them was a
to Renato is valid.
member of the denomination to which the solemnizing
officer belonged.
The validity of a marriage and all its incidents must be
determined in accordance with the law in effect at the
On 2002, Lea filed an action to declare her first marriage
time of its celebration. In this case, the law in force at the
to Baustista void. On 2003, the RTC of Parañaque City,
time Lea contracted both marriages was the Civil Code.
The RTC denied the Omnibus Motion. A petition for In a void marriage, no marriage has taken place and it
certiorari under Rule 65 was also filed before the CA. CA cannot be the source of rights, such that any interested
rendered the herein assailed decision, granting the party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally
FACTS: Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both
Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on March 23, 1988. parties was of such grave a nature as to bring about a
They have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and Danilo disability for them to assume the essential obligations of
Gabriel. marriage. The psychologist reported that respondent
suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic
On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Features. Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, a Petition from Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder.
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In her petition, The incapacity of both parties to perform their marital
respondent alleged that both she and petitioner were obligations was alleged to be grave, incorrigible and
psychologically incapacitated of performing and incurable.
complying with their respective essential marital
obligations. In addition, respondent alleged that such Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital
state of psychological incapacity was present prior and obligations that were not complied with were alleged in
even during the time of the marriage ceremony. Hence, the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality of
respondent prays that her marriage be declared null and the petition, respondent’s allegations fall under Article 68
void under Article 36 of the Family Code. It alleged among of the Family Code which states that “the husband and
others that said psychological incapacity was manifested the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
by lack of financial support from the husband; his lack respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.”
of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working
wife. The husband exhibited consistent jealousy and 2. REPUBLIC V. GALANG
distrust towards his wife. His moods alternated between G.R. No. 168335, [June 6, 2011]
hostile defiance and contrition. He refused to assist in the
maintenance of the family. DOCTRINE:
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
On the side of the wife on the other hand, is effusive and gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. The
displays her feelings openly and freely. Her feelings defect should refer to “no less than a mental (not physical)
change very quickly – from joy to fury to misery to despair, incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of
depending on her day-to-day experiences. Her tolerance the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
for boredom was very low. She was emotionally immature; assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.”
she cannot stand frustration or disappointment. She
cannot delay to gratify her needs. She gets upset when FACTS:
she cannot get what she wants. Self-indulgence lifts her In March 1994, Nestor and Juvy contracted marriage in
spirits immensely. Their hostility towards each other Pampanga and thereafter they resided in the house of the
distorted their relationship. Their incapacity to accept and Nestor’s father. Nestor worked as an artist-illustrator while
fulfill the essential obligations of marital life led to Juvy stayed at home. They had one child, Christopher.
the breakdown of their marriage. In August 1999, Nestor filed with the RTC a petition for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Juvy, under
On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. He alleged
the petition. Petitioner principally argued that the petition that Juvy was psychologically incapacitated to exercise
failed to state a cause of action and that it failed to meet the essential obligations of marriage, as she was a
the standards set by the Court for the interpretation and kleptomaniac and a swindler; that Juvy suffers from
implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code. “mental deficiency, innate immaturity, distorted
discernment and total lack of care, love and affection
[towards him and their] child.” He posited that Juvy’s
RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed.
incapacity was “extremely serious” and “appears to be
incurable.”
ISSUE: Whether the marriage shall be declared null and
void? Having found no collusion between the parties, the case
was set for trial. In his testimony, Nestor alleged that he was
HELD: Yes. The marriage is null and void. the one who prepared their breakfast because Juvy did
not want to wake up early; Juvy often left their child to their
RATIO: Petitioner anchors his petition on the premise that neighbors’ care; and Christopher almost got lost in the
the allegations contained in respondent's petition are market when Juvy brought him there. He added that Juvy
insufficient to support a declaration of nullity of marriage stole his ATM card and falsified his signature to encash the
based on psychological incapacity. Specifically, check representing Nestor’s father’s pension. He, likewise,
petitioner contends that the petition failed to comply with stated that he caught Juvy playing “mahjong” and
three of the Molina guidelines, namely: that the root cause “kuwaho” three (3) times. Finally, he testified that
of the psychological incapacity must be alleged in the Juvy borrowed money from their relatives on the pretense
complaint; that such illness must be grave enough to bring that their son was confined in a hospital.
about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage; and that the non-complied Nestor presented Anna Liza Guiang, a psychologist, who
marital obligation must be stated in the petition. testified that she conducted a psychological test on
Nestor. In her Psychological Report, the psychologist made
the following findings:
The incapacity of the defendant is manifested [in] such a In the present case, the psychologist did not even identify
manner that the defendant-wife: (1) being very the types of psychological tests which she administered on
irresponsible and very lazy and doesn’t manifest any sense Nestor and the root cause of Juvy’s psychological
of responsibility; (2) her involvement in gambling activities condition. There was no showing that any mental disorder
such as mahjong and kuwaho; (3) being an estafador existed at the inception of the marriage. The report failed
which exhibits her behavioral and personality disorders; (4) to prove the gravity or severity of Juvy’s alleged condition,
her neglect and show no care attitude towards her specifically, why and to what extent the disorder is serious,
husband and child; (5) her immature and rigid behavior; and how it incapacitated her to comply with her marital
(6) her lack of initiative to change and above all, the fact duties; the report did not even categorically state the
that she is unable to perform her marital obligations as a particular type of personality disorder found. The report
loving, responsible and caring wife to her family. There are failed to establish the incurability of Juvy’s condition. The
just few reasons to believe that the defendant is suffering report’s pronouncements that Juvy “lacks the initiative to
from incapacitated mind and such incapacity appears to change” and that her mental incapacity “appears
be incorrigible. incorrigible” are insufficient to prove that her mental
condition could not be treated, or if it were otherwise, the
The RTC nullified the parties’ marriage in its decision of cure would be beyond her means to undertake.
January 22, 2001. The RTC Judge, relying on the Santos
Case, stated in the decision that the psychological Petition was granted. Galang’s petition for the declaration
incapacity of respondent to comply with the essential of nullity of his marriage to Juvy Salazar under Article 36 of
marital obligations of marriage can be characterized by the Family Code was dismissed.
(a) gravity because the subject cannot carry out the
normal and ordinary duties of marriage and family particular type of personality disorder found. The report
shouldered by any average couple existing under ordinary failed to establish the incurability of Juvy’s condition. The
circumstances of life report’s pronouncements that Juvy “lacks the initiative to
change” and that her mental incapacity “appears
and work; (b) antecedence, because the root cause of incorrigible” are insufficient to prove that her mental
the trouble can be traced to the history of the subject condition could not be treated, or if it were otherwise, the
before marriage although its overt manifestations appear cure would be beyond her means to undertake.
over after the wedding; and (c) incurability, if treatments Petition was granted. Galang’s petition for the declaration
required exceed the ordinary means or subject, or involve of nullity of his marriage to Juvy Salazar under Article 36 of
time and expense beyond the reach of the subject – are the Family Code was dismissed.
all obtaining in this case.
3. Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner vs. Cesar
Encelan, Respondent
ISSUE: G.R. No. 170022; January 09, 2013
Whether there is basis to nullify the respondent’s marriage
to Juvy on the ground that at the time of the celebration DOCTRINE: To constitute psychological incapacity, it must
of the marriage, Juvy suffered from psychological be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are
incapacity that prevented her from complying with her manifestations of a disordered personality that actually
essential marital obligations. prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential
marital obligations.
HELD:
Facts: Cesar Married Lolita, and they had two children. To
None. The Supreme Court held that the totality of Nestor’s support the family, Cesar went abroad and worked as an
evidence – his testimonies and the psychologist, and the OFW in Saudi Arabia. After two years of working abroad,
psychological report and evaluation – insufficient to prove Cesar learned that Lolita is having an illicit affair with Alvin
Juvy’s psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of Perez, and thereafter, left the conjugal dwelling together
the Family Code. with the two children. But even with such circumstances,
Cesar never failed to send financial support for the family.
RATIO: On June 1995, Cesar filed a petition against Lolita for the
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on Lolita’s
(a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. psychological incapacity. Cesar, during a hearing even
The defect should refer to “no less than a mental (not presented a psychological evaluation report on Lolita with
physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly the finding that “Lolita was not suffering from any form of
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that psychiatric illness, but had been unable to provide the
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the expectations expected of her for a good and lasting
parties to the marriage.” It must be confined to “the most marital relationship.... and her transferring from one job to
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative another depicts some interpersonal problem with co-
of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and workers as well as her impatience in attaining her
significance to the marriage. [Louel Santos vs. CA] ambitions .... and her refusal to go with her husband
It is not absolutely necessary to introduce expert opinion in abroad signifies her reluctance to work out a good marital
a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the totality and family relationship...” Cesar found ally in RTC as it
of evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists gave him a favourable decision which declared his
and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can marriage to Lolita null and void. The court of Appeals also
be duly established. [Brenda Marcos vs. Marcos]
Adolfo Reyes, respondent’s elder brother, and his spouse, This psychological incapacity of the respondent, in the
Peregrina, members of a marriage encounter group, uniform words of said three (3) expert witnesses, is serious,
invited and sponsored the parties to join the group. The incurable and exists before his marriage and renders him
elder couple scheduled counseling sessions with a helpless victim of his structural constellation. It is beyond
petitioner and respondent, but these did not improve the the respondent’s impulse control. In short, he is weaponless
parties’ relationship as respondent remained or powerless to restrain himself from his consistent
uncooperative. behaviors simply because he did not consider the same as
wrongful. This is clearly manifested from his assertion that
nothing was wrong in his marriage with the petitioner and
In 1997, Adolfo brought respondent to Dr. Natividad A.
considered their relationship as a normal one. In fact, with
Dayan for a psychological assessment to “determine
this belief, he lent deaf ears to counseling and efforts
benchmarks of current psychological functioning.” As with
extended to them by his original family members to save
all other attempts to help him, respondent resisted and did
his marriage. In short, he was blind and too insensitive to
not continue with the clinical psychologist’s
the reality of his marital atmosphere. He totally
recommendation to undergo psychotherapy. At about
disregarded the feelings of petitioner who appeared to
this time, petitioner, with the knowledge of respondent’s
have been saturated already that she finally revealed her
siblings, told respondent to move out of their house.
misfortunes to her sister-in-law and willingly submitted to
Respondent acquiesced to give space to petitioner. With
counseling to save their marriage. However, the hard
the de facto separation, the relationship still did not
position of the respondent finally constrained her to ask
improve. Neither did respondent’s relationship with his
respondent to leave the conjugal dwelling. Even the
children.
siblings of the respondent were unanimous that separation
is the remedy to the seriously ailing marriage of the parties.
Finally, in 2001,5 petitioner filed (before the RTC) a petition Respondent confirmed this stand of his siblings. As
for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with the previously adverted to, the three experts were one in
respondent, alleging the latter’s psychological incapacity diagnosing respondent with a personality disorder, to wit:
to fulfill the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of
the Family Code.
1. Dra. Cecilia C. Villegas
Taking into consideration the explicit guidelines in the The root cause of the above clinical conditions is due to
determination of psychological incapacity in conjunction his underlying defense mechanisms, or the unconscious
to the totality of the evidence presented, with emphasis mental processes, that the ego uses to resolve conflicts. His
on the pervasive pattern of behaviors of the respondent prolonged and closed attachments to his mother
and outcome of the assessment/diagnos[is] of expert encouraged cross identification and developed a severe
There are indications that [respondent] is[,] at the From a psychological viewpoint, therefore, there is
moment[,] experiencing considerable tension and evidence that the marriage of [petitioner] and
anxiety. He is prone to fits of apprehension and [respondent is] null and void from the very beginning.
nervousness. Likewise, he is also entertaining feelings of (emphasis supplied)
hopelessness and is preoccupied with negative thought.
He feels that he is up in the air but with no sound
The recent case of Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, citing The
foundation. He is striving [for] goals which he knows he will
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
never be able to attain. Feeling discouraged and
Fourth Edition (DSM IV), instructs us on the general
distressed, he has difficulty concentrating and focusing on
diagnostic criteria for personality disorders:
things which he needs to prioritize. He has many plans but
he can’t accomplish anything because he is unable to see
which path to take. This feeling of hopelessness is further A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior
aggravated by the lack of support from significant others. that deviates markedly from the expectations of the
individual’s culture. This pattern is manifested in two (2) or
more of the following areas:
Diagnostic Impression
Is the judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage The trial court granted Nolasco’s petition hereby declaring
necessary for remarriage? the presumptively death of Janet Monica Parker Nolasco,
without prejudice to her reappearance.
RULING:
The Republic appealed to the Court
of Appeals contending that the trial court erred in
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the declaring Janet Monica Parker presumptively dead
assailed decision. Under Article 40 of the Family Code, ‘the because respondent Nolasco had failed to show that
absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for there existed a well founded belief for such declaration.
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision,
final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.’ But holding that respondent had sufficiently established a
here, the final judgment declaring null and void accused’s basis to form a belief that his absent spouse had already
previous marriage came not before the celebration of the died.
second marriage, but after, when the case for bigamy
against accused was already tried in court. And what ISSUE:
constitutes the crime of bigamy is the act of any person
who shall contract a second subsequent marriage Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his
‘before’ the former marriage has been legally dissolved. wife is already dead.
RULING:
It is now settled that the fact that the first marriage is void
from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge. No. The Court believes that respondent Nolasco failed
As with a voidable marriage, there must be a to conduct a search for his missing wife with
judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage before such diligence as to give rise to a “well-founded belief”
contracting the second marriage. that she is dead. Pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code,
a marriage contracted by any person during the
subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void,
ARTICLE 41
unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage,
WELL-FOUNDED BELIEF OF DEATH
the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive
1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
years and the spouse present had a well founded belief
v. GREGORIO NOLASCO, respondent.
that the absent spouse was already dead. In fine,
G.R. No. 94053. March 17, 1993.
respondent failed to establish that he had the well-
FACTS: founded belief required by law that his absent wife
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following It is more proper to rule first on the declaration of nullity of
elements must be present: marriage on the ground of each party’s psychological
incapacity to perform their respective marital obligations.
1. The man and the woman must be capacitated to If the Court eventually finds that the parties’ respective
marry each other; petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage is indeed
meritorious on the basis of either or both of the parties’
2. They live exclusively with each other as husband psychological incapacity, then the parties
and wife; and shall proceed to comply with Articles 50 and 51 of the
Family Code before a final decree of absolute nullity of
3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or marriage can be issued. Pending such ruling on
their marriage is void. the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage, the
Court finds no legal ground, at this stage, to proceed with
All these elements are present in this case and there is no the reception of evidence in regard the issues on custody
question that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the and property relations, since these are mere incidents of
property relations between petitioner and respondent. the nullity of the parties’ marriage.
In this case, petitioner’s marriage to respondent was Judge Reyes-Carpio granted the Omnibus Motion, saying
declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code and not that the main cause of action is the declaration of nullity
under Article 40 or 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of of the marriage and the incidental issues are
properties owned in common by petitioner and merely ancillary incidents thereto. Eric moved for
respondent are the rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the reconsideration, which was denied by Judge Reyes-
45 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
Carpio. Eric then filed for certiorari with the CA under Rule delivery of their presumptive legitimes upon entry of
65. CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court. judgment granting the petition. And following the
pertinent provisions of the Court En Banc Resolution in A.M.
ISSUES/HELD: No. 02-11-10-SC, this act is undoubtedly consistent with
Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code, contrary to what
petitioner asserts. Particularly, Arts. 50 and 51 of the Family
Whether the main issue of nullity of marriage must be
Code state:
submitted for resolution first before the reception of
evidence on custody, support, and property relations
(incidental issues) – NO. Article 50. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for
the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties
of the spouses, the custody and support of the common
RATIO:
children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes,
unless such matters had been adjudicated in the previous
It appears in the records that the Orders in question, or judicial proceedings.
what are alleged to have been exercised with grave
abuse of discretion, are interlocutory orders. An
Article 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive
interlocutory order is one which “does not finally dispose of
legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date
the case, and does not end the Court’s task of
of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in
adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining
cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by
their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but
mutual agreement judicially approved, had already
obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by
provided for such matters.
the Court. Eric Yu to prove that the assailed orders were
issued with grave abuse of discretion and that those were
patently erroneous. Considering that the requisites that Also, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC clearly allows the deferment of
would justify certiorari as an appropriate remedy to assail the reception of evidence on custody, support, and
an interlocutory order have not been complied with, the property relations. Conversely, the trial court may receive
proper recourse for petitioner should have been an evidence on the subject incidents after a judgment
appeal in due course of the judgment of the trial court on granting the petition but before the decree of nullity or
the merits, incorporating the grounds for assailing the annulment of marriage is issued. And this is what Judge
interlocutory orders. Reyes-Carpio sought to comply with in issuing the assailed
orders. As correctly pointed out by the CA, Eric Yu’s
assertion that ruling the main issue without receiving
It must be noted that Judge Reyes-Carpio did not disallow
evidence on the subject incidents would result in
the presentation of evidence on the incidents on custody,
an ambiguous and fragmentary judgment is certainly
support, and property relations. It is clear in the assailed
speculative and, hence, contravenes the legal
orders that the trial court judge merely deferred the
presumption that a trial judge can fairly weigh
reception of evidence relating to custody, support, and
and appraise the evidence submitted by the parties.
property relations. And the trial judge’s decision was not
without basis. Judge Reyes-Carpio finds support in the
Court En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Therefore, it cannot be said at all that Judge Reyes-Carpio
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages acted in a capricious and whimsical manner, much less in
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Particularly, Secs. a way that is patently gross and erroneous, when she
19 and 21 of the Rule clearly allow the reception of issued the assailed orders deferring the reception of
evidence on custody, support, and property relations after evidence on custody, support, and property relations. To
the trial court renders a decision granting the petition, or reiterate, this decision is left to the trial court’s wisdom and
upon entry of judgment granting the petition: legal soundness. Consequently, therefore, the CA cannot
likewise be said to have committed grave abuse of
discretion in upholding the Orders of Judge Reyes-Carpio
Section 19. Decision. – (1) If the court renders a decision
and in ultimately finding an absence of grave abuse of
granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the
discretion on her part.
decree of absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be
issued by the court only after compliance with Articles 50
and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule ARTICLE 41
on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.
1. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner vs. ROBERT P.
Section 21. Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, NARCEDA, respondent G.R. No. 182760 April 10, 2013
support of common children and delivery of their
presumptive legitimes. – Upon entry of the judgment FACTS:
granting the petition, or, in case of appeal, upon receipt
of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting Robert and Marina Narceda contracted marriage on July
the petition, the Family Court, on motion of either party, 22, 1987. Marina went to Singapore in 1994 and never
shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and returned. Robert tried to look for her but he could not find
distribution of the properties of the spouses, including her. Several years later, Robert was informed by a town
custody, support of common children and delivery of their mate in La Union who came home from Singapore that his
presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the wife was already living with a Singaporean husband.
Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in
previous judicial proceedings.
In view of his wife’s absence and his desire to remarry,
Robert filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition
Evidently, Judge Reyes-Carpio did not deny the reception for a declaration of presumptive death and/or absence of
of evidence on custody, support, and property relations Marina.
but merely deferred it, based on the existing rules issued by
this Court, to a time when a decision granting the petition
The court then granted the petition in 2005. Petitioner
is already at hand and before a final decree is issued.
appealed and claimed that the respondent failed to
Conversely, the trial court, or more particularly the family
conduct a search for his missing wife with diligence
court, shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and
required by law and enough to give rise to a well-founded
distribution, custody, support of common children, and
belief that his wife was dead. The Court of Appeals (CA)
46 | CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 CASE DIGESTS – THIRD WEEK
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the judgment of helper. For three months, he did not receive any
the RTC in the summary proceeding is immediately final communication from Netchie. He likewise had no idea
and executory. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was about her whereabouts. While still abroad, he tried to
likewise denied. contact Netchie’s parents, but failed, as the latter had
allegedly left Clarin, Misamis Occidental. He returned
ISSUE: home after his contract expired. He then inquired from
Netchie’s relatives and friends about her whereabouts, but
they also did not know where she was. Because of these,
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the
he had to presume that his wife Netchie was already
petition.
dead. He filed the Petition before the RTC so he could
contract another marriage pursuant to Article 41 of the
HELD: Family Code.
No. By express provision of the law, the judgment of the Jose’s testimony was corroborated by his older brother
court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final Joel Sareñogon, and by Netchie’s aunt, Consuelo Sande.
and executory. It follows that no appeal can be approved These two witnesses testified that Jose and Netchie lived
from trial court’s judgment in a summary proceeding for together as husband and wife only for one month prior to
the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse their leaving the Philippines for separate destinations
under Article 41 of the Family Code. abroad. These two added that they had no information
regarding Netchie’s location.
However, an aggrieved party may file a petition for
certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to The RTC held that Jose had established by preponderance
lack of jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in the of evidence that he is entitled to the relief prayed for under
Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Article 41 of the Family Code. The RTC found that Netchie
Hierarchy of Courts. To be sure, even if the Court’s original had disappeared for more than four years, reason enough
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the for Jose to conclude that his wife was indeed already
RTC’s and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such dead. On appeal, the CA dismissed the petition. Hence,
concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom this action.
of choice of court forum.
ISSUE:
From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party
may then file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
Whether the RTC properly granted Jose’s Petition
45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. This is
because the errors which the court may commit in the
exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which RULING:
are the proper subject of an appeal.
NO.
2. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES , vs. JOSE B. SAREÑOGON,
JR. G.R. No. 199194 February 10, 2016 In Republic v. Cantor, the Court has held that:
Finally, other than respondent's bare testimony, no other SSS advised respondent of the cancellation of her monthly
corroborative evidence had been offered to support her pension for death benefits in view of the opinion rendered
allegation that she exerted efforts to find him but was by its legal department that her marriage with Bailon was
unsuccessful. What appears from the facts as established void as it was contracted while the latter’s marriage with
in this case was that respondnet simply allowed the Alice was still subsisting. Respondent protested the
passage of time without actively and diligently searching cancellation of her monthly pension for death benefits.
for her husband, which the Court cannot accept as The SSS, however, maintained the denial of her claim for
constituting a "well-founded belief that her husband is and the discontinuance of payment of monthly pension.
dead. Whether or not the spouse present acted on a well- Respondent thus filed a petition27 against the SSS before
founded belief of death of the absent spouse depends the SSC for the restoration to her of her entitlement to
upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many monthly pension. Respondent informed the SSS that she
circumstances occurring before and after the was returning, under protest.
disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature and
extent of the inquiries made by the present spouse.26
SSC found that the marriage of respondent to Bailon was
Having fallen short of the stringent standard and degree void and, therefore, she was "just a common-law-wife."
of due diligence required by jurisprudence to support her
claim of a "well-founded belief that her husband Dante is The CA reversed and set aside Resolution and Order of the
already dead, the instant petition must be granted. SSC and thus ordered the SSS to pay respondent all the
pension benefits due her. It held that nowhere does the
4. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. law contemplates the possibility that respondent SSS may
TERESITA JARQUE VDA. DE BAILON, Respondent. G.R. No. validly declare the second marriage null and void on the
165545 March 24, 2006 basis alone of its own investigation and declare that the
decision of the RTC declaring one to be presumptively
dead is without basis. Respondent SSS cannot arrogate
CARPIO MORALES,J.: upon itself the authority to review the decision of the
regular courts
FACTS:
ISSUE: 1. WON SSC has jurisdiction to make a finding with
On April 25, 1955, Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon) and Alice P. respect to the validity of the marriage of Bailon and
Diaz (Alice) contracted marriage.6 More than 15 years respondent. NO
later or on October 9, 1970, Bailon filed before the then
Court of First Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon a petition7 to 2. WON the 2nd marriage is valid. YES
declare Alice presumptively dead. CFI granted the
petition. Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was declared
presumptively dead or on August 8, 1983, Bailon 3. WON the reappearance of the 1 st wife (ALICE) is
contracted marriage with Teresita Jarque (respondent). sufficient to terminate the 2nd marriage. NO
On January 30, 1998, Bailon, who was a member of the
The motion to dismiss was predicted on the following On July 14, 1955, William H. Brown filed suit in the Court of
grounds: (1) Assuming arguendo the truth of the First Instance of Manila to obtain legal separation from his
allegations of the commission of "acts of rank infidelity lawful wife Juanita Yambao. He alleged under oath that
amounting to adultery", the cause of action, if any, is while interned by the Japanese invaders, from 1942 to
barred by the statute of limitations; (2) That under the same 1945, at the University of Sto. Tomas internment camp, his
assumption, the act charged have been condoned by the wife engaged in adulterous relations with one Carlos Field
plaintiff-husband; and (3) That the complaint failed to of whom she begot a baby girl that Brown learned of his
state a cause of action sufficient for this court to render a wifes misconduct only in 1945, upon his release from
valid judgment. internment; that thereafter the spouse lived separately
and later executed a document liquidating their conjugal
partnership and assigning certain properties to the erring
ISSUE:
wife as her share. The complaint prayed for confirmation
of the liquidation agreement; for custody of the children
Whether OR NOT there was condonation between issued of the marriage; that the defendant be declared
Bugayong and Ginez that may serve as a ground for disqualified to succeed the plaintiff; and for their remedy
dismissal of the action. as might be just and equitable.
RULING City Fiscal Rafael Jose appeared at the trial, and cross-
examined plaintiff Brown. His questions (strenuously
YES. objected to by Brown's counsel) elicited the fact that after
liberation, Brown had lived maritally with another woman
ART. 100. The legal separation may be claimed only by the and had begotten children by her. Thereafter, the court
innocent spouse, provided there has been no rendered judgment denying the legal separation asked,
condonation of or consent to the adultery or on the ground that, while the wife's adultery was
concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal established, Brown had incurred in a misconduct of similar
separation cannot by either of them. Collusion between nature that barred his right of action under Article 100 of
the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the the new Civil Code.
dismissal of the petition.
ISSUE:
Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense
constituting a ground for legal separation or, as stated in I Whether or not the petition for legal separation should be
Bouver's Law Dictionary, p. 585, condonation is the granted?
"conditional forgiveness or remission, by a husband or wife
of a matrimonial offense which the latter has committed". RULING: