NATHANIEL B.

MARI

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
CITY OF VALENZUELA, BRANCH 172

GRETCHEN C. AQUINO,
Petitioner

-versus- Civil Case No. xxx

For: DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE
JAMES K. AQUINO,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
FACTUAL ANTECEDENT

In her Complaint, petitioner alleged that she met respondent sometime

in 2000 at the Love Boat in Caloocan City where she worked. Respondent
became a regular customer of the establishment and would soon offer to bring
her home after work. Thereafter, they became a couple. In 2000, respondent
asked her to stop working, which she acceded to. They then lived together with
her parents at Dalandanan, Valenzuela City. Soon after, they rented a place of
their own located in Karuhatan, Valenzuela City. It was during that time that
respondent confesses to the petitioner that he has four (4) kids from two (2)
previous relationships and because she was in love with the former, she was
not bothered by it. In December 2002, petitioner gave birth to their first child,
Catherine Anne. In June 2003, petitioner again became pregnant with their
second child. Her parents, then insisted that since they were living together as
husband and wife and coupled with the fact that they will soon have two (2)
kids, they might as well get married. To appease her mother, petitioner then
agreed to marry the respondent. Considering that they were living together as
husband and wife for at least five (5) years without legal impediment, they did
not apply for a marriage license but they executed an affidavit required under
section 34 of the Family Code.
Criminal Case No. xxx Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Gretchen Aquino vs James Aquino Page 2 of 8

On 24 Febrruary 2004, petitioner and respondent got married in

Meycauayan City, Bulacan before a solemnizing officer named Apolinar
Guevarra Sr. On 27 February 2004, she gave birth to their second child,
Claudine Anne. On 13 July 2007, she gave birth to the third (3) child, Mark
Henry. Soon after, she noticed that the respondent changed. They were
fighting constantly. In 2008, they decided to separate. Petitioner and her three
(3) children then went to live with her parents. During the time they were
separated, respondent did not communicate with her and her children nor did
he give any support. In 2013, petitioner and respondent tried to reconcile and
soon after, their fourth child, Bhrien Gertrudes Anne was born on May 21,
2014. In 2014, she her mother Marjorie Aquino to process the birth certificate
of her daughter, Catherine Ann, with Philippine Statistics Authority so that she
may use the surname of respondent and to change her status from
“illegitimate” to “legitimated” by reason of their subsequent marriage.

When Petitioner’s mother went back to claim the birth certificate of

Catherine Anne, she was informed that they cannot process the request
because the marriage between her and the respondent was void in view of the
latter’s marriage to one Kris Barreta in 1979 at Arayat, Pampanga. When she
confronted the respondent, he just merely stated that she should have known
that since he told her that he has children with other women. Devastated and
betrayed, petitioner asked respondent to leave. From then on, they have been
separated and she and her children will only see respondent when he visits
them.

Petitioner maintains however, that she has no knowledge of the existing

marriage between respondent and Kris Barreta. It was only when the request
of her daughter Catherine Anne, for the use of the surname of the respondent
and to change the status from “illegitimate to “legitimated” by reason of the
subsequent marriage was denied did she learn of the said marriage.
Criminal Case No. xxx Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Gretchen Aquino vs James Aquino Page 3 of 8

Petitioner and respondent have no community property or debt and

have not acquired any real properties in the course of their marriage.

Thus, on 1 January 2917, petitioner filed the present Petition for

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, and prays:

“that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent

be declared null and void on the ground that it is a bigamous
marriage. It is likewise prayed that if and when parties are able
to enter into an extrajudicial settlement as to custody and joint
parenting, the same be adopted by this Court and in the absence
thereof, a fair and just settlement of their rights and obligation
as parents be adjudicated by this Honorable Court.
Other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable
under the foregoing premises are likewise prayed for.”

On 2 March 2017 summons1 was issued. Petitioner furnished the Office

of the Solicitor General (OSG), as well as Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City (OCPVAL) copies of the amended petition together with its
annexes.

On 10 February 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its
Notice of Appearance with attached authority deputizing Valenzuela City
Prosecutor to appear in the instant case.

On 18 April 2017, Sheriff Romeo L. Rivera served copies of summons

and petition with annexes to respondent. However, despite receipt, he failed to
file his answer within the reglementary period allowed by the rules.

On 7 July 2017, the court issued an order directing the public prosecutor
to conduct investigation in order to ascertain whether or not there is collusion
between the parties and to submit report regarding the matter within thirty
1
Criminal Case No. xxx Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Gretchen Aquino vs James Aquino Page 4 of 8

(30) days from receipt of the order. Such that, on July 28, 2017, Senior
Assistant City Prosecutor Harry Panalo filed his Report stating that he finds no
evidence of collusion between the parties and he recommended that the case
be set for further proceedings.

On 31 July 2017, the court issued an order setting the case of preliminary
conference and pre-trial conference. Only the petitioner filed her Pre-Trial
Brief.

On 13 September 2017, pre-trial was held. The public prosecutor, the

petitioner and her counsel Atty. Lorna Fortun appeared. Respondent did not
appear despite receipt of the notice. The pre-trial was terminated after
petitioner’s counsel and the Public Prosecutor adopted the minutes of the
preliminary conference dated 25 August 2017 as part of the pre-trial.

Trial ensued thereafter.

For the Petitioner, they presented the testimonies of petitioner herself

and Omar Maderazo, who is the representative from the Philippine Statistics
Authority.

The counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor stipulated the
testimony of witness Omar Maderazo as follows: 1) he is the representative of
the Philippine Statistics Authority; 2) he could identify the documents he
presented before the court, which came from the official records of the
Philippine Statistics Authority; and, 3) that he brought to this court a
Certification dated 23 January 2018 signed by Editha R. Orcilla, Assistant
National Statistician, Civil Registration Service which shows that verification
made on the death record of Kris David Tan and/or Kris R. Barreta, yielded
negative result (marked as Exhibit C).

Petitioner Gretchen C. Aquino testified through her Judicial Affidavit,

which was adapted as her testimony in lieu of her direct examination. She
Criminal Case No. xxx Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Gretchen Aquino vs James Aquino Page 5 of 8

averred that she is the petitioner in the instant case. She knows the respondent
being her husband. She met respondent sometime in 2000 while she was
working as the Love Boat, Caloocan City. Her manager introduced the
respondent to her. Thereafter, he would soon visit her in their house at
Dalandanan, Valenzuela City. Soon after, they became a couple. They got
married on 24 February 2004 at Malhacan, Meycauayan City, Bulacan as
evidenced by a copy of their marriage certificate (marked as Exhibit A). They
are already separated for almost three (3) years now and prior to it they also
separated sometime in 2008. They separated in 2008 due to womanizing and
constant fights. In 2013, they reconciled but they again separated when she
found out his previous marriage. Afterwhich, they parted ways for good. She
know a certain Kriss Barreta who was the first wife of the respondent as
evidenced by a Certificate from PSA that will show the respondent was married
to Kris Barreta in 1979 at Arayat, Pampanga (marked as Exhibit B). She had
four (4) children with the respondent, namely: 1) Catherine Anne, 14 years old;
2) Claudine Anne, 13 years old; 3) Mark Henry, 10 years old;and, 4) Bhrien
Gertrudes Anne, 3 years old. All evidenced by their birth certificates. All their
children lived with her and she spend around Php65,000 to Php70,000
monthly for their living inclusive of school fees,allowances, groceries, payment
for the yaya, utilities and medicines for Catherine Anne,Mark Henry and
Bhrien Gertrudes Anne. Respondent also help her but in limited capacity.
Respondent gives around Php20,000 a month through their daughter
Catherine’s bank account. He knows that respondent is workingas Assistant
Vice President of Formafly Industries in Quezon City. They were not able to
acquire any property during the existence of their marriage. She now prays for
their marriage be declared void because respondent has prior marriage and she
learned that their marriage is void because it is bigamous.

The state did not present any witness for failure of the defendant to appear
despite due notice.Hence, this decision.

ISSSUE
Criminal Case No. xxx Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Gretchen Aquino vs James Aquino Page 6 of 8

Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and respondent can be

declared null and void because of bigamous marriage.

THE COURT’S RULING

Article 35 of the Family code provides that the following marriages shall be
void from the beginning:

1. Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the
consent of parents or guardians;
2. Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform
marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both
parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal
authority to do so;
3. Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding
Chapter;
4. Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under
Article 41;
5. Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the
identity of the other; and
6. Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.(emphasis
supplied)

From the evidence culled in the record, it is crystal clear that the first
marriage of respondent James Aquino to Kris Barreta on 31 January 1979 is still
valid and subsisting, hence his second marriage with herein petitioner on 24
February 2004 is considered bigamous.

Article 35 of the Family Code provides in part that void marriages are those
bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41 of the Family
Code. The law provides that if the person who contracted the second marriage,
such as in the case of herein respondent did not file a summary proceeding for
Criminal Case No. xxx Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Gretchen Aquino vs James Aquino Page 7 of 8

the declaration of presumptive death of his first spouse, then clearly, the second
marriage is void for being bigamous under Article 41 of the Family Code.

It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Robert Domingo vs.
CA2 that for such a social significant institution, an official state pronouncement
through the courts, and nothing less, will satisfy the exacting norms of society.
Not only would such an open and public declaration by the courts definitively
confirm the nullity of the contract of marriage, but the same would be easily
verifiable through records accessible to everyone. We quote

Marriage, a sacrosanct institution, declared by the Constitution as

an "inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family;" as such,
it "shall be protected by the State." 20 In more explicit terms, the Family
Code characterizes it as "a special contract of permanent union between a
man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the
establishment of conjugal, and family life." 21 So crucial are marriage and
the family to the stability and peace of the nation that their "nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to
stipulation . . ." 22 As a matter of policy, therefore, the nullification of a
marriage for the purpose of contracting another cannot be accomplished
merely on the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that their
union is so defective with respect to the essential requisites of a contract
of marriage as to render it void ipso jure and with no legal effect — and
nothing more. Were this so, this inviolable social institution would be
reduced to a mockery and would rest on very shaky foundations indeed.
And the grounds for nullifying marriage would be as diverse and far-
ranging as human ingenuity and fancy could conceive. For such a social
significant institution, an official state pronouncement through
the courts, and nothing less, will satisfy the exacting norms of
society. Not only would such an open and public declaration by the courts
definitively confirm the nullity of the contract of marriage, but the same
would be easily verifiable through records accessible to everyone.
(Emphasis supplied)

All told, the document issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority

showing that the respondent indeed contracted his first marriage with Kris
Barreta and the certification from the same office that the said Kris Barreta is

2
G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993
Criminal Case No. xxx Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Gretchen Aquino vs James Aquino Page 8 of 8

still alive gives and undoubted fact that the said marriage is still valid and
subsisting. Therefore, the second marriage between petitioner and the
respondent is void from the beginning being one of those bigamous marriage
provided for by the law.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court

hereby declares the marriage between JAMES K. AQUINAO and GRETCHEN
C, AQUINO contracted on 24 February 2004, at Malhacan, Meycauayan City,
Bulacan, NULL AND VOID AB INITIO based on bigamous marriage of the
under the Family Code.

SO ORDERED.
In Chamber, November 5, 2019.

HON. NANCY RIVAS-PALMONES

Presiding Judge