Lolita Enrico vs Heirs of Spouses Eulogio Medinaceli and Trinidad Medinaceli, Represented by Vilma

Articulo

G.R. No. 173614 September 28, 2007

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Facts:

Eulogio and Trinidad Medinaceli was married on June 14, 1962 during their marriage they begot 7
children, herein respondents, Edward, Evelyn, Vilma, Mary Jane, Haizel, Michelle and Joseph Lloyd.

During his marriage with Trinidad, Eulogio lived, openly and publicly, together with one Lolita Enrico
(petitioner) and their union begot 2 children .

On May 1, 2004 Trinidad died. Subsequently Eulogio married Lolita on August 4, 2004. Eulogio died on
February 10, 2005.

In impugning petitioner’s marriage to Eulogio, respondents averred that the same was entered into
without the requisite marriage license. Respondents posited further that petitioner’s marriage with their
father does not fall under emarriages that are exempt of the license requirement. . To further their
cause, respondents raised the additional ground of lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogio’s serious
illness which made its performance impossible.

As an affirmative defense, she sought the dismissal of the action on the ground that it is only the
contracting parties while living who can file an action for declaration of nullity of marriage.

On 11 October 2005, the RTC issued granting the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of cause of action
based on A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC in Section 2, par.(a). On Motion for Reconsideration of Respondent, RTC
reversed its decision and reinstated the complaint on the ratiocination that the assailed Order ignored
the ruling in Niñal v. Bayadog. Petitioner filed for Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the RTC.

Petioner file a Petiton for Certiorari in the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Which rule in Assailing Nullity , Voiding and Annulment of Marriage applies in the case at bar?

Ruling:

We grant the Petition. In reinstating respondents’ Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, the
RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.

We cannot apply the decision in the case of Niñal for the reason that the impugned marriage therein
was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The Court in Niñal recognized that the
applicable law to determine the validity of the two marriages involved therein is the Civil Code. While
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC extend to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code
which took effect on 3 August 1988.
There is no need to reconcile the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC with the ruling in Niñal, because
they vary in scope and application.

While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage
may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs
are already without any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for,
compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a
proceeding for declaration of nullity, but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement
of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Civil Case No. II-4057 filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, is ORDERED DISMISSED without prejudice to challenging the validity of the
marriage of Lolita D. Enrico to Eulogio B. Medinaceli in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
the latter. No costs.
Lunes, Setyembre 25, 2017

Enrico v. Medinaceli Heirs

GR 173614

Facts:
Trinidad and Eulogio Medinaceli were married on June 14, 1962 and had 7 children.
When Trinidad died on May 1, 2004, Eulogio married Lolita Enrico on August 26, 2004 and
they begot 2 children. They were solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan. 6
months later, Eulogio passed away. Herein respondent assailed the second marriage of their
father stating that they were not granted a marriage license for they could have not lived
together violative of the 5-year cohabitation period and that they lacked marriage ceremony
due to Eulogio’s serious illness which made its performance impossible. Petitioner countered
that she and Eulogio had been under one roof for 21 years, openly and publicly.
This case tries to reconcile A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC “Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Marriages” and the case of Nial v. Bayadog. The former states that only the
husband or wife who is allowed to file an action for nullity for such right is purely personal
and is not transmissible upon death while the case of Nial held that the heirs of a deceased
person may file for declaration after his death so as not prejudice their successional rights.

Issue: W/N the heirs may validly file the declaration of nullity of marriage
between Lolita and Eulogio

Held: 
          No. The marriage or petitioner and Eulogio was celebrated on August 2004
and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which contends that
an action for nullity is covered by the Family Code that took effect on August 3,
1988. The marriage impugned in the Nial case was celebrated before the existence
of the Family Code that is why the Court granted the heirs their petition. Be that as
it may, laws are prospective in nature hence, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs
wherein Sec 2(a) thereof provides that “… petition cannot be filed by compulsory or
intestate heirs for they do not have such legal right. They only have inchoate rights
and can only question the validity of the marriage…”. They can raise their
successional interests in a proceeding for settlement of estate filed in regular
courts, not a proceeding for nullity of marriage.