Subject Matter: Non-compliance meaning no third party was involved at any time

Ninal vs. Bayadog [G.R. No. 133778] March within the 5 years and continuity – that is unbroken.”
14, 2000 (4) The judge’s ruling (lower court), where void and
Facts: voidable marriages are made identical is erroneous.
Pepito married his second wife Norma a year and eight Void and voidable marriages are not identical.
months after his first wife Teodulfa’s death. Pepito “A marriage that is annulable is valid until otherwise
and Norma got married without any marriage declared by the court; whereas a marriage that is
license because they lived together for 5 years and void ab initio  is considered as having never to have
thus exempt from marriage license. Some years after, taken place.”
Pepito died in a car accident.   “A voidable can be generally ratified or confirmed by
The heirs as petitioners, fearing problems in free cohabitation or prescription while a void marriage
successional rights (succession only occurs after the can never be ratified.”
death of an ascendant) due to the second marriage,   “A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally
filed a ‘petition for declaration for nullity of marriage’ except in a direct proceeding while a void marriage
(a.k.a. declaration of nullity of void can be attacked collaterally.”
marriages) between Pepito (deceased) and Norma   “Void marriages can be questioned even after the
using the absence of a marriage license as a legal death of either party but voidable marriages can be
basis. assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not
Issues: after death of either, in which case the parties and
The lower court dismissed the petition because: their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been
(1) The Family Code is silent whether the petition has perfectly valid.”
a ’cause of action’. Can there be such a petition when   “The action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible,
the heirs’ parent is deceased? unlike voidable marriages where the action
(2) Are the heirs a ‘proper party’? prescribes.”
(3) Determination whether the second marriage is   “Only the parties to a voidable marriage can assail it
void ab initio (from the beginning) is a must but is a but any proper interested party may attack a void
different matter. Void marriages cannot be attacked marriage.“
collaterally. “Void marriages have no legal effects except those
(4) Whether the petition for declaration for nullity of declared by law concerning the properties of the
marriage has prescribed. alleged spouses, regarding co-ownership or ownership
The lower court ruled: through actual joint contribution,  and its effect on the
(1) Petitioners should have filed an action to declare children born to such void marriages as provided in
null and void their father’s marriage before the latter’s Article 50 in relation to Article 43 and 44 as well as
death. Article 51, 53 and 54 of the Family Code. On the
(2) The prescription period and the proper party in an contrary, the property regime governing voidable
annulment proceeding were used as a basis to dismiss marriages is generally conjugal partnership and the
petitioner’s case. children conceived before its annulment are
Petitioners disagree with the decision and petitions for legitimate.”
a review.   (5) The Supreme Court requires a judicial decree of
Held: nullity of second marriage before determining
The Supreme Court ruled that: succession rights.
(1) The applicable law, for the determination of “Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no
marriage, is the Civil Code and not the Family Code. judicial decree is necessary in order to establish the
(In determining the validity of marriage, it is to be nullity of a marriage. But Article 40 of the Family Code
tested by the law in force at the time the marriage was expressly provides that there must be a judicial
contracted.) declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage,
(2) There is no second marriage. The absence of a though void, before a party can enter into a second
marriage license renders marriage void ab initio. The marriage.”
exemption for a marriage license, the cohabitation, “However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no
was not the one described by the Civil Code. It is not judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an
the one described by the Civil Code because the absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not
cohabitation, after the first marriage, was only twenty limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or
months whereas the law requires five years. If the illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution
respondent took into consideration the other years and of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter,
months before the second marriage, then the the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even
cohabitation would include the period of the first in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so
marriage. This is in violation of the law. long as it is essential to the determination of the case.
(3) Separation in fact (not the legal separation) by the This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in
first marriage does not count cohabitation. the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of
“This 5-year period should be the years immediately declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose
before the day of the marriage and it should be a is other than to remarry. The clause “on the basis of a
period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity – final judgment declaring such previous marriage void”
in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such

150 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose the trial court must dismiss the instant petition to
of remarriage.” declare nullity of marriage on the ground
that petitioner Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to
file the same
Subject Matter: Non-compliance
RATIO:
AMOR-CATALAN cs CA 1) Need to ascertain the allegations that they were
naturalized in the US and whether they had
Facts: actually been judicially granted a divorce decree
1) CA reversed decision of RTC of dagupan City 2) If these are proven, then this case is not dealing
declaring the marriage between respondents with Filipino citizens whose marital status is
Orlando B. catalan and Merope Braganza void on the governed by the FC and our CC but with American
ground of bigamy and the denied motion citizens who secured their divorce in the US
for reconsideration and who are considered by their national law to be free
2) June 4, 1950: mabini, Pangasinan; married to contract another marriage
3) Migrated to the US and allegedly became 3) Two kinds of divorce: a) absolute divorce or a
naturalized citizens of US vinculo matrimonii- terminates the marriage; and
4) After 38 years of marriage, divorced in Aril 1988 b) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro- suspends and
5) June 16, 1988: Orlando married Merope in calasiao, leaves the bond in full force
pangasinan 4) A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be
6) Contending that said marriage was bigamous; recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such
Merope has subsisting marriage with Eusebio decree is valid according to the national law of the
Bristol, petitioner filed petition for declaration of nullity foreigner
of marriage with damages in the RTC of 5) Need to present divorce evidence and foreign law
Dagupan for deciding on this matter—to know if she
7) Respondents filed motion to dismiss but denied has personality or standing in this case
RTC: judgment in favor or petitioner; subsequent 6) One with Proper interest to file a case—a petition to
marriage of Merope Braganza with Orlando catalan is declare the nullity of marriage like any
declared null and void other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the
Defendants jointly pay moral damages (P300,000) and name of the real party in interest and
exemplary damages (P200,000) and attorney’ s mist be based on a cause of action (Sec 2a of the Rule
fees (P50,000) including cost of suit; donation in on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
consideration of marriage is ordered revoked and the Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages)
property donated is ordered awarded to the heirs of 7) Petitioner’s personality to file petition cannot be
Juliana Branganza ascertained because of absence of divorce
CA: GRANT the appeal and REVERSE and SET ASIDE decree and foreign law allowing it—to know if
the appealed decision, civil case DISMISSED; respondent is allowed to remarry after a divorce
motion for reconsideration denied or not.
ISSUES:
1) Whether petitioner has the required standing in
court to question the nullity of the marriage
between respondents
2) Whether the failure of the court of appeals to
declare the questioned marriage void constitutes
reversible error
HELD (DECISION OF SC): Case is REMANDED to the
trial court for its proper disposition
a) If it is proven that a valid divorce decree was
obtained and he same did not allow
respondent’s remarriage, then the TC should declare
respondent’s marriage as bigamous and
void ab initio but reduce the amount of moral damages
from P300,000 to P50,000 and
exemplary damages from P200,000 to P25,000
b) If it is proved that a valid divorce decree was
obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then

151 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 one roof for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they
were exempted from the requirement of a marriage
license.  From their union were born Elvin Enrico and
Marco Enrico, all surnamed Medinaceli, on 28 October
1988 and 30 October 1991, respectively.  She further
Subject Matter: Non-compliance contended that the marriage ceremony was performed
in the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and
LOLITA D. ENRICO v. HEIRS OF SPS. EULOGIO B. solemnized by the Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative
MEDINACELI AND TRINIDAD CATLI-MEDINACELI, defense, she sought the dismissal of the action on the
REPRESENTED BY VILMA M. ARTICULO ground that it is only the contracting parties while
living who can file an action for declaration of nullity of
The instant Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of marriage.
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assails the Order,
[1]
 dated 3 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)            On 11 October 2005, the RTC issued an Order,
of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, in Civil Case No. II-
[9]
 granting the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of
4057, granting reconsideration of its Order,[2] dated 11 cause of action.  It cited A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
October 2005, and reinstating respondents’ Complaint
[10]
 dated 7 March 2003, promulgated by the Supreme
for Declaration of Nullity of  Marriage. Court En Banc as basis.  The RTC elucidated on its
position in the following manner:
           On 17 March 2005, respondents, heirs of
Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli (Eulogio) and Trinidad  The Complaint should be dismissed.
Catli-Medinaceli (Trinidad) filed with the RTC, an action
for declaration of nullity of marriage of Eulogio and  1)  Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10-SC
petitioner Lolita D. Enrico.  Substantially, the complaint promulgated by the Supreme Court which took effect
alleged, inter alia, that Eulogio and Trinidad were on March 15, 2003 provides in Section 2, par. (a)
married on 14 June 1962, in Lal-lo, Cagayan.[3]  They
[11]
 that a petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
begot seven children, herein respondents, namely: a Void Marriage may be filed solely by the husband or
Eduardo, Evelyn, Vilma, Mary Jane, Haizel, Michelle the wife.  The language of this rule is plain and
and Joseph Lloyd.[4]  On 1 May 2004,Trinidad died. simple which states that such a petition may be
[5]
  On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married petitioner filed solely by the husband or the wife.   The rule
before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan.[6]  Six is clear and unequivocal that only the husband or
months later, or on 10 February 2005, Eulogio passed the wife may file the petition for Declaration of
away.[7]  Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage.  The reading
of this Court is that the right to bring such
 In impugning petitioner’s marriage to Eulogio, petition is exclusive and this right solely belongs
respondents averred that the same was entered into to them.  Consequently, the heirs of the deceased
without the requisite marriage license.   They argued spouse cannot substitute their late father in bringing
that Article 34[8] of the Family Code, which exempts a the action to declare the marriage null and void.
man and a woman who have been living together for
[12]
 (Emphasis supplied.)
at least five years without any legal impediment from
securing a marriage license, was not applicable to          The dispositive portion of the Order, thus, reads:
petitioner and Eulogio because they could not have
 WHEREFORE, [the] Motion to Dismiss raised as an
lived together under the circumstances required by
affirmative defense in the answer is hereby
said provision.  Respondents posited that the marriage
GRANTED.  Accordingly, the Complaint filed by the
of Eulogio to Trinidad was dissolved only upon the
[respondents] is hereby DISMISSED with costs de
latter’s death, or on 1 May 2004, which was barely
officio. [13]
three months from the date of marriage of Eulogio to
petitioner.  Therefore, petitioner and Eulogio could not            Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration
have lived together as husband and wife for at least thereof.  Following the filing by petitioner of her
five years.  To further their cause, respondents raised Comment to the said motion, the RTC rendered an
the additional ground of lack of marriage ceremony Order[14] dated 3 May 2006, reversing its Order of 11
due to Eulogio’s serious illness which made its October 2005.  Hence, the RTC reinstated the
performance impossible. complaint on the ratiocination that the assailed Order
ignored the ruling in Niñal v. Bayadog,[15] which was on
           In her Answer, petitioner maintained that she
the authority for holding that the heirs of a deceased
and Eulogio lived together as husband and wife under
spouse have the standing to assail a void marriage
152 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES
#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
even after the death of the latter.  It held that Section  For these reasons, this Court believes that Sec. 2(a)
2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-20-SC, which provides that a of the Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void Marriage is applicable only when both parties to a (sic)
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the void marriage are still living.  Upon the death of
wife, applies only where both parties to a void anyone of the guilty party to the void marriage, his
marriage are still living.[16]  Where one or both parties heirs may file a petition to declare the the (sic)
are deceased, the RTC held that the heirs may file a marriage void, but the Rule is not applicable as it was
petition to declare the marriage void.  The RTC not filed b the husband or the wife.  It shall be the
expounded on its stance, thus: ordinary rule of civil procedure which shall be
applicable.[17]
 The questioned Order disregarded the case of Niñal
vs. Bayadog, 328 SCRA 122 (March 14, 2000) in which  Perforce, the decretal portion of the RTC Order of 3
the Supreme Court, First Division, held that the heirs May 2006 states:
of a deceased person may file a petition for the
declaration of his marriage after his death.  The Order              In view of the foregoing, the Court grants the
subject of this motion for reconsideration held that the motion for reconsideration dated October 31, 2005 and
case of Niñal vs. Bayadog is now superseded by the reinstate this case.[18]
new Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
 Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for
Marriages (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) because
Reconsideration of the foregoing Order; however, on 1
the Supreme Court has rejected the case of Niñal vs.
June 2006, the RTC denied the said motion on the
Bayadog by approving the Rule on Nullity of Void
ground that no new matter was raised therein.[19]
Marriages.  The Order further held that it is only the
husband or the wife who is (sic) the only parties
 Hence, the instant Petition under Rule 65 of the 1997
allowed to file an action for declaration of nullity of
Rules of Civil Procedure on the sole question of
their marriage and such right is purely personal and is
whether the case law as embodied in Niñal, or the Rule
not transmissible upon the death of the parties.
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, as specified in
 It is admitted that there seems to be a conflict
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC of the Supreme Court applies to
between the case of Niñal vs. Bayadog and Section
the case at bar.
2(a) of the Rule.  In view of this, the Court shall try to
reconcile the case of Niñal vs. Bayadog and the
           At the outset, we note that petitioner took an
Rule.  To reconcile, the Court will have to determine
abbreviated route to this Court, countenancing the
[the] basic rights of the parties.  The rights of the
hierarchy of courts. 
legitimate heirs of a person who entered into a void
marriage will be prejudiced particularly with respect to  We have earlier emphasized that while the Supreme
their successional rights. During the lifetime of the Court has the concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of
parent[,] the heirs have only an inchoate right over the Appeals and the RTCs (for writs enforceable within
property of the said parents.  Hence, during the their respective regions), to issue writs
lifetime of the parent, it would be proper that it should of mandamus,  prohibition or certiorari,  the litigants
solely be the parent who should be allowed to file a are well advised against taking a direct recourse to this
petition to declare his marriage void.  However, upon Court.[20]  Instead, they should initially seek the proper
the death of the parent his heirs have already a vested relief from the lower courts.  As a court of last resort,
right over whatever property left by the parent.  Such this Court should not be burdened with the task of
vested right should not be frustrated by any rules of dealing with causes in the first instance.  Where the
procedure such as the Rule.  Rules of Procedure cannot issuance of an extraordinary writ is concurrently within
repeal rights granted by substantive law.  The heirs, the competence of the Court of Appeals or the RTC,
then, have a legal standing in Court. litigants must observe the principle of hierarchy of
courts.[21]  However, it cannot be gainsaid that this
 If the heirs are prohibited from questioning the void
Court has the discretionary power to brush aside
marriage entered by their parent, especially when the
procedural lapses if compelling reasons, or the nature
marriage is illegal and feloniously entered into, it will
and importance of the issues raised, warrant the
give premium to such union because the guilty parties
immediate exercise of its jurisdiction.[22]  Moreover,
will seldom, if ever at all, ask for the annulment of the
notwithstanding the dismissibility of the instant
marriage.  Such void marriage will be given a
Petition for its failure to observe the doctrine on the
semblance of validity if the heirs will not be allowed to
hierarchy of courts, this Court will proceed to entertain
file the petition after the death of the parent.
the case grounded as it is on a pure question of law.
153 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES
#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 Petitioner maintains that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC prospective in its application. The marriage of
governs the instant case.  A contrario, respondents petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August
posit that it is Niñal which is applicable, whereby the 2004, and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No.
heirs of the deceased person were granted the right to 02-11-10-SC.
file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage after his death.            Hence, in resolving the issue before us, we
resort to Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which
 We grant the Petition. provides:

 In reinstating respondents’ Complaint for Declaration            Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute
of Nullity of Marriage, the RTC acted with grave abuse nullity of void marriages. –
of discretion.
              (a) Who may file. –  A petition for
 While it is true that Niñal in no uncertain terms declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage
allowed therein petitioners to file a petition for the may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.(n)
declaration of nullity of their father’s marriage to (Emphasis supplied.)
therein respondent after the death of their father, we
cannot, however, apply its ruling for the reason that  There is no ambiguity in the Rule.  Absolute sententil
the impugned marriage therein was solemnized prior expositore non indiget.   When the language of the law
to the effectivity of the Family Code.  The Court is clear, no explanation of it is required.  Section 2(a)
in Niñal recognized that the applicable law to of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, makes it the sole right
determine the validity of the two marriages involved of the husband or the wife to file a petition for
therein is the Civil Code, which was the law in effect at declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.
the time of their celebration.[23]  What we have before
 The Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable
us belongs to a different milieu, i.e., the marriage
Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
sought to be declared void was entered into during the
Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders
effectivity of the Family Code.  As can be gleaned from
explicates on Section 2(a) in the following manner, viz:
the facts, petitioner’s marriage to Eulogio was
celebrated in 2004. 
 1.  Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file
petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and
 The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.  Such
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as
petitions cannot be filed by the compulsory or
contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is explicit in its
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the
scope, to wit:
State. [Section 2; Section 3, paragraph a]
 Section 1. Scope. – This Rule shall govern petitions for
 Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and
petition for annulment of voidable marriages or
annulment of voidable marriagesunder the Family
declaration of absolute nullity of void
Code of the Philippines. 
marriages.  Such petition cannot be filed by
 The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.  (Emphasis compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or
supplied.) by the State.  The Committee is of the belief that
they do not have a legal right to file the
 The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC petition.  Compulsory or intestate heirs have only
leaves no room for doubt.  The coverage extends only inchoate rights prior to the death of their
to those marriages entered into during the effectivity predecessor, and hence can only question the
of the Family Code which took effect on 3 August validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the
1988.[24]     death of a spouse in a proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse
 Moreover, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took effect on 15 filed in the regular courts.  On the other hand, the
March 2003, following its publication in a newspaper of concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to
general circulation.   Thus, contrary to the opinion of seek its dissolution.[25] (Emphasis supplied.)
the RTC, there is no need to reconcile the provisions of
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC with the ruling in Niñal, because   Respondents clearly have no cause of action before
they vary in scope and application.  As has been the court a quo.  Nonetheless, all is not lost for
emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages respondents.  While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares
under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void

154 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
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,
as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of
Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional
Orders,   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.

 SO ORDERED.

155 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 the wife. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file
a petition for annulment of voidable marriages
or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.
Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The
Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal
Subject Matter: Non-compliance right to file the petition.Compulsory or intestate heirs
have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their
CARLOS V. SANDOVAL predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity
of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a
Facts: Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate
Carlos were brothers who each have three parcels of of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On
land by virtue of inheritance. Later Teofilo died the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve
intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad marriage and not to seek its dissolution. The Rule
Sandoval and their son, Teofilo Carlos II. Upon extends only to marriages entered into during the
Teofilo’s death, two parcels of land were registered in effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on
the name of Felicidad and Teofilo II. In August 1995, August 3, 1988.
Carlos commenced an action against respondents
before the court a quo. In his complaint, Carlos The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
asserted that the marriage between his late brother Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the
and Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to
the required marriage license. He likewise maintained bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving
that his deceased brother was neither the natural nor spouse. But the Rule never intended to deprive the
the adoptive father of Teofilo Carlos II. He argued that compulsory or intestate heirs of their successional
the properties covered by such certificates of title, rights.
including the sums received by respondents as
proceeds, should be reconveyed to him. While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition
for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be
HELD: The grounds for declaration of absolute filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not
nullity of marriage must be proved. Neither mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are
judgment on the pleadings nor summary without any recourse under the law. They can still
judgment is allowed. So is confession of protect their successional right, for, as stated in the
judgment disallowed. Carlos argues that the CA Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable
should have applied Rule 35 of the Rules of Court Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
governing summary judgment, instead of the rule on Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still
judgment on the pleadings. Petitioner is misguided. question the validity of the marriage of the spouses,
Whether it is based on judgment on the pleadings or not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon
summary judgment, the CA was correct in reversing the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the
the summary judgment rendered by the trial court. settlement of thef estate of the deceased spouse filed
Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and in the regular courts.
summary judgments have no place in cases of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not
annulment of marriage. apply to cases already commenced before March 15,
2003 although the marriage involved is within the
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new
void marriage may be filed solely by the husband Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 is
or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases prospective in its application.
commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case
the effectivity of the Civil Code. Under the Rule on against respondent Felicidad in 1995. The marriage in
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the law would govern depends upon when the marriage
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage took place.
may not be filed by any party outside of the
marriage. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity The marriage having been solemnized prior to the
of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the

156 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its
celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who may
bring an action to declare the marriage void. Does this
mean that any person can bring an action for the
declaration of nullity of marriage?

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

force at the time the respondents were married, or
even in the Family Code, there is no specific provision
as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of
marriage; however, only a party who can
demonstrate “proper interest”  can file the same. A
petition to declare the nullity of marriage, like any
other actions, must be prosecuted or defended  in the
name of the real party-in-interest  and must be based
on a cause of action. Thus, inNiñal v. Badayog,  the
Court held that the children have the personality to file
the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their
deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their
successional rights.

157 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 2003.

Considering that the marriage between A and B was

contracted on December 26, 1949, the applicable law
was the old Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of
the celebration of the marriage. Hence, the rule on the
exclusivity of the parties to the marriage as having the
Subject Matter: Non-compliance right to initiate the action for declaration of nullity of
the marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had
ABLAZA V. REPUBLIC absolutely no application to the petitioner.

FACTS: On October 17, 2000, the petitioner filed in

the RTC Masbate a petition for the declaration of the
absolute nullity of the marriage contracted on
December 26, 1949 between his late brother A and B.

The petitioner alleged that the marriage between A

and B had been celebrated without a marriage license,
due to such license being issued only on January 9,
1950, thereby rendering the marriage void ab initio for
having been solemnized without a marriage license.

ISSUE: Whether a person may bring an action for the

declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage of
his deceased brother solemnized under the regime of
the OLD Civil Code?

RULING: YES. Before anything more, the Court has to

clarify the impact to the issue posed herein of
Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages), which took effect
on March 15, 2003.

Section 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

explicitly provides the limitation that a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
filed solely by the husband or wife. Such limitation
demarcates a line to distinguish between marriages
covered by the Family Code and those solemnized
under the regime of the Civil Code. Specifically, A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC extends only to marriages covered
by the Family Code, which took effect on August 3,
1988, but, being a procedural rule that is prospective
in application, is confined only to proceedings
commenced after March 15, 2003.

Based on Carlos v. Sandoval, the following actions for

declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage are
excepted from the limitation, to wit:

Those commenced before March 15, 2003, the

effectivity date of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and
Those filed vis-à-vis marriages celebrated during the
effectivity of the Civil Code and, those celebrated
under the regime of the Family Code prior to March 15,

158 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 However, this inviolability depends on whether the
marriage exists and is valid. If it is void ab initio, the
“permanence” of the union becomes irrelevant and the
Court can step in to declare it so. Article 36 of the
Family Code is the justification. Where it applies and is
duly proven, a judicial declaration can free the parties
from the rights, obligations, burdens and
Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR consequences stemming from their marriage.
DECLARATION OF NULLITY
A declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of
Sin vs. Sin the Family Code requires the application of procedural
GR No. 137590, March 26, 2001 and substantive guidelines. While compliance with
these requirements mostly devolves upon the
FACTS: petitioner, the State is likewise mandated to actively
Florence, the petitioner, was married with Philipp, a intervene in the procedure. Should there be non-
Portuguese citizen in January 1987.  Florence filed in compliance by the State with its statutory duty, there
September 1994, a complaint for the declaration of is a need to remand the case to the lower court for
nullity of their marriage.  Trial ensued and the parties proper trial.
presented their respective documentary and
testimonial evidence.  In June 1995, trial court FACTS:
dismissed Florence’s petition and throughout its trial, This is a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
the State did not participate in the proceedings.  While due to psychological incapacity.
Fiscal Jabson filed with the trial court a manifestation
dated November 1994 stating that he found no Florence is married to Philipp, a Portuguese citizen.
collusion between the parties, he did not actively Several years after they were married (Jan. 4, 1987 -
participated therein.  Other than having appearance at Sept. 20, 1994), Florence filed a complaint for
certain hearings, nothing more was heard of him. declaration of nullity of marriage. The trial court
dismissed the petition so Florence elevated the case to
ISSUE: Whether the declaration of nullity may be the CA, which affirmed the decision.
declared even with the absence of the participation of
the State in the proceedings. Hence this appeal.

HELD: ISSUE:
Article 48 of the Family Code states that “in all cases of  Whether or not psychological capacity
annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of was adequately proven
marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of HELD:
the state to take steps to prevent collusion between We note that throughout the trial in the lower court,
the parties and to take care that evidence is not the State did not participate in the proceedings.
fabricated or suppressed.  The trial court should have After filing a manifestation in the trial court that he
ordered the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the found on collusion between the parties, the Fiscal did
Solicitor-General to appear as counsel for the state.  not actively participatetherein and neither did the
No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor presiding judge take any step to encourage him to
General issues a certification briefly stating his reasons contribute to the proceedings.
for his agreement or opposition as the case may be, to
the petition.  The records are bereft of an evidence Citing Article 48 of the Civil Code, the Supreme Court
that the State participated in the prosecution of the held that the lack of participation of the State was not
case thus, the case is remanded for proper trial. cured by the fact that the evil sought to be prevented
did not come about when the lower court dismissed
G.R. No. 137590, March 26, 2001 the petition. The task of protecting marriage as an
inviolable social institution requires vigilant and
PRINCIPLE: zealous participation and not mere pro-forma
compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred
The Family Code emphasizes the permanent nature of institution requires not just the defense of a true and
marriage, hailing it as the foundation of the family. It genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as
is this inviolability which is central to our traditional well.
and religious concepts of morality and provides the
very bedrock on which our society finds stability. In Republic of the Philippines vs. Erlinda Matias
Marriage is immutable and when both spouses give Dagdag, while we upheld the validity of the marriage,
their consent to enter it, their consent becomes we nevertheless characterized the decision of the trial
irrevocable, unchanged even by their independent court as “prematurely rendered” since the investigating
wills. prosecutor was not given an opportunity to present
controverting evidence before the judgment was

159 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
rendered. This stresses the importance of the Article 48 of the Family Code and Rule 18, Section 6 of
participation of the State. the 1985 Rules of Court (now Rule 9, Section 3[e] of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
Having so ruled, we decline to rule on the factual
disputes of the case, this being within the province of
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation
the trial court upon proper re-trial.
by default is fraught with the danger of collusion, says
the Court. “Hence, in all cases for annulment,
declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation,
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear
Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing
DECLARATION OF NULLITY any collusion between the parties and to take care that
their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.”
Ancheta vs. Ancheta

“If the defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint,

FACTS:
the court cannot declare him or her in default but
instead, should order the prosecuting attorney to
Petitioner Marietta Ancheta and respondent Rodolfo
determine if collusion exists between the parties. The
Ancheta were married on March 5, 1959 and had eight
prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the
children. After 33 years of marriage the petitioner left
application for legal separation or annulment through
the respondent and their children. Their conjugal
the presentation of his own evidence, if in his opinion,
properties were later separated through a court-
the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated.”
sanctioned compromise agreement where the
petitioner got among others a resort in Cavite. When
Here, the trial court immediately received the evidence
the husband wanted to marry again, he filed before
of the respondent ex-parte and rendered judgment
the Regional Trial Court a petition for the declaration of
against the petitioner “without a whimper of protest
nullity of his marriage with the petitioner on the
from the public prosecutor who even did not challenge
ground of psychological incapacity on June 5, 1995.
the motion to declare petitioner in default.”
Although he knew that the petitioner was already
residing at the resort in Cavite, he alleged in his
The Supreme Court reiterates: “The task of protecting
petition that the petitioner was residing at Las Piñas,
marriage as an inviolable social institution requires
Metro Manila, such that summons never reached her.
vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-
Nevertheless substituted service was rendered to their
forma compliance. The protection of marriage as a
son at his residence in Cavite. Petitioner was then
sacred institution requires not just the defense of a
declared in default for failing to answer the said
true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid
petition. Just over a month after it was filed, the trial
one as well.”
court granted the petition and declared the marriage of
the parties void ab initio.
Petition is GRANTED.

Five years later, petitioner challenged the trial court’s

order declaring as void ab initio her marriage with
respondent Rodolfo, citing extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction over her person, among others. She
alleged that the respondent lied on her real address in
his petition so she never received summons on the
case, hence depriving her of her right to be heard. The
Court of Appeals dismissed her petition so she now
comes to the Supreme Court for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the declaration of nullity of marriage

was valid?

HELD:

NO. The trial court and the public prosecutor defied

160 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 In Republic v CA(Molina), the Supreme Court has
established guidelines involving the nullity of marriage
based on the ground of psychological incapacity. These
were not met in the instant case since the gravity, root
cause and incurability of Catalina's purported
psychological incapacity were not sufficiently
established.

Catalina's behavior of frequent gossiping, leaving the

Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR house without Eduardo's consent, refusal to do
DECLARATION OF NULLITY household chores, and take care of their adopted
daughter were not established. Eduardo presented no
other witness to corroborate these allegations.
Republic v CA and Quintos (G.R. No. 159594)
Also, the RTC and CA heavily relied on Dr. Reyes'
Facts: evaluation despite any factual foundation to support
this claim. The report was vague about the root cause,
Eduardo and Catalina were married in civil rites.
gravity and incurability of the incapacity.Even the
However, the couple were not blessed with a child
testimony of Dr. Reyes stated a general description of
because Catalina had a hysterectomy following her
borderline personality disorder which did not explain
second marriage.
the root cause as to why Catalina  was diagnosed as
Eduardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of such. They did not specify the acts or omissions or the
marriage citing psychological incapacity as a ground. gravity which constituted the disorder. What was
He alleged that Catalina always left the house without established was that Catalina was childish and
his consent; that she engaged in petty arguments with immature.
him; that she constantly refused to give in to his
Furthermore, Dr. Reyes had only one interview with
sexual needs; that she spent most of her time
Catalina. This lacks the depth and objectivity of an
gossiping with neighbors instead of caring for their
expert assessment.
adopted daughter; that she gambled away all his
remittances as an overseas worker; and that she From the scant evidence presented, it can be adduced
abandoned the conjugal home with her paramour. that Catalina's immaturity and apparent refusal to
perform her marital obligations do not constitute
As support to his claim of psychological incapacity, he
psychological incapacity alone. It must be shown that
also presented the results of a neuro-psychiatric
such immature acts were manifestations of a
evaluation conducted by Dr. Annabelle Reyes stating
disordered personality that made the spouse
that Catalina exhibited traits of a borderline personality
completely unable to discharge the essential
disorder that was no longer treatable.
obligations of marriage.
Catalina did not appear during trial but admitted her
psychological incapacity. She denied flirting with
different men and abandoning the conjugal home.

Issue:

Whether or not Catalina was psychologically

incapacitated to fulfill marital duties.

Held:

No. Marriage remains valid.

Psychological incapacity is an incapacity/inability to

take cognizance of and to assume basic marital
obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal or
neglect in the performance of marital obligations.

161 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 (b) Where to file. - The petition shal be filed in
the Family Court.

(c) Imprecriptibility ofaction or defense. - An

Action or defense for the declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriage shall not
prescribe.

(d) What to allege. - A petition under Article 36

of Family Code shall specially allege te
complete facts showing the either or both
parties were psychologically incapacitated from
Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR complying with the essential marital
DECLARATION OF NULLITY obligations of marriages at the time of the
celebration of marriage even if such incapacity
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC March 4, 2003 becomes manifest only after its celebration.

RE: PROPOSED RULE ON DECLARATION OF           The complete facts should allege the physical
ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND manifestations, if any, as are indicative of
ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration
of the marriage but expert opinion need not be
RESOLUTION alleged.

          Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Section 3. Petition for annulment of voidable
Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court marriages. -
submitting for this Court's consideration and approval
the Proposed Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of (a) Who may file. - The following persons may
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, file a petition for annulment of voidable
the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same. marriage based on any of the grounds under
article 45 of the Family Code and within the
          The Rule shall take effect on March 15, 2003 period herein indicated:
following its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation not later than March 7, 2003 (1) The contracting party whose
parent, or guardian, or person
          March 4, 2003 exercising substitute parental authority
did not give his or her consent, within
five years after attaining the age of
Davide, C.J. Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug Mendoza, twenty-one unless, after attaining the
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, age of twenty-one, such party freely
Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr. and cohabitated with the other as husband
Azcuna or wife; or the parent, guardian or
Ynares-Santiago, on leave person having legal charge of the
Corona, on official leave contracting party , at any time before
such party has reached the age of
RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY twenty-one;
OF VOID MARIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF
VOIDABLE MARRIAGES (2) The sane spouse who had no
knowledge of the other's insanity; or
Section 1. Scope - This Rule shall govern petitions for by any relative, guardian, or person
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and having legal charge of the insane, at
annulment of voidable marriages under the Family any time before the death of either
Code of te Philippines. party; or by the insane spouse during
the a lucid interval or after regaining
          The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. sanity, provided that the petitioner ,
after coming to reason, has not freely
cohabited with the other as husband or
Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity
wife;
of void marriages.

(3) The injured party whose consent

(a) Who may file. - A petition for declaration of
was obtained by fraud, within five
absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
years after the discovery of the fraud,
solely by the husband or the wife. (n)
162 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES
#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 provided that said party, with full (3) It must be verified and accompanied
knowledge of the facts constituting the celebration of marriage. (b) Where to file.-The
fraud, has not freely cohabited with the petition shall be filed in the Family Court.
other as husband or wife;
Section 4. Venue. - The petition shall be filed in the
(4) The injured party whose consent Family Court of the province or city where the
was obtained by force, intimidation, or petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at
undue influence, within five years from least six months prior to the date of filing, or in the
the time the force intimidation, or case of a non-resident respondent, where he may be
undue influence disappeared or ceased, found in the Philippines at the election of the
provided that the force, intimidation, or petitioner.
undue influence having disappeared or
ceased, said party has not thereafter Section 5. Contents and form of petition. - (1) The
freely cohabited with the other as petition shall allege the complete facts constituting the
husband or wife; cause of action.

(5) The injured party where the other (2) it shall state the names and ages of the
spouse is physically incapable of common children of the parties and specify the
consummating the marriage with the regime governing their property relations, as
other and such incapability continues well as the properties involved.
and appears to be incurable, within five
years after the celebration of marriage;
          If there is no adequate provision in a
and
written agreement between the parties, the
petitioner may apply for a provisional order for
(6) Te injured party where the other spousal support, custody and support of
party was afflicted with a sexually- common children, visitation rights,
transmissible disease found to be administration of community or conjugal
serious and appears to be incurable, property, and other matters similarly requiring
within five years after the celebration urgent action.
of marriage.
(3) it must be verified and accompanied by a
(b) Where to file. - The petition shall be filed in certification against forum shopping. The
the Family Court. verification and certification must be signed
personally by me petitioner. No petition may
Section 4. Venue. - The Petition shall be filed in the be filed solely by counsel or through an
Family Court of the province or city where the attorney-in-fact.
petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at
least six months prior to the date of filing. Or in the           If the petitioner is in a foreign country,
case of non-resident respondent, where he may be the verification and certification against forum
found in the Philippines, at the election of the shopping shall be authenticated by the duly
petitioner. authorized officer of the Philippine embassy or
legation, consul general, consul or vice-consul
Section 5. Contents and form of petition. - (1) The or consular agent in said country.
petition shall allege the complete facts constituting the
cause of action. (4) it shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner
shall serve a copy of the petition on the Office
(2) It shall state the names and ages of the of the Solicitor General and the Office of the
common children of the parties and specify the City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five days
regime governing their property relations, as from the date of its filing and submit to the
well as the properties involved. court proof of such service within the same
period.
          If there is no adequate provision in a
written agreement between the parties, the           Failure to comply with any of the
petitioner may apply for a provisional order for preceding requirements may be a ground for
spousal support, the custody and support of immediate dismissal of the petition.
common children, visitation rights,
administration of community or conjugal Section 6. Summons. - The service of summons shall
property, and other matters similarly be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and by
requiringurgent action. the following rules:

163 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 (1) Where the respondent cannot be located at (3) If the public prosecutor reports that no
his given address or his whereabouts are collusion exists, the court shall set the case for
unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent pre-trial. It shall be the duty of the public
inquiry, service of summons may, by leave of prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-
court, be effected upon him by publication trial.
once a week for two consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Section 10. Social worker. - The court may require a
Philippines and in such places as the court may social worker to conduct a case study and submit the
order In addition, a copy of the summons shall corresponding report at least three days before the
be served on the respondent at his last known pre-trial. The court may also require a case study at
address by registered mail or any other means any stage of the case whenever necessary.
the court may deem sufficient.
Section 11. Pre-trial. -
(2) The summons to be published shall be
contained in an order of the court with the
(1) Pre-trial mandatory. - A pre-trial is
following data: (a) title of the case; (b) docket
mandatory. On motion or motu proprio, the
number; (c) nature of the petition; (d)
court shall set the pre-trial after the last
principal grounds of the petition and the reliefs
pleading has been served and filed, or upon
prayed for; and (e) a directive for the
receipt of the report of the public prosecutor
respondent to answer within thirty days from
that no collusion exists between the parties.
the last issue of publication.

(2) Notice of pre-trial. - (a) The notice of pre-

Section 7. Motion to dismiss. - No motion to dismiss
trial shall contain:
the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the
parties; provided, however, that any other ground that (1) the date of pre-trial
might warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as conference; and
an affirmative defense in an answer.
(2) an order directing the
Section 8. Answer. - (1) The respondent shall file his parties to file and serve their
answer within fifteen days from service of summons, respective pre-trial briefs in
or within thirty days from the last issue of publication such manner as shall ensure
in case of service of summons by publication. The the receipt thereof by the
answer must be verified by the respondent himself and adverse party at least three
not by counsel or attorney-in-fact. days before the date of pre-
trial.
(2) If the respondent fails to file an answer,
the court shall not declare him or her in (b) The notice shall be served
default. separately on the parties and their
respective counsels as well as on the
public prosecutor. It shall be their duty
(3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer
to appear personally at the pre-trial.
does not tender an issue, the court shall order
the public prosecutor to investigate whether
collusion exists between the parties. (c) Notice of pre-trial shall be sent to
the respondent even if he fails to file
an answer. In case of summons by
Section 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor. -
publication and the respondent failed
(1) Within one month after receipt of the court order
to file his answer, notice of pre-trial
mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the
shall be sent to respondent at his last
public prosecutor shall submit a report to the court
known address.
stating whether the parties are in collusion and serve
copies thereof on the parties and their respective
counsels, if any. Section 12. Contents of pre-trial brief. - The pre-trial
brief shall contain the following:
(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion
exists, he shall state the on the finding of (a) A statement of the willingness of the
collusion within ten days from receipt of a copy parties to enter into agreements as may be
of a report The court shall set the report for allowed by law, indicating the desired terms
hearing and If convinced that the parties are in thereof;
collusion, it shall dismiss the petition.

164 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 (b) A concise statement of their respective testimony and such other makers as may aid
claims together with the applicable laws and in the prompt disposition of the petition.
authorities;
Section 15. Pre-trial order. - {a) The proceedings in
(c) Admitted facts and proposed stipulations of the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon termination of the
facts, as well as the disputed factual and legal pre-trial, the court shall Issue a pre-trial order which
issues; shall recite in detail the matters taken up In the
conference, the action taken thereon, the amendments
(d) All the evidence to be presented, including allowed on the pleadings, and except as to the ground
expert opinion, if any, briefly stating or of declaration of nullity or annulment, the agreements
describing the nature and purpose thereof; or admissions made by the parties on any of the
matters considered, including any provisional order
that may be necessary or agreed upon by the parties.
(e) The number and names of the witnesses
and their respective affidavits; and
(b) Should the action proceed to trial, the
order shall contain a recital of the following;
(f) Such other matters as the court may
require.
(1) Facts undisputed, admitted, and
those which need not be proved
          Failure to file the pre-trial brief or to comply
subject to Section 16 of this Rule;
with its required contents shall have the same effect as
failure to appear at the pre-trial under the succeeding
paragraphs. (2) Factual and legal issues to be
litigated;
Section 13. Effect of failure to appear at the pre-
trial. - {a) If the petitioner fails to appear personally, (3) Evidence, including objects and
the case shall be dismissed unless his counsel or a duly documents, that have been marked
authorized representative appears in court and proves and will be presented;
a valid excuse for the non-appearance of the
petitioner. (4) Names of witnesses who will be
presented and their testimonies in the
(b) If the respondent has filed his answer but form of affidavits; and
fails to appear, the court shall proceed with the
pre-trial and require the public prosecutor to (5) Schedule of the presentation of
investigate the non-appearance of the evidence.
respondent and submit within fifteen days
thereafter a report to the court stating whether (c) The pre-trial order shall also contain a
his non-appearance is due to any collusion directive to the public prosecutor to appear for
between the parties. If there Is no collusion, the State and take steps to prevent collusion
the court shall require the public prosecutor to between the parties at any stage of the
intervene for the State during the trial on the proceedings and fabrication or suppression of
merits to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence during the trial on the merits.
evidence.
(d) The parlies shall not be allowed to raise
Section 14. Pre-trial conference. -At the pre-trial issues or present witnesses and evidence other
conference, the court: than those stated in the pre-trial order.

(a) May refer the issues to a mediator who The order shall control the trial of the case,
shall assist the parties in reaching an unless modified by the court to prevent
agreement on matters not prohibited by law. manifest injustice.

          The mediator shall render a report (e) The parties shall have five days from
within one month from referral which, for good receipt of the pre-trial order to propose
reasons, the court may extend for a period not corrections or modifications.
exceeding one month.
Section 16. Prohibited compromise. - The court-shall
(b) In case mediation is not availed of or not allow compromise on prohibited matters, such as
where it fails, the court shall proceed with the the following:
pre-trial conference, on which occasion it shall
consider the advisability of receiving expert
(a) The civil status of persons;

165 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 (b) The validity of a marriage or of a legal as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation,
separation; Partition and Distribution of Properties.

(c) Any ground for legal separation; (2) The parties, including the Solicitor General
and the public prosecutor, shall be served with
(d) Future support; copies of the decision personally or by
registered mail. If the respondent summoned
by publication failed to appear in the action,
(e) The jurisdiction of courts; and
the dispositive part of the decision shall be
published once in a newspaper of general
(f) Future legitime. circulation.

Section 17. Trial. - (1) The presiding judge shall (3) The decision becomes final upon the
personally conduct the trial of the case. No delegation expiration of fifteen days from notice to the
of the reception of evidence to a commissioner shall be parties. Entry of judgment shall be made if no
allowed except as to matters involving property motion for reconsideration or new trial, or
relations of the spouses. appeal Is filed by any of the parties the public
prosecutor, or the Solicitor General.
(2) The grounds for declaration of absolute
nullity or annulment of marriage must be (4) Upon the finality of the decision, the court
proved. No judgment on the pleadings, shall forthwith issue the corresponding decree
summary judgment, or confession of judgment if the parties have no properties.
shall be allowed.
          If the parties have properties, the court shall
(3) The court may order the exclusion from the observe the procedure prescribed in Section 21 of this
courtroom of all persons, including members of Rule.
the press, who do not have a direct interest in
the case. Such an order may be made if the
          The entry of judgment shall be registered in the
court determines on the record that requiring a
Civil Registry where the marriage was recorded and In
party to testify in open court would not
the Civil Registry where the Family Court'granting the
enhance the ascertainment of truth; would
petition for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment
cause to the party psychological harm or
of marriage is located.
inability to effectively communicate due to
embarrassment, fear, or timidity; would violate
the right of a party to privacy; or would be Section 20. Appeal. -
offensive to decency or public morals.
(1) Pre-condition. - No appeal from the
(4) No copy shall be taken nor any decision shall be allowed unless the appellant
examination or perusal of the records of the has filed a motion for reconsideration or new
case or parts thereof be made by any person trial within fifteen days from notice of
other than a party or counsel of a party, judgment.
except by order of the court.
(2) Notice of appeal. - An aggrieved party or
Section 18. Memoranda. - The court may require the the Solicitor General may appeal from the
parties and the public prosecutor, in consultation with decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within
the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion
respective memoranda support of their claims within for reconsideration or new trial. The appellant
fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated. It shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on
may require the Office of the Solicitor General to file its the adverse parties.
own memorandum if the case is of significant interest
to the State. No other pleadings or papers may be Section 21. Liquidation, partition and distribution,
submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of the custody, support of common children and delivery of
period herein provided, the case will be considered their presumptive iegltimes. - Upon entry of the
submitted for decision, with or without the judgment granting the petition, or, in case of appeal,
memoranda. upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate
court granting the petition, the Family Court, on
Section 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a motion of either party, shall proceed with the
decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties
that the decree of absolute nullity or decree of of the spouses, including custody, support of common
annulment shall be issued by the court only after children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes
compliance with Article 50 and 51 of the Family Code pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code

166 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous dies at any stage of the proceedings before the entry
judicial proceedings. of judgment, the court shall order the case closed and
terminated, without prejudice to the settlement of the
Section 22. Issuance of Decree of Declaration of estate in proper proceedings in the regular courts.
Absolute Nullity or Annulment of Marriage." (a) The
court shall issue the Decree after; (b) If the party dies after the entry of
judgment of nullity or annulment, the
(1) Registration of the entry of judgment shall be binding upon the parties and
judgment granting the petition for their successors in interest in the settlement of
declaration of nullity or annulment of the estate in the regular courts.
marriage in the Civil Registry where
the marriage was celebrated and in the Section 25. Effectlvity. - This Rule shall take effect on
Civil Registry of the place where the March 15, 2003 following its publication in a
Family Court is located; newspaper of general circulation not later than March
7, 2003.
(2) Registration of the approved
partition and distribution of the
properties of the spouses, in the proper
Register of Deeds where the real
properties are located; and

(3) The delivery of the children's

presumptive legitimes in cash,
property, or sound securities.

(b) The court shall quote in the Decree the

dispositive portion of the judgment entered
and attach to the Decree the approved deed of
partition.

          Except in the case of children under Articles 36

and 53 of the Family Code, the court shall order the
Local Civil Registrar to issue an amended birth
certificate indicating the new civil status of the children
affected.

Section 23. Registration and publication of the

decree; decree as best evidence. - (a) The prevailing
party shall cause the registration of the Decree in the
Civil Registry where the marriage was registered, the
Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is
situated, and in the National Census and Statistics
Office. He shall report td the court compliance with this
requirement within thirty days from receipt of the copy
of the Decree.

(b) In case service of summons was made by

publication, the parties shall cause the
publication of the Decree once in a newspaper
of general circulation.

(c) The registered Decree shall be the best

evidence to prove the declaration of absolute
nullity or annulment of marriage and shall
serve as notice to third persons concerning the
properties of petitioner and respondent as well
as the properties or presumptive legitimes
delivered to their common children.

Section 24. Effect of death of a party; duty of the

Family Court or Appellate Court. - (a) In case a party
167 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES
#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 resulting in the premature birth of their first child, who
died three days later.

In his answer, defendant also assailed the validity of

the marriage. But he charged plaintiffs' parents with
having compelled him by force, threat and
intimidation, to contract that marriage with her,
notwithstanding their knowledge that he is a married
man; and that said threat and intimidation allegedly
persisted until January, 1963 when he was finally able
to get away and live apart from the plaintiff.

Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for summary

judgment, on the ground that no genuine issue of fact
is involved in the case. It was claimed that defendant's
contention, that his consent to the marriage was
secured by force and intimidation employed upon his
person by the relatives of plaintiff, was allegedly
supported by the joint affidavit of plaintiff's father and
brother, dated October 28, 1963, attached to the
motion (pp. 22-32, Record on Appeal). Plaintiff, on the
other hand, submitted the case for judgment on the
pleadings.

On December 23, 1963, defendant's motion for

summary judgment was denied, the court ruling that
Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR before it can pass upon plaintiff's prayer for the
DECLARATION OF NULLITY (A.M. No. 02-11-10- declaration of nullity of her marriage to defendant,
SC) there is necessity for proof that when he contracted
marriage with plaintiff, defendant Robles had a
JOCSON V. ROBLES [22 S 521 (1968)] previous and subsisting valid marriage. The evidentiary
requirement to establish these facts, according to the
court, was not met in the motion for summary
- Where the second wife filed an action for annulment,
judgment. Defendant's plea to have his marriage
and the husband also assailed the validity of the
declared as having been brought about by force and
marriage claiming he was coerced to marry her by her
intimidation, was also denied, the court finding
parents and brothers, and filed a motion for summary
indications of collusion between the parties in their
judgment supported by affidavits of the plaintiff's
attempt to secure the nullification of said marriage.
father and brothers to this effect, and the plaintiff also
Reconsideration of this order, sought by defendant,
submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings, the
was denied on January 18, 1964. And, when both
court correctly denied the motion for summary
parties failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on
judgment in view of provisions of the Civil Code
March 9, 1964, the court directed the dismissal of the
expressly prohibiting the rendition of a decree of
action.
annulment of marriage upon a stipulation of facts or a
confession of judgment. The affidavits of the wife's
father and brothers practically amounts to these On April 17, 1964, defendant notified the court below
methods not countenanced by the Civil Code. of his intention to appeal to this Court from the
abovementioned orders of December 23, 1963,
January 18, 1964, and March 9, 1964. The appeal
On February 4, 1963, Gloria G. Jocson commenced in
bond and amended record on appeal, dated April 15,
the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court an action for
1964, were thereafter approved.
the annulment of her marriage to Ricardo R. Robles
(Civ. Case No. E-00013), on the ground that it was
bigamous. It was alleged in the amended complaint It is noted that, as specified in the notice of appeal,
that previous to his marriage to plaintiff on May 27, defendant is taking exception from the lower court's
1958, defendant Robles had contracted a first marriage orders of December 23, 1963, January 18, 1964, and
with Josefina Fausto, who had instituted a criminal March 9, 1964; however, there is no indication or
action for Bigamy against the same defendant in the certification or proof that the filing of the appeal
Court of First Instance of Manila (Crim. Case No. notice, bond and record on appeal on April 17, 1964
64124). Plaintiff also demanded from the defendant were made within the reglementary period, as required
moral and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, and by the provisions of Section 6, Revised Rule 41 of the
costs, claiming that during their cohabitation, she was Rules of Court. Thereunder, the record on appeal must
subjected to physical maltreatment by her husband, contain, not only the full names of all the parties to the
proceeding, as well as the pleadings, petitions, motions

168 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
and orders related to the order or judgment subject of discovered that she is residing in San Francisco, Cebu.
the appeal and which are necessary for the proper Said marriage was solemnized by Quezon City Judge
understanding of the issue involved therein, but also Mariano R. Virtucio on September 28, 1959. Said case
"such data as will show that the appeal was perfected was docketed as Civil Case No, 43347 of the Juvenile
on time." This requirement, incorporated in the new and Domestic Relations Court of Manila.
Rules of Court to enable the appellate courts to
determine without protracted inquiry whether an Despite the fact that she was served with summons
appeal was timely made or not, was held to be and copy of the complaint, Helen failed to file a
jurisdictional, failure to comply with which shall cause responsive pleading, for which reason petitioner filed
the dismissal of the appeal.[[1]] There is here no on June 13, 1962 a motion to declare her in default
showing that the present appeal was perfected within and to set the date for the presentation of his
the reglementary period, which datum should have evidence.
appeared in the record on appeal.
In an order dated June 28, 1962, respondent Judge
On the merits, we are satisfied that the Court of declared private respondent in default, but, pursuant
Domestic Relations correctly denied the motion for to the provision of Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code
summary judgment in view of the first paragraph of of the Philippines, referred the case to the City Fiscal of
Articles 88 and 1011 of the Civil Code of the Manila for investigation to determine whether collusion
Philippines, that expressly prohibit the rendition of a exists between the parties, directing the City Fiscal to
decree of annulment of a marriage upon a stipulation submit his report within sixty (60) days from receipt
of facts or a confession of judgment. The affidavits thereof, and, in the event of a negative finding, to
annexed to the petition for summary judgment represent the State at the trial of the case to prevent
practically amount to these methods not countenanced fabrication of evidence; and likewise directed herein
by the Civil Code. petitioner to furnish the City Fiscal with copies of the
complaint and such other documents necessary for the
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, this proceeding is City Fiscal's information and guidance.
hereby dismissed.
On July 3, 1962, thru counsel, petitioner submitted to
the City Fiscal only a copy of his complaint.

Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR Assistant City Fiscal Rafael A. Jose, assigned to the
DECLARATION OF NULLITY (A.M. No. 02-11-10- case, issued a subpoena to petitioner's counsel
SC) requiring him to bring petitioner with him as well as
copies of other documents in connection with the
TOLENTINO V. VILLANUEVA [56 S 1 (1974)] annulment case on August 27, 1962 at 10:00 A.M.

Where the husband filed a case for annulment on the Plaintiff's counsel, in a letter dated August 24, 1962,
ground of concealment of pregnancy, and the wife informed Assistant City Fiscal Jose that he could not
failed to file a responsive pleading, the court referred comply with the subpoena for it will unnecessarily
the case to the fiscal for investigation. However, the expose his evidence.
husband refused to show his evidence nor be
interrogated by the fiscal, hence, the court correctly In a motion dated and filed on October 29, 1962,
dismissed the complaint for annulment. The petitioner, thru counsel, prayed the respondent Judge
investigation of the fiscal is a prerequisite to the to set the date for the reception of his evidence on the
annulment of marriage where defendant has defaulted. ground that the City Fiscal had not submitted a report
of his findings despite the lapse of sixty (60) days from
July 10, 1962 when he submitted to the City Fiscal a
Petitioner prays for the nullification of the order dated
copy of the complaint.
July 29, 1963 of the respondent Judge of the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court of Manila.
On November 6, 1962, respondent Judge denied the
aforesaid motion of petitioner unless he submits
On April 26, 1962, petitioner Romulo Tolentino filed a
himself for interrogation by the City Fiscal to enable
suit for annulment of his marriage to private
the latter to report whether or not there is collusion
respondent Helen Villanueva, alleging that his consent
between the parties.
was obtained through fraud because immediately after
the marriage celebration, he discovered that private
respondent was pregnant despite the fact that he had In an order dated July 29, 1963, respondent Judge
no sexual relations with her prior to the marriage dismissed the complaint in view of the fact that
ceremony; and that they did not live as husband and petitioner is not willing to submit himself for
wife as immediately after the marriage celebration, interrogation by the City Fiscal pursuant to the
Helen Villanueva left his house and her whereabouts provisions of the second paragraph of Article 101 of
remained unknown to him until January, 1962 when he the New Civil Code.

169 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
His motions for the reconsideration of the aforesaid prosecuting officer to intervene for the State in order
order having been denied on July 29, 1963 and on to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the marital
April 11, 1964, petitioner now files his petition to annul bonds (De Ocampo vs. Florenciano, 107 Phil. 35, 38-
said order of July 29, 1963 and to compel the 40; Brown vs. Yambao, 102 Phil. 168, 172; Bigornia de
respondent Judge to receive his evidence. Cardenas vs. Cardenas, et al., 98 Phil. 73, 78-79;
Roque vs. Encarnacion, et al., 95 Phil. 643, 646).
Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
expressly prohibit the rendition of a decision in suits Hence, the inevitable conclusion is that the petition is
for annulment of marriage and legal separation based without merit.
on a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment
and direct that in case of non-appearance of WHEREFORE, THE ORDER DATED JULY 29, 1963 IS
defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE PETITION IS HEREBY
attorney to inquire whether or not collusion between DISMISSED. WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER.
the parties exists, and if none, said prosecuting
attorney shall intervene for the State to prevent
fabrication of evidence for the plaintiff. Thus, Articles
88 and 101 state:

ART. 88. No judgment annulling a marriage shall be

promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by
confession of judgment.

In case of non-appearance of the defendant, the

provisions of article 101, paragraph 2, shall be
observed.

ART. 101. No decree of legal separation shall be

promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by
confession of judgment.

In case of non-appearance of the defendant, the court

shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether
or not a collusion between the parties exists. If there is
no collusion, the prosecuting attorney shall intervene
for the State in order to take care that the evidence for
the plaintiff is not fabricated.

Even the 1940 Rules of Court, which preceded the

1950 Civil Code of the Philippines, direct that actions
for the annulment of marriage or divorce shall not be
decided unless the material facts alleged in the
complaint are proved (Sec. 10, Rule 35, 1940 Rules of
Court). The same rule is reiterated in Section 1 of Rule
19 of the 1964 Revised Rules, with "legal separation"
being substituted for "divorce", obviously because the
present Civil Code does not authorize absolute divorce.

The prohibition expressed in the aforesaid laws and

rules is predicated on the fact that the institutions of
marriage and of the family are sacred and therefore
are as much the concern of the State as of the
spouses; because the State and the public have vital
interest in the maintenance and preservation of these
social institutions against desecration by collusion
between the parties or by fabricated evidence. The
prohibition against annulling a marriage based on the
stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment or by
non-appearance of the defendant stresses the fact that
marriage is more than a mere contract between the
parties; and for this reason, when the defendant fails
to appear, the law enjoins the court to direct the

170 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 suicide. She and her family immediately left the house
to live in another place concealed from him. On August
5, 1998, petitioner filed in the RTC her petition for the
declaration of the nullity of her marriage with Dominic
based on his psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code. The RTC found that all the
characteristics of psychological incapacity which are
gravity, antecedence and incurability, were attendant,
establishing Dominic’s psychological incapacity. The
Republic appealed to the CA, arguing that there was no
showing that Dominic’s personality traits either
constituted psychological incapacity existing at the
time of the marriage or were of the nature
contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code; that
the testimony of the expert witness was not conclusive
upon the court, and that the real reason for the
parties’ separation had been their frequent quarrels
over financial matters and the criminal cases brought
against Dominic. CA reversed the decision of RTC.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N psychological incapacity of Dominic was

established

HELD: No. Findings of Dr. Samson were one-sided,

because Dominic was not himself subjected to an
actual psychiatric evaluation by petitioner’s expert. He
also did not participate in the proceedings. And that
the findings and conclusions on his psychological
Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR profile by her expert were solely based the testimonies
DECLARATION OF NULLITY (Participation of OSG) of the petitioner

MERCADO VS. REPUBLIC. (DI KO MAKITA YUNG

ORIGINAL. KALOKA!)

Facts:

Arabelle and Dominic Mendoza got married while

Arabelle was eight months pregnant. They lived
together but depended on their parents for financial
support. Arabelle had different jobs to support the
needs of the family. When Dominic got employed for
Toyota in Bel-Air Makati in 1994, he spent his first
salary celebrating with his friends. September of the
same year, Arabelle found out of Dominic’s illicit
relationship with Zaida, his co-employee.
Communication between them became rare and they
started sleeping in separate rooms. In November
1995, Dominic gave her a car as a birthday present
only to find out that he did not pay for it, forcing her to
rely on her father-in-law for the payment of the car.
Dominic eventually got fired from his job because of he
ran away with P164,000 belonging to his employer. He
was charged with estafa. Petitioner also found out that
he swindled many of his clients some of them
threatening her and their family. On October 15, 1997,
Dominic abandoned the conjugal abode because
petitioner asked him for “time and space to think
things over.” A month later, she refused his attempt at
reconciliation, causing him to threaten to commit
171 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES
#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 and contrition. He refused to assist in
the maintenance of the family.

On the side of the wife on the other hand, is effusive

and displays her feelings openly and freely. Her
feelings change very quickly – from joy to fury to
misery to despair, depending on her day-to-day
experiences. Her tolerance for boredom was very low.
She was emotionally immature; she cannot stand
frustration or disappointment. She cannot delay to
gratify her needs. She gets upset when she cannot get
what she wants. Self-indulgence lifts her spirits
immensely. Their hostility towards each other distorted
their relationship. Their incapacity to accept and fulfill
the essential obligations of marital life led to the
breakdown of their marriage.

On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to

Dismiss the petition. Petitioner principally argued that
the petition failed to state a cause of action and that it
failed to meet the standards set by the Court for the
interpretation and implementation of Article 36 of the
Family Code.

RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and

void?
Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR
DECLARATION OF NULLITY (NO MOTION TO HELD:
DISMISS)
Petition denied. Marriage is null and void.
AURELIO V. AURELIO
RATIO:
FACTS:
First, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, this Court finds
Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. that the root cause of psychological incapacity
Corazon Aurelio were married on March 23, 1988. was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree
They have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and Danilo with the manifestation of respondent that the family
Gabriel. backgrounds of both petitioner and respondent were
discussed in the complaint as the root causes of their
psychological incapacity. Moreover, a competent and
On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional
expert psychologist clinically identified the same as the
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, a Petition
root causes.
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In her petition,
respondent alleged that both she and petitioner were
psychologically incapacitated of performing and Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of
complying with their respective essential marital both parties was of such grave a nature as to bring
obligations. In addition, respondent alleged that such about a disability for them to assume the essential
state of psychological incapacity was present prior and obligations of marriage. The psychologist reported that
even during the time of the marriage ceremony. respondent suffers from Histrionic Personality
Hence, respondent prays that her marriage be Disorder with Narcissistic Features. Petitioner, on the
declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family other hand, allegedly suffers from Passive Aggressive
Code. It alleged among others that said psychological (Negativistic) Personality Disorder. The incapacity of
incapacity was manifested by lack of financial support both parties to perform their marital obligations was
from the husband; his lack of drive and incapacity to alleged to be grave, incorrigible and incurable.
discern the plight of his working wife. The husband
exhibited consistent jealousy and distrust towards his Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital
wife. His moods alternated between hostile defiance obligations that were not complied with were alleged in

172 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality evidence to warrant the grant of the relief he is
of the petition, respondent’s allegations fall under seeking."3 The appeal filed with the Court of Appeals
Article 68 of the Family Code which states that “the was likewise dismissed in a resolution4 dated June 11,
husband and the wife are obliged to live together, 1998 for failure of petitioner to pay the docket and
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
other lawful fees within the reglementary period.
mutual help and support.”

After the decision in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95

attained finality, petitioner filed on July 12, 1999
another petition5for declaration of nullity of marriage
with the RTC of San Pablo City, this time alleging that
his marriage with respondent was null and void due to
the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage
license. For her part, respondent filed an answer with
a motion to dismiss6 dated August 13, 1999, praying
for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of res
judicata and forum shopping.

In an order7 dated October 8, 1999, the RTC granted

respondent’s motion to dismiss, the dispositive portion
of which reads:

WHEREFORE, for Forum Shopping and

Multiplicity of Suits, the Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.8

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also

denied in an order9 dated January 21, 2000.

Subject Matter: PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS FOR Hence, this petition which alleges, as follows:
DECLARATION OF NULLITY (EFFECTS OF RES
JUDICATA) A. IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION
FOR THE DECLARATION OF HIS
MALLION V. ALCANTARA MARRIAGE AS NULL AND VOID AB
INITIO FOR LACK OF THE REQUISITE
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule MARRIAGE LICENSE BECAUSE OF (THE)
45 of the Rules of Court raising a question of law: DISMISSAL OF AN EARLIER PETITION FOR
Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE SAME
declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF HIS
incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of WIFE’S PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license? UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY
CODE, THE TRIAL COURT HAD DECIDED A
The facts are not disputed: QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE WHICH HAS
PROBABLY NOT HERETOFORE BEEN
DETERMINED SQUARELY AND
On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar P. Mallion filed
DEFINITIVELY BY THIS COURT, OR HAD
a petition1 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
DECIDED IT IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD
29, of San Pablo City seeking a declaration of nullity
WITH LAW.
of his marriage to respondent Editha Alcantara under
Article 36 of Executive Order No. 209, as amended,
otherwise known as the Family Code, citing B. IN DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION
respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity. The FOR THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF
case was docketed as Civil Case No. SP 4341-95. HIS MARRIAGE FOR LACK OF THE
After trial on the merits, the RTC denied the petition in REQUISITE MARRIAGE LICENSE, THE
a decision2 dated November 11, 1997 upon the TRIAL COURT HAD CONFUSED,
finding that petitioner "failed to adduce preponderant DISTORTED AND MISAPPLIED THE

173 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND CONCEPTS final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of
ON RES JUDICATA, SPLITTING OF A competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
CAUSE OF ACTION AND FORUM parties or their privies in all later suits on points and
SHOPPING.10 matters determined in the former suit."11

Petitioner argues that while the relief prayed for in the This doctrine is a rule which pervades every well-
two cases was the same, that is, the declaration of regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded
nullity of his marriage to respondent, the cause of upon the following precepts of common law, namely:
action in the earlier case was distinct and separate (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the
from the cause of action in the present case because interest of the State that there should be an end to
the operative facts upon which they were based as litigation, and (2) the hardship on the individual that
well as the evidence required to sustain either were he should be vexed twice for the same cause. A
different. Because there is no identity as to the cause contrary doctrine would subject the public peace and
of action, petitioner claims that res judicata does not quiet to the will and neglect of individuals and prefer
lie to bar the second petition. In this connection, the gratification of the litigious disposition on the part
petitioner maintains that there was no violation of the of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility
rule on forum shopping or of the rule which proscribes and happiness.12
the splitting of a cause of action.
In this jurisdiction, the concept of res judicata is
On the other hand, respondent, in her comment dated embodied in Section 47 (b) and (c) of Rule 39 of the
May 26, 2000, counters that while the present suit is Rules of Court, thus:
anchored on a different ground, it still involves the
same issue raised in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95, that SEC. 47. Effect of judgments or final orders.
is, the validity of petitioner and respondent’s marriage, — The effect of a judgment or final order
and prays for the same remedy, that is, the rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
declaration of nullity of their marriage. Respondent jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final
thus contends that petitioner violated the rule on order, may be as follows:
forum shopping. Moreover, respondent asserts that
petitioner violated the rule on multiplicity of suits as (a) In case of a judgment or final order against
the ground he cites in this petition could have been a specific thing or in respect to the probate of
raised during the trial in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95. a will, or the administration of the estate of a
deceased person, or in respect to the
The petition lacks merit. personal, political, or legal condition or status
of a particular person or his relationship to
The issue before this Court is one of first impression. another, the judgment or final order is
Should the matter of the invalidity of a marriage due conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will
to the absence of an essential requisite prescribed by or administration, or the condition, status or
Article 4 of the Family Code be raised in the same relationship of the person; however, the
proceeding where the marriage is being impugned on probate of a will or granting of letters of
the ground of a party’s psychological incapacity under administration shall only be prima
Article 36 of the Family Code? facie evidence of the death of the testator or
intestate;
Petitioner insists that because the action for
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of (b) In other cases, the judgment or final
psychological incapacity and the action for declaration order is, with respect to the matter directly
of nullity of marriage on the ground of absence of adjudged or as to any other matter that
marriage license constitute separate causes of action, could have been raised in relation thereto,
the present case would not fall under the prohibition conclusive between the parties and their
against splitting a single cause of action nor would it successors in interest by title subsequent
be barred by the principle of res judicata. to the commencement of the action or
special proceeding, litigating for the same
The contention is untenable. thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity; and,
Res judicata is defined as "a matter adjudged; a thing
judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter (c) In any other litigation between the same
settled by judgment. It also refers to the rule that a parties or their successors in interest, that

174 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 only is deemed to have been adjudged in a declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent.
former judgment or final order which What differs is the ground upon which the cause of
appears upon its face to have been so action is predicated. These grounds cited by petitioner
adjudged, or which was actually and essentially split the various aspects of the pivotal
necessarily included therein or necessary issue that holds the key to the resolution of this
thereto. controversy, that is, the actual status of petitioner and
respondent’s marriage.
The above provision outlines the dual aspect of res
judicata.13 Section 47 (b) pertains to it in its concept as Furthermore, the instant case is premised on the
"bar by prior judgment" or "estoppel by verdict," which claim that the marriage is null and void because no
is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution valid celebration of the same took place due to the
of a second action upon the same claim, demand alleged lack of a marriage license. In Civil Case No.
or cause of action. On the other hand, Section 47 (c) SP 4341-95, however, petitioner impliedly conceded
pertains tores judicata in its concept as that the marriage had been solemnized and
"conclusiveness of judgment" or otherwise known as celebrated in accordance with law. Petitioner is now
the rule of auter action pendantwhich ordains that bound by this admission. The alleged absence of a
issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit marriage license which petitioner raises now could
cannot again be raised in any future case between have been presented and heard in the earlier case.
the same parties involving a different cause of Suffice it to state that parties are bound not only as
action.14 Res judicata in its concept as a bar by prior regards every matter offered and received to sustain
judgment obtains in the present case. or defeat their claims or demand but as to any other
admissible matter which might have been offered for
Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrence of that purpose and of all other matters that could have
the following requisites: (1) the former judgment been adjudged in that case.18
is final; (2) it is rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the It must be emphasized that a party cannot evade or
parties; (3) it is a judgment or an orderon the merits; avoid the application of res judicata by simply varying
and (4) there is -- between the first and the second the form of his action or adopting a different method
actions -- identity of parties, of subject matter, and of of presenting his case. 19 As this Court stated in Perez
causes of action.15 v. Court of Appeals:20

Petitioner does not dispute the existence of the first x x x the statement of a different form of
three requisites. What is in issue is the presence of liability is not a different cause of action,
the fourth requisite. In this regard, the test to provided it grows out of the same transaction
determine whether the causes of action are identical or act and seeks redress for the wrong. Two
is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain actions are not necessarily for different
both actions, or whether there is an identity in the causes of action simply because the theory of
facts essential to the maintenance of the two actions. the second would not have been open under
If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the the pleadings in the first. A party cannot
two actions are considered the same, and a judgment preserve the right to bring a second action
in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action. 16 after the loss of the first merely by having
circumscribed and limited theories of recovery
Based on this test, petitioner would contend that the opened by the pleadings in the first.
two petitions brought by him seeking the declaration
of nullity of his marriage are anchored on separate It bears stressing that a party cannot divide
causes of action for the evidence necessary to the grounds for recovery. A plaintiff is
sustain the first petition which was anchored on the mandated to place in issue in his pleading,
alleged psychological incapacity of respondent is all the issues existing when the suit began.
different from the evidence necessary to sustain the A lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal. The
present petition which is anchored on the purported plaintiff is bound to set forth in his first
absence of a marriage license. action every ground for relief which he
claims to exist and upon which he relied,
Petitioner, however, forgets that he is simply invoking and cannot be permitted to rely upon them
different grounds for the same cause of action. By by piecemeal in successive action to
definition, a cause of action is the act or omission by recover for the same wrong or injury.
which a party violates the right of another.17 In both
petitions, petitioner has the same cause - the
175 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES
#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
 A party seeking to enforce a claim, legal or another action regarding the same controversy will be
equitable, must present to the court, either needlessly squandering time, effort and financial
by the pleadings or proofs, or both, on the resources because he is barred by law from litigating
grounds upon which to expect a judgment the same controversy all over again.21
in his favor. He is not at liberty to split up
his demands, and prosecute it by Therefore, having expressly and impliedly conceded
piecemeal or present only a portion of the the validity of their marriage celebration, petitioner is
grounds upon which a special relief is now deemed to have waived any defects therein. For
sought and leave the rest to the this reason, the Court finds that the present action for
presentment in a second suit if the first declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack
fails. There would be no end to litigation if of marriage license is barred by the decision dated
such piecemeal presentation is November 11, 1997 of the RTC, Branch 29, of San
allowed. (Citations omitted.) Pablo City, in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95.

In sum, litigants are provided with the options on the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of
course of action to take in order to obtain judicial merit. Costs against petitioner.
relief. Once an option has been taken and a case is
filed in court, the parties must ventilate all matters and SO ORDERED.
relevant issues therein. The losing party who files

176 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES

#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking
177 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASES
#rheyne.@ttyinthemaking