You are on page 1of 29

Navarro vs.

Domagtoy
AM No. MTJ 96-1088, July 19, 1996
FACTS:
Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro fled a complaint on
two specifc acts committed by respondent Municipal Circuit rial Court !udge
"ernando Domagtoy on t#e grounds of gross misconduct, ine$ency in o%ce and
ignorance of t#e law.
&t was alleged t#at Domagtoy solemni'ed marriage of Gaspar agadan and (rlyn
)or*a on September +,, -../ despite t#e 0nowledge t#at t#e groom #as a
subsisting marriage wit# &da 1enaranda and t#at t#ey are merely separated. &t was
told t#at &da left t#eir con*ugal #ome in )u0idnon and #as not returned and been
#eard for almost seven years. #e said *udge li0ewise solemni'e marriage of
2loriano Dadoy Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario outside #is court3s *urisdiction
on 4ctober +,, -../. #e *udge #olds #is o$ce and #as *urisdiction in t#e Municipal
Circuit rial Court of Sta Monica5)urgos, Surigao del Norte but #e solemni'ed t#e
said wedding at #is residence in t#e municipality of Dapa located /6 to 76 0m away.
ISSUE: 8#et#er or not t#e marriages solemni'ed were void.
HELD:
#e court #eld t#at t#e marriage between agadan and )or*a was void and
bigamous t#ere being a subsisting marriage between agadan and 1enaranda.
(lbeit, t#e latter was gone for seven years and t#e spouse #ad a well5founded belief
t#at t#e absent spouse was dead, agadan did not institute a summary proceeding
as provided in t#e Civil Code for t#e declaration of presumptive deat# of t#e
absentee, wit#out pre*udice to t#e e%ect of reappearance of t#e absent spouse.
8it# regard to t#e marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario, t#e latter only made t#e
written re9uest w#ere it s#ould #ave been bot# parties as stated in (rticle : of t#e
2amily Code. #eir non5compliance did not invalidate t#eir marriage #owever,
Domagtoy may be #eld administratively liable.
NAVARRO VS. DOMAGTOY
259 SCRA 129 July 19, 1996
2(CS;
Complainant Mayor Rodolfo Navarro of Dapa, Surigao del Norte fled t#is case to t#e
Supreme Court against respondent !udge "enando Domagtoy of MCC of Monica5
)urgos, Surigao del Norte, for gross misconduct as well as ine$ciency and
ignorance of t#e law.
2irst, on Sept. +/, -../, !udge Domagtoy solemni'ed t#e marriage of Gaspar
agadan and (rlyn )or*a despite #is 0nowledge t#at agadan was merely separated
from #is wife. Second, #er performed a marriage ceremony between 2loriano
Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario in 4ctober -../ at respondent *udge3s residence
in Dapa, SDN. (s to t#e frst, Domagtoy contended t#at #e merely relied on t#e
a$davit issued by t#e RC !udge of )assey, Samar, w#ic# stated t#at agadan and
#is wife #ave not seen eac# ot#er for almost seven years. "owever, t#e certifed
true copy of t#e marriage contract between agadan and )or*a s#owed t#at #is civil
status was <separated=.
&SS>?;
@-A 8#et#er or not a court may solemni'e anot#er marriage of a #usband w#o
was merely separated from #is wife for almost seven years.
@+A 8#et#er or not a !udge may solemni'e a marriage at #is residence.
"?BD;
@-A (rticle /- of t#e 2amily Code eCpressly provides t#at a marriage contracted by
any person during t#e subsistence of a previous marriage s#all be null and void,
unless before t#e celebration of t#e subse9uent marriage t#e prior spouse #ad been
absent for four consecutive years and t#e spouse present #ad a well5founded belief
t#at t#e absent spouse was already dead. &n case of disappearance w#ere t#ere is
danger of deat# under t#e circumstances set fort# in t#e provisions of (rticle D.- of
t#e Civil Code, an absence of only two years s#all be su$cient.
2or t#e purpose of contracting t#e subse9uent marriage under t#e preceding
paragrap#, t#e spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in
t#e Code for t#e declaration of presumptive deat#. (bsent t#is *udicial declaration,
#e remains to be married to 1eEaranda. 8ittingly or unwittingly, it was manifest
error on t#e part of respondent *udge to #ave accepted t#e *oind a$davit submitted
by agadan. Suc# neglect or ignorance of t#e law #as resulted in a bigamous and
t#erefore void marriage.
@+A (rt. ,. ( marriage may be solemni'ed by @-A any incumbent member of t#e
*udiciary wit#in t#e court3s *urisdiction CCC . (rticle :, #owever, states t#at
marriages s#all be solemni'ed publicly in t#e c#ambers of t#e *udge or in open
court, in t#e c#urc#, c#apel or temple, or in t#e o$ce of t#e consul5general, consul
or vice consul, as t#e case may be, and not elsew#ere, eCcept in cases of marriages
contracted on t#e point of deat# or in remote places in accordance wit# (rt. +. of
t#e 2amily Code, or w#ere bot# parties in w#ic# case t#e marriage may be
solemni'ed at a #ouse or place designated by t#em in a sworn statement to t#at
e%ect.
#ere is no pretense t#at eit#er Sumaylo or del Rosario was at t#e point of deat# or
in a remote place. Moreover, t#e written re9uest presented addressed to t#e
respondent *udge is t#e <aut#ority of t#e solemni'ing o$cer=. >nder (rt. :, w#ic#
is only a discretionary provision, refers only to t#e venue of
t#e marriage ceremony and does not alter or 9ualify t#e aut#ority of t#e
solemni'ing o$cer as provided in t#e preceding provision. Non5compliance #erewit#
will not invalidate t#e marriage.
!udges w#o are appointed to specifc *urisdiction may o$ciate in marriages only
wit#in said areas and not beyond. 8#ere a *udge solemni'es a marriage outside #is
court3s *urisdiction, t#ere is a resultant irregularity in t#e formal re9uisite laid down
in (rticle D w#ic# w#ile it may not a%ect t#e validity of t#e marriage, may sub*ect
t#e o$ciating o$cial to administrative liability.
!udge Domagtoy was suspended for siC mont#s for demonstrating gross ignorance
of t#e law.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16925 July 24, 1962
FABIAN PUGEA, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RAFAEL TRIAS, MIGUEL TRIAS, SOLEA TRIAS, !""#"$%& 'y (%) (u"'!*& ANGEL SANC+E,,
CLARA TRIAS, !""#"$%& 'y (%) (u"'!*& -ICTORIANO SAL-AOR,
GABRIEL TRIAS, .#*o)" ROMULO -INIEGRA, GLORIA -INIEGRA !*& FERNANO -INIEGRA, JR.,
!""#"$%& 'y /u!)&#!*-!&-l#$%.,
RAFAEL TRIAS, TEOFILO PUGEA, !*& -IRGINIA PUGEA, !""#"$%& 'y (%) (u"'!*& RAMON
PORTUGAL,defendants-appellants.
Placido C. Ramos and Fortunato Jose for plaintiff-appellee.
Ramon C. Aquino for defendants-appellants Teofilo Pugeda and Virginia Pugeda.
Jose T. Cajulis, Miguel F. Trias and Carlos T. Viniegra for all oter defendants-appellants.
R E S O L ! " O N
LABRAOR, J.:
!his #esolution conce#ns a $otion fo# the #econside#ation of the decision #ende#ed b% this Cou#t. !he $ain
a#&u$ent in suppo#t of the $otion is that the lots not full% paid fo# at the ti$e of the death of Mi&uel !#ias,
'hich lots 'e#e, b% p#ovision of the (#ia# Lands Act )Act No. **+,-, subse.uentl% t#ansfe##ed to the
'ido'/s na$e and late# paid fo# b% he# out of the p#oceeds of the f#uits of the lands pu#chased, and fo#
'hich titles 'e#e issued in the na$e of the 'ido', belon& to the latte# as he# e0clusive pa#aphe#nal
p#ope#ties, and a#e not con1u&al p#ope#ties of he# deceased husband and he#self. "n ou# decision 'e laid
do'n the #ule that upon the issuance of a ce#tificate of sale to the husband of a lot in a f#ia# lands estate,
pu#chased b% the 2ove#n$ent f#o$ the f#ia#s, the land beco$es the p#ope#t% of the husband and the 'ife,
and the fact that the ce#tificate of sale is the#eafte# t#ansfe##ed to the 'ife does not chan&e the status of
the p#ope#t% so pu#chased as con1u&al p#ope#t% of the deceased husband and 'ife. !he #eason fo# this
#ulin& is the p#ovision of the Civil Code to the effect that p#ope#ties ac.ui#ed b% husband and 'ife a#e
con1u&al p#ope#ties. )A#t. *3,*, Civil Code of Spain-. !he p#ovision of the (#ia# Lands Act to the effect that
upon the death of the husband the ce#tificate of sale is t#ansfe##ed to the na$e of the 'ife is $e#el% an
ad$inist#ative device desi&ned to facilitate the docu$entation of the t#ansaction and the collection of
install$ents4 it does not p#oduce the effect of dest#o%in& the cha#acte# as con1u&al p#ope#t% of the lands
pu#chased. 5ence, the issuance of the title, afte# co$pletion of the install$ents, in the na$e of the 'ido'
does not $a6e the f#ia# lands pu#chased he# o'n pa#aphe#nal p#ope#t%. !he said lands, not'ithstandin& a
ce#tificate of sale, continue to be the con1u&al p#ope#t% of he# deceased husband and he#self.
!he case of Ara!ata "s. Jo!a, et al., 7* Phil. 873, cited b% the $ovants, is not applicable to the case at
ba# because it #efe#s to the supe#io# #i&hts of the 'ido' #eco&ni9ed in Section *8 of Act No. **+, ove#
t#ansfe#s $ade b% the husband#ic a"e not $een appro"ed $! te %irector of &ands. As a $atte# of
fact the s%llabus in said case is as follo's:
'ido#(s rigts. ; !he 'ido' of a holde# of a ce#tificate of sale of f#ia# lands ac.ui#ed b% the
2ove#n$ent has an e0clusive #i&ht to said lands and thei# f#uits f#o$ he# husband/s death,
p#ovided that the deceased has not conve%ed the$ to anothe# du#in& his lifeti$e and she
fulfills the #e.ui#e$ents p#esc#ibed b% the la' fo# the pu#chase of the sa$e.
A $ino# &#ound fo# the #econside#ation is that the decision of <ud&e Luce#o, havin& been set aside b% the
Cou#t of Appeals, could not be affi#$ed b% s. !he settin& aside of the said decision 'as due to the fact
that ne'l% discove#ed evidence 'as found #e&a#din& the pa#tition of the estate of the deceased. !he
settin& aside of the decision 'as not ai$ed o# di#ected at the 1ud&e/s #ulin& that the p#ope#ties ac.ui#ed b%
the husband du#in& his lifeti$e f#o$ the f#ia# lands estate 'e#e con1u&al p#ope#ties of the husband and
the 'ife..
!he thi#d &#ound #aised is that the lots 'e#e neve# pa#titioned as con1u&al assets of Ma#iano !#ias and
Ma#ia C. (e##e#. One of the a#&u$ents adduced in favo# of the clai$ of the $ovants that the p#ope#ties in
.uestion, 'hich 'e#e ac.ui#ed du#in& the lifeti$e of Ma#iano !#ias, 'e#e neve# pa#titioned is that,
acco#din& to the #eco#ds of the Re&iste# of =eeds and acco#din& to the f#ia# lands a&ents, the alle&ed
pa#tition of the said p#ope#ties as con1u&al p#ope#ties of the deceased Ma#iano !#ias and Ma#ia C. (e##e#
had not been #e&iste#ed in said offices. !he failu#e to $a6e the #e&ist#ation is pe#haps due to the ne&lect
the hei#s. !he fact, ho'eve#, #e$ains that the e0hibits p#esented in Cou#t, especiall% E0hibit >?-!#ias> and
Anne0 >E>, 'hich a#e the p#o1ect of pa#tition and the app#oval the#eof, cannot be i&no#ed b% this Cou#t.
!he ne&lect of the pa#ties in not actuall% pa#titionin& the p#ope#ties do not a#&ue in favo# of the fact that
pa#tition 'as not a actuall% dec#eed. Ad1udications $a% be $ade pro indi"iso 'ithout actual division o#
pa#tition of the p#ope#ties a$on& the hei#s.
@5ERE(ORE, the $otion fo# #econside#ation is he#eb% denied and the 1ud&$ent #ende#ed decla#ed final.
So o#de#ed.
!"#l! V$. %"&&"'!" 1(( SCRA 1)6 *!&$"+$ ,+- F,'.ly R!l,/."+$A
2acts; (t #ig# noon on !uly D, -.:-, t#e four year old niece of Susana F ?lias
)orromeo told Matilde aborada @mot#er of SusanaA t#at Susana was screaming
because ?lias was 0illing #er. aborada told #er to inform #er son, Geronimo
aborada. Geronimo, in turn, told #is fat#er and toget#er, t#ey went to Susana3s
#ut. #ere t#ey found Susana3s lifeless body neCt to #er crying infant and ?lias
mumbling inco#erently still wit# t#e weapon in #is #ands. #e accused5appellant,
?lias, said t#at because t#ey were legally and validly married, #e s#ould only be
liable for <#omicide= and not <parricide=. "e t#in0s suc# because t#ere was no
marriage contract issued on t#eir wedding day and after t#at. "owever, in #is
testimony, #e admitted t#at t#e victim was #is wife and t#at t#ey were married in a
c#apel by a priest.
&ssue; Does t#e non5eCecution of a marriage contract render a marriage voidG
"eld; &n t#e view of t#e law, a couple living toget#er wit# t#e image of being
married, are presumed married unless proven ot#erwise. #is is attributed to t#e
common order of society. 2urt#ermore, t#e validity of a marriage resides on t#e
fulfllment or presence of t#e re9uisites of t#e marriage w#ic# are ; legal capacity
and consent. #e absence of t#e record of suc# marriage does not invalidate t#e
same as long as t#e celebration and all re9uisites are present.
1erson living toget#er in apparent matrimony are presumed, in t#e absence of any
counter presumption or evidence special to t#e case, to be in fact married. #e
reason is t#at suc# is t#e common order of society, and if t#e parties were not w#at
t#ey t#us #old t#emselves out as being, t#ey would be living in constant violation of
decency and law. @Son Cui vs. Guepangco, ++ 1#il. +-HA. (nd, t#e mere fact t#at no
record of t#e marriage eCists in t#e registry of marriage does not invalidate said
marriage, as long as in t#e celebration t#ereof, all re9uisites for its validity are
present. #e forwarding of a copy of t#e marriage certifcate to t#e registry is not
one of said re9uisites. @1ugeda vs. rias, / SCR( :/.A. #e appealed decision is
(22&RM?D and t#e indemnity increased from -+,666 to D6,666.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
!5"R= ="A"S"ON

G.R. No. L-50162 J!*u!)y 24, 1992
MARIA EL ROSARIO MARIATEGUI, ET AL., petitione#s,
vs.
+ON. COURT OF APPEALS, JACINTO MARIATEGUI, JULIAN MARIATEGUI !*& PAULINA
MARIATEGUI,#espondents.
Montesa, Al$on ) Associates for petitioners.
Parmenio *. Patacsil, Patacsil T#ins &a# +ffice for te eirs of te late Maria del Rosario
Mariategui.
Tinga, Fuentes ) Tagle Firm for pri"ate respondents.

BIIN, J.:
!his is a petition fo# #evie' on certiorari of the decision 2 of the Cou#t of Appeals dated =ece$be#
+3, *BC, in CA-2.R. No. 8*C3*, entitled ><acinto Ma#iate&ui, et al. v. Ma#ia del Rosa#io Ma#iate&ui,
et al.,> #eve#sin& the 1ud&$ent of the then Cou#t of (i#st "nstance of Ri9al, B#anch A""" 22 at Pasi&, Met#o
Manila.
!he undisputed facts a#e as follo's:
Lupo Ma#iate&ui died 'ithout a 'ill on <une +8, *B7? )B#ief fo# #espondents, Rollo, pp. **84 C-.
=u#in& his lifeti$e, Lupo Ma#iate&ui cont#acted th#ee )?- $a##ia&es. @ith his fi#st 'ife, Eusebia
Montellano, 'ho died on Nove$be# C, *B,3, he be&ot fou# )3- child#en, na$el%: Baldo$e#a, Ma#ia
del Rosa#io, #bana and "#eneo. Baldo$e#a died and 'as su#vived b% he# child#en na$ed Ante#o,
Rufina, Catalino, Ma#ia, 2e#a#do, Ai#&inia and (ede#ico, all su#na$ed Espina. "#eneo also died and
left a son na$ed Rupe#to. @ith his second 'ife, (laviana Montellano, he be&ot a dau&hte# na$ed
C#esenciana 'ho 'as bo#n on Ma% C, *B*, )Rollo, Anne0 >A>, p. ?8-.
Lupo Ma#iate&ui and (elipa Aelasco )Lupo/s thi#d 'ife- &ot $a##ied so$eti$e in *B?,. !he% had
th#ee child#en, na$el%: <acinto, bo#n on <ul% ?, *B+B, <ulian, bo#n on (eb#ua#% *8, *B?* and
Paulina, bo#n on Ap#il *B, *B?C. (elipa Aelasco Ma#iate&ui died in *B3* )Rollo, ,$id-.
At the ti$e of his death, Lupo Ma#iate&ui left ce#tain p#ope#ties 'hich he ac.ui#ed 'hen he 'as still
un$a##ied )B#ief fo# #espondents, Rollo, pp. **84 3-. !hese p#ope#ties a#e desc#ibed in the co$plaint
as Lots Nos. *8?, 88, *?38 and *78 of the Muntin&lupa Estate )Rollo, Anne0 >A>, p. ?B-.
On =ece$be# +, *B8D, Lupo/s descendants b% his fi#st and second $a##ia&es, na$el%, Ma#ia del
Rosa#io, #bana, Rupe#to, C#esencia, all su#na$ed Ma#iate&ui and Ante#o, Rufina, Catalino, Ma#ia,
2e#a#do, Ai#&inia and (ede#ico, all su#na$ed Espina, e0ecuted a deed of e0t#a1udicial pa#tition
'he#eb% the% ad1udicated unto the$selves Lot No. *8? of the Muntin&lupa Estate. !he#eafte#, Lot
No. *8? 'as the sub1ect of a volunta#% #e&ist#ation p#oceedin&s filed b% the ad1udicatees unde# Act
No. 3B8, and the land #e&ist#ation cou#t issued a dec#ee o#de#in& the #e&ist#ation of the lot. !hus, on
Ap#il *, *BD*, OC! No. CC+C 'as issued in the na$e of the above-$entioned hei#s. Subse.uentl%,
the #e&iste#ed o'ne#s caused the subdivision of the said lot into Lots Nos. *8?-A to *8?-5, fo# 'hich
sepa#ate t#ansfe# ce#tificates of title 'e#e issued to the #espective pa#ties )Rollo, i$id-.
On Ap#il +?, *BD?, Lupo/s child#en b% his thi#d $a##ia&e 'ith (elipa Aelasco )<acinto, <ulian and
Paulina- filed 'ith the lo'e# cou#t an a$ended co$plaint clai$in& that Lot No. *8? to&ethe# 'ith
Lots Nos. 88B, *?38 and *73 'e#e o'ned b% thei# co$$on fathe#, Lupo Ma#iate&ui, and that, 'ith
the ad1udication of Lot No. *8? to thei# co-hei#s, the% )child#en of the thi#d $a##ia&e- 'e#e dep#ived of
thei# #espective sha#es in the lots. Plaintiffs p#a% fo# pa#tition of the estate of thei# deceased fathe#
and annul$ent of the deed of e0t#a1udicial pa#tition dated =ece$be# +, *B8D )Petition, Rollo, p. *,-.
C#esencia Ma#iate&ui Abas, (laviana Ma#iate&ui Cab#e#a and "sabel Santos 'e#e i$pleaded in the
co$plaint as un'illin& defendants as the% 'ould not li6e to 1oin the suit as plaintiffs althou&h the%
ac6no'led&ed the status and #i&hts of the plaintiffs and a&#eed to the pa#tition of the pa#cels of land
as 'ell as the accountin& of thei# f#uits ),$id., Rollo, p. C4 Reco#d on Appeal, p. 3-.
!he defendants )no' petitione#s- filed an ans'e# 'ith counte#clai$ )A$ended Reco#d on Appeal, p.
*?-. !he#eafte#, the% filed a $otion to dis$iss on the &#ounds of lac6 of cause of action and
p#esc#iption. !he% specificall% contended that the co$plaint 'as one fo# #eco&nition of natu#al
child#en. On Au&ust *3, *BD3, the $otion to dis$iss 'as denied b% the t#ial cou#t, in an o#de# the
dispositive po#tion of 'hich #eads:
"t is the#efo#e the opinion of the Cou#t that A#ticles +DC and +C7 of the Civil Code
cited b% counsel fo# the defendants a#e of e##oneous application to this case. !he
$otion to dis$iss is the#efo#e denied fo# lac6 of $e#it.
SO OR=ERE=. ),$id, p. ?D-.
5o'eve#, on (eb#ua#% *8, *BDD, the co$plaint as 'ell as petitione#s/ counte#clai$ 'e#e dis$issed
b% the t#ial cou#t, in its decision statin& thus:
!he plaintiffs/ #i&ht to inhe#it depends upon the ac6no'led&$ent o# #eco&nition of
thei# continuous en1o%$ent and possession of status of child#en of thei# supposed
fathe#. !he evidence fails to sustain eithe# p#e$ise, and it is clea# that this action
cannot be sustained. ),$id, Rollo, pp. 8D-8C-
!he plaintiffs elevated the case to the Cou#t of Appeals on the &#ound that the t#ial cou#t co$$itted
an e##o# >. . . in not findin& that the pa#ents of the appellants, Lupo Ma#iate&ui and (elipa Aelasco
)'e#e- la'full% $a##ied, and in holdin& )that- the% )appellants- a#e not le&iti$ate child#en of thei# said
pa#ents, the#eb% divestin& the$ of thei# inhe#itance . . . > )Rollo, pp. *3-*7-.
On =ece$be# +3, *BC,, the Cou#t of Appeals #ende#ed a decision decla#in& all the child#en and
descendants of Lupo Ma#iate&ui, includin& appellants <acinto, <ulian and Paulina )child#en of the
thi#d $a##ia&e- as entitled to e.ual sha#es in the estate of Lupo Ma#iate&ui4 di#ectin& the
ad1udicatees in the e0t#a1udicial pa#tition of #eal p#ope#ties 'ho eventuall% ac.ui#ed t#ansfe#
ce#tificates of title the#eto, to e0ecute deeds of #econve%ance in favo#, and fo# the sha#es, of <acinto,
<ulian and Paulina p#ovided #i&hts of innocent thi#d pe#sons a#e not p#e1udiced othe#'ise the said
ad1udicatees shall #ei$bu#se the said hei#s the fai# $a#6et value of thei# sha#es4 and di#ectin& all the
pa#ties to sub$it to the lo'e# cou#t a p#o1ect of pa#tition in the net estate of Lupo Ma#iate&ui afte#
pa%$ent of ta0es, othe# &ove#n$ent cha#&es and outstandin& le&al obli&ations.
!he defendants-appellees filed a $otion fo# #econside#ation of said decision but it 'as denied fo#
lac6 of $e#it. 5ence, this petition 'hich 'as &iven due cou#se b% the cou#t on =ece$be# D, *BC*.
!he petitione#s sub$it to the Cou#t the follo'in& issues: )a- 'hethe# o# not p#esc#iption ba##ed
p#ivate #espondents/ #i&ht to de$and the pa#tition of the estate of Lupo Ma#iate&ui, and )b- 'hethe#
o# not the p#ivate #espondents, 'ho belatedl% filed the action fo# #eco&nition, 'e#e able to p#ove thei#
successional #i&hts ove# said estate. !he #esolution of these issues hin&es, ho'eve#, on the
#esolution of the p#eli$ina#% $atte#, i.e., the natu#e of the co$plaint filed b% the p#ivate #espondents.
!he co$plaint alle&ed, a$on& othe# thin&s, that >plaintiffs a#e the child#en of the deceased spouses
Lupo Ma#iate&ui . . . and (elipa Aelasco>4 that >du#in& his lifeti$e, Lupo Ma#iate&ui had #epeatedl%
ac6no'led&ed and confi#$ed plaintiffs as his child#en and the latte#, in tu#n, have continuousl%
en1o%ed such status since thei# bi#th>4 and >on the basis of thei# #elationship to the deceased Lupo
Ma#iate&ui and in acco#dance 'ith the la' on intestate succession, plaintiffs a#e entitled to inhe#it
sha#es in the fo#e&oin& estate )Reco#d on Appeal, pp. 7 E 8-. "t p#a%ed, a$on& othe#s, that plaintiffs
be decla#ed as child#en and hei#s of Lupo Ma#iate&ui and ad1udication in favo# of plaintiffs thei# la'ful
sha#es in the estate of the decedent ),$id, p. *,-.
A pe#usal of the enti#e alle&ations of the co$plaint, ho'eve#, sho's that the action is p#incipall% one
of pa#tition. !he alle&ation 'ith #espect to the status of the p#ivate #espondents 'as #aised onl%
collate#all% to asse#t thei# #i&hts in the estate of the deceased. 5ence, the Cou#t of Appeals co##ectl%
adopted the settled #ule that the natu#e of an action filed in cou#t is dete#$ined b% the facts alle&ed in
the co$plaint constitutin& the cause of action )Republic vs. Esten9o, *7C SCRA +C+ F*BCCG-.
"t has been held that, if the #elief de$anded is not the p#ope# one 'hich $a% be &#anted unde# the
la', it does not cha#acte#i9e o# dete#$ine the natu#e of plaintiffs/ action, and the #elief to 'hich
plaintiff is entitled based on the facts alle&ed b% hi$ in his co$plaint, althou&h it is not the #elief
de$anded, is 'hat dete#$ines the natu#e of the action )* Mo#an, p. *+D, *BDB ed., citin& Ba&uio#o
vs. Ba##ios, et al., DD Phil. *+,-.
@ith #espect to the le&al basis of p#ivate #espondents/ de$and fo# pa#tition of the estate of Lupo
Ma#iate&ui, the Cou#t of Appeals aptl% held that the p#ivate #espondents a#e le&iti$ate child#en of the
deceased.
Lupo Ma#iate&ui and (elipa Aelasco 'e#e alle&ed to have been la'full% $a##ied in o# about *B?,.
!his fact is based on the decla#ation co$$unicated b% Lupo Ma#iate&ui to <acinto 'ho testified that
>'hen )his- fathe# 'as still livin&, he 'as able to $ention to )hi$- that he and )his- $othe# 'e#e able
to &et $a##ied befo#e a <ustice of the Peace of !a&ui&, Ri9al.> !he spouses depo#ted the$selves as
husband and 'ife, and 'e#e 6no'n in the co$$unit% to be such. Althou&h no $a##ia&e ce#tificate
'as int#oduced to this effect, no evidence 'as li6e'ise offe#ed to cont#ove#t these facts. Mo#eove#,
the $e#e fact that no #eco#d of the $a##ia&e e0ists does not invalidate the $a##ia&e, p#ovided all
#e.uisites fo# its validit% a#e p#esent )People vs. Bo##o$eo, *?? SCRA *,8 F*BC3G-.
nde# these ci#cu$stances, a $a##ia&e $a% be p#esu$ed to have ta6en place bet'een Lupo and
(elipa. !he la's p#esu$e that a $an and a 'o$an, depo#tin& the$selves as husband and 'ife,
have ente#ed into a la'ful cont#act of $a##ia&e4 that a child bo#n in la'ful 'edloc6, the#e bein& no
divo#ce, absolute o# f#o$ bed and boa#d is le&iti$ate4 and that thin&s have happened acco#din& to
the o#dina#% cou#se of natu#e and the o#dina#% habits of life )Section 7 )9-, )bb-, )cc-, Rule *?*, Rules
of Cou#t4 Co#pus v. Co#pus, C7 SCRA 78D F*BDCG4 Sau#naba v. @o#6$en/s Co$pensation, C7 SCRA
7,+ F*BDCG4 Alavado v. Cit% 2ov/t. of !acloban, *?B SCRA +?, F*BC7G4 Re%es v. Cou#t of Appeals, *?7
SCRA 3?B F*BC7G-.
Cou#ts loo6 upon the p#esu$ption of $a##ia&e 'ith &#eat favo# as it is founded on the follo'in&
#ationale:
!he basis of hu$an societ% th#ou&hout the civili9ed 'o#ld is that of $a##ia&e.
Ma##ia&e in this 1u#isdiction is not onl% a civil cont#act, but it is a ne' #elation, an
institution in the $aintenance of 'hich the public is deepl% inte#ested. Conse.uentl%,
eve#% intend$ent of the la' leans to'a#d le&ali9in& $at#i$on%. Pe#sons d'ellin&
to&ethe# in appa#ent $at#i$on% a#e p#esu$ed, in the absence of an%
counte#p#esu$ption o# evidence special to that case, to be in fact $a##ied. !he
#eason is that such is the co$$on o#de# of societ% and if the pa#ties 'e#e not 'hat
the% thus hold the$selves out as bein&, the% 'ould be livin& in the constant violation
of decenc% and of
la' . . . )Adon& vs. Cheon& Sen& 2ee, 3? Phil. 3?, 78 F*B++G .uoted in Alavado vs.
Cit% 2ove#n$ent of !acloban, *?B SCRA +?, F*BC7G-.
So $uch so that once a $an and a 'o$an have lived as husband and 'ife and such #elationship is
not denied no# cont#adicted, the p#esu$ption of thei# bein& $a##ied $ust be ad$itted as a fact
)Alavado v. Cit% 2ov/t. of !acloban, supra-.
!he Civil Code p#ovides fo# the $anne# unde# 'hich le&iti$ate filiation $a% be p#oven. 5o'eve#,
conside#in& the effectivit% of the (a$il% Code of the Philippines, the case at ba# $ust be decided
unde# a ne' if not enti#el% dissi$ila# set of #ules because the pa#ties have been ove#ta6en b% events,
to use the popula# ph#ase )%&uan&co vs. Cou#t of Appeals, 2.R. No. D8CD?, Octobe# +8, *BCB-.
!hus, unde# !itle A" of the (a$il% Code, the#e a#e onl% t'o classes of child#en ; le&iti$ate and
ille&iti$ate. !he fine distinctions a$on& va#ious t%pes of ille&iti$ate child#en have been eli$inated
)Cast#o vs. Cou#t of Appeals, *D? SCRA 878 F*BCBG-.
A#ticle *D+ of the said Code p#ovides that the filiation of le&iti$ate child#en $a% be established b%
the #eco#d of bi#th appea#in& in the civil #e&iste# o# a final 1ud&$ent o# b% the open and continuous
possession of the status of a le&iti$ate child.
Evidence on #eco#d p#oves the le&iti$ate filiation of the p#ivate #espondents. <acinto/s bi#th ce#tificate
is a #eco#d of bi#th #efe##ed to in the said a#ticle. A&ain, no evidence 'hich tends to disp#ove facts
contained the#ein 'as adduced befo#e the lo'e# cou#t. "n the case of the t'o othe# p#ivate
#espondents, <ulian and Paulina, the% $a% not have p#esented in evidence an% of the docu$ents
#e.ui#ed b% A#ticle *D+ but the% continuousl% en1o%ed the status of child#en of Lupo Ma#iate&ui in the
sa$e $anne# as thei# b#othe# <acinto.
@hile the t#ial cou#t found <acinto/s testi$onies to be inconse.uential and lac6in& in substance as to
ce#tain dates and na$es of #elatives 'ith 'ho$ thei# fa$il% #esided, these a#e but $ino# details. !he
na&&in& fact is that fo# a conside#able len&th of ti$e and despite the death of (elipa in *B3*, the
p#ivate #espondents and Lupo lived to&ethe# until Lupo/s death in *B7?. "t should be noted that even
the t#ial cou#t $entioned in its decision the ad$ission $ade in the affidavit of C#esenciana
Ma#iate&ui Abas, one of the petitione#s he#ein, that > . . . <acinto, <ulian and Paulina Ma#iate&ui a%
pa'an& $&a 6apatid 6o sa
a$a . . .> )E0h. M, Reco#d on Appeal, pp. 87-88-.
"n vie' of the fo#e&oin&, the#e can be no othe# conclusion than that p#ivate #espondents a#e
le&iti$ate child#en and hei#s of Lupo Ma#iate&ui and the#efo#e, the ti$e li$itation p#esc#ibed in
A#ticle +C7 fo# filin& an action fo# #eco&nition is inapplicable to this case. Co#olla#il%, p#esc#iption does
not #un a&ainst p#ivate #espondents 'ith #espect to the filin& of the action fo# pa#tition so lon& as the
hei#s fo# 'hose benefit p#esc#iption is invo6ed, have not e0p#essl% o# i$pliedl% #epudiated the co-
o'ne#ship. "n othe# 'o#ds, p#esc#iption of an action fo# pa#tition does not lie e0cept 'hen the co-
o'ne#ship is p#ope#l% #epudiated b% the co-o'ne# )=el Banco vs. "nte#$ediate Appellate Cou#t, *78
SCRA 77 F*BCDG citin& <a#din vs. 5ollasco, **D SCRA 7?+ F*BC+G-.
Othe#'ise stated, a co-o'ne# cannot ac.ui#e b% p#esc#iption the sha#e of the othe# co-o'ne#s
absent a clea# #epudiation of co-o'ne#ship dul% co$$unicated to the othe# co-o'ne#s )Ma#iano vs.
=e Ae&a, *3C SCRA ?3+ F*BCDG-. (u#the#$o#e, an action to de$and pa#tition is i$p#esc#iptible and
cannot be ba##ed b% laches )=el Banco vs. "AC, *78 SCRA 77 F*BCDG-. On the othe# hand, an action
fo# pa#tition $a% be seen to be at once an action fo# decla#ation of co-o'ne#ship and fo# se&#e&ation
and conve%ance of a dete#$inate po#tion of the p#ope#t% involved )Ro.ue vs. "AC, *87 SCRA **C
F*BCCG-.
Petitione#s contend that the% have #epudiated the co-o'ne#ship 'hen the% e0ecuted the e0t#a1udicial
pa#tition e0cludin& the p#ivate #espondents and #e&iste#ed the p#ope#ties in thei# o'n na$es
)Petition, p. *84 Rollo, p. +,-. 5o'eve#, no valid #epudiation 'as $ade b% petitione#s to the p#e1udice
of p#ivate #espondents. Assu$in& petitione#s/ #e&ist#ation of the sub1ect lot in *BD* 'as an act of
#epudiation of the co-o'ne#ship, p#esc#iption had not %et set in 'hen p#ivate #espondents filed in
*BD? the p#esent action fo# pa#tition )Ceni9a vs. C.A., *C* SCRA 77+ F*BB,G-.
"n thei# co$plaint, p#ivate #espondents ave##ed that in spite of thei# de$ands, petitione#s, e0cept the
un'illin& defendants in the lo'e# cou#t, failed and #efused to ac6no'led&e and conve% thei# la'ful
sha#es in the estate of thei# fathe# )Reco#d on Appeal, p. 8-. !his alle&ation, thou&h denied b% the
petitione#s in thei# ans'e# ),$id, p. *3-, 'as neve# successfull% #efuted b% the$. Put diffe#entl%, in
spite of petitione#s/ undisputed 6no'led&e of thei# #elationship to p#ivate #espondents 'ho a#e
the#efo#e thei# co-hei#s, petitione#s f#audulentl% 'ithheld p#ivate #espondent/s sha#e in the estate of
Lupo Ma#iate&ui. Acco#din& to #espondent <acinto, since *B8+, he had been in.ui#in& f#o$ petitione#
Ma#ia del Rosa#io about thei# )#espondents- sha#e in the p#ope#t% left b% thei# deceased fathe# and
had been assu#ed b% the latte# )Ma#ia del Rosa#io- not to 'o##% because the% 'ill &et so$e sha#es.
As a $atte# of fact, so$eti$e in *B8B, <acinto const#ucted a house 'he#e he no' #esides on Lot No.
*8? 'ithout an% co$plaint f#o$ petitione#s.
Petitione#s/ #e&ist#ation of the p#ope#ties in thei# na$es in *BD* did not ope#ate as a valid #epudiation
of the co-o'ne#ship. "n Adille "s. Court of Appeals )*7D SCRA 377, 38*-38+ F*BCCG-, the Cou#t held:
P#esc#iption, as a $ode of te#$inatin& a #elation of co-o'ne#ship, $ust have been
p#eceded b% #epudiation )of the co-o'ne#ship-. !he act of #epudiation, in tu#n, is
sub1ect to ce#tain conditions: )*- a co-o'ne# #epudiates the co-o'ne#ship4 )+- such
an act of #epudiation is clea#l% $ade 6no'n to the othe# co-o'ne#s4 )?- the evidence
the#eon is clea# and conclusive4 and )3- he has been in possession th#ou&h open,
continuous, e0clusive, and noto#ious possession of the p#ope#t% fo# the pe#iod
#e.ui#ed b% la'.
000 000 000
"t is t#ue that #e&ist#ation unde# the !o##ens s%ste$ is const#uctive notice of title, but it
has li6e'ise been ou# holdin& that the !o##ens title does not fu#nish shield fo# f#aud. "t
is the#efo#e no a#&u$ent to sa% that the act of #e&ist#ation is e.uivalent to notice of
#epudiation, assu$in& the#e 'as one, not'ithstandin& the lon&-standin& #ule that
#e&ist#ation ope#ates as a unive#sal notice of title.
"nas$uch as petitione#s #e&iste#ed the p#ope#ties in thei# na$es in f#aud of thei# co-hei#s p#esc#iption
can onl% be dee$ed to have co$$enced f#o$ the ti$e p#ivate #espondents discove#ed the
petitione#s/ act of def#audation )Adille vs. Cou#t of Appeals, supra-. 5ence, p#esc#iption definitel%
$a% not be invo6ed b% petitione#s because p#ivate #espondents co$$enced the instant action
ba#el% t'o $onths afte# lea#nin& that petitione#s had #e&iste#ed in thei# na$es the lots involved.
@5ERE(ORE, the petition is =EN"E= and the assailed decision of the Cou#t of Appeals dated
=ece$be# +3, *BC, is Affi#$ed.
SO OR=ERE=.
M!)#!$%/u# 3". CA GR NO. 50162, J!*u!)y 24, 1992
(AC!S:
Lupo Ma#iate&ui died 'ithout a 'ill on <une +8, *B7? and cont#acted ? $a##ia&es du#in& his lifeti$e.
5e ac.ui#ed the Muntinlupa Estate 'hile he 'as still a bachelo#. 5e had 3 child#en 'ith his fi#st 'ife
Eusebia Montellano, 'ho died in *B,3 na$el% Baldo$e#a, Ma#ia del Rosa#io, #bano and "#eneo.
Baldo$e#a had D child#en na$el% Ante#o, Rufina, Catalino, Ma#ia, 2e#a#do, Ai#&inia and (ede#ico,
all su#na$ed Espina. "#eneo on the othe# hand had a son na$ed Rupe#to. On the othe# hand,
LupoHs second 'ife is (laviana Montellano 'he#e the% had a dau&hte# na$ed C#esenciana. Lupo
&ot $a##ied fo# the thi#d ti$e in *B?, 'ith (elipa Aelasco and had ? child#en na$el% <acinto, <ulian
and Paulina. <acinto testified that his pa#ents &ot $a##ied befo#e a <ustice of the Peace of !a&ui&
Ri9al. !he spouses depo#ted the$selves as husband and 'ife, and 'e#e 6no'n in the co$$unit% to
be such.
LupoHs descendants b% his fi#st and second $a##ia&es e0ecuted a deed of e0t#a1udicial pa#tition
'he#eb% the% ad1udicated the$selves Lot NO. *8? of the Muntinlupa Estate and 'as sub1ected to a
volunta#% #e&ist#ation p#oceedin&s and a dec#ee o#de#in& the #e&ist#ation of the lot 'as issued. !he
siblin&s in the thi#d $a##ia&e p#a%ed fo# inclusion in the pa#tition of the estate of thei# deceased
fathe# and annul$ent of the deed of e0t#a1udicial pa#tition dated =ec. *B8D.
"SSE: @hethe# the $a##ia&e of Lupo 'ith (elipa is valid in the absence of a $a##ia&e license.
5EL=:
Althou&h no $a##ia&e ce#tificate 'as int#oduced to p#ove Lupo and (elipaHs $a##ia&e, no evidence
'as li6e'ise offe#ed to cont#ove#t these facts. Mo#eove#, the $e#e fact that no #eco#d of the $a##ia&e
e0ists does not invalidate the $a##ia&e, p#ovided all #e.uisites fo# its validit% a#e p#esent.
nde# these ci#cu$stances, a $a##ia&e $a% be p#esu$ed to have ta6en place bet'een Lupo and
(elipa. !he la's p#esu$e that a $an and a 'o$an, depo#tin& the$selves as husband and 'ife,
have ente#ed into a la'ful cont#act of $a##ia&e4 that a child bo#n in la'ful 'edloc6, the#e bein& no
divo#ce, absolute o# f#o$ bed and boa#d is le&iti$ate4 and that thin&s have happened acco#din& to
the o#dina#% cou#se of natu#e and the o#dina#% habits of life.
5ence, (elipaHs child#en a#e le&iti$ate and the#efo#e have successional #i&hts
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 151054 F%')u!)y 14, 2114
-ERONICO TENEBRO, petitione#
vs.
T+E +ONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, #espondent.
= E C " S " O N
5NARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
@e a#e called on to decide the novel issue conce#nin& the effect of the 1udicial decla#ation of the nullit% of
a second o# subse.uent $a##ia&e, on the &#ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%, on an individualHs c#i$inal
liabilit% fo# bi&a$%. @e hold that the subse.uent 1udicial decla#ation of nullit% of $a##ia&e on the &#ound of
ps%cholo&ical incapacit% does not #et#oact to the date of the celeb#ation of the $a##ia&e insofa# as the
PhilippinesH penal la's a#e conce#ned. As such, an individual 'ho cont#acts a second o# subse.uent
$a##ia&e du#in& the subsistence of a valid $a##ia&e is c#i$inall% liable fo# bi&a$%, not'ithstandin& the
subse.uent decla#ation that the second $a##ia&e is void ab initio on the &#ound of ps%cholo&ical
incapacit%.
Petitione# in this case, Ae#onico !eneb#o, cont#acted $a##ia&e 'ith p#ivate co$plainant Leticia Anca1as on
Ap#il *,, *BB,. !he t'o 'e#e 'ed b% <ud&e Alf#edo B. Pe#e9, <#. of the Cit% !#ial Cou#t of Lapu-lapu Cit%.
!eneb#o and Anca1as lived to&ethe# continuousl% and 'ithout inte##uption until the latte# pa#t of *BB*,
'hen !eneb#o info#$ed Anca1as that he had been p#eviousl% $a##ied to a ce#tain 5ilda Ailla#e%es on
Nove$be# *,, *BC8. !eneb#o sho'ed Anca1as a photocop% of a $a##ia&e cont#act bet'een hi$ and
Ailla#e%es. "nvo6in& this p#evious $a##ia&e, petitione# the#eafte# left the con1u&al d'ellin& 'hich he sha#ed
'ith Anca1as, statin& that he 'as &oin& to cohabit 'ith Ailla#e%es.
*
On <anua#% +7, *BB?, petitione# cont#acted %et anothe# $a##ia&e, this one 'ith a ce#tain Nilda Aille&as,
befo#e <ud&e 2e#$an Lee, <#. of the Re&ional !#ial Cou#t of Cebu Cit%, B#anch *7.
+
@hen Anca1as
lea#ned of this thi#d $a##ia&e, she ve#ified f#o$ Ailla#e%es 'hethe# the latte# 'as indeed $a##ied to
petitione#. "n a hand'#itten lette#,
?
Ailla#e%es confi#$ed that petitione#, Ae#onico !eneb#o, 'as indeed he#
husband.
Anca1as the#eafte# filed a co$plaint fo# bi&a$% a&ainst petitione#.
3
!he "nfo#$ation,
7
'hich 'as doc6eted
as C#i$inal Case No. ,*?,B7-L, #eads:
!hat on the *,th da% of Ap#il *BB,, in the Cit% of Lapu-lapu, Philippines, and 'ithin the 1u#isdiction of this
5ono#able Cou#t, the afo#ena$ed accused, havin& been p#eviousl% united in la'ful $a##ia&e 'ith 5ilda
Ailla#e%es, and 'ithout the said $a##ia&e havin& been le&all% dissolved, did then and the#e 'illfull%,
unla'full% and feloniousl% cont#act a second $a##ia&e 'ith LE!"C"A ANCA<AS, 'hich second o#
subse.uent $a##ia&e of the accused has all the essential #e.uisites fo# validit% 'e#e it not fo# the
subsistin& fi#st $a##ia&e.
CON!RARI !O LA@.
@hen a##ai&ned, petitione# ente#ed a plea of >not &uilt%>.
8
=u#in& the t#ial, petitione# ad$itted havin& cohabited 'ith Ailla#e%es f#o$ *BC3-*BCC, 'ith 'ho$ he si#ed
t'o child#en. 5o'eve#, he denied that he and Ailla#e%es 'e#e validl% $a##ied to each othe#, clai$in& that
no $a##ia&e ce#e$on% too6 place to sole$ni9e thei# union.
D
5e alle&ed that he si&ned a $a##ia&e cont#act
$e#el% to enable he# to &et the allot$ent f#o$ his office in connection 'ith his 'o#6 as a sea$an.
C
5e
fu#the# testified that he #e.uested his b#othe# to ve#if% f#o$ the Civil Re&iste# in Manila 'hethe# the#e 'as
an% $a##ia&e at all bet'een hi$ and Ailla#e%es, but the#e 'as no #eco#d of said $a##ia&e.
B
On Nove$be# *,, *BBD, the Re&ional !#ial Cou#t of Lapu-lapu Cit%, B#anch 73, #ende#ed a decision
findin& the accused &uilt% be%ond #easonable doubt of the c#i$e of bi&a$% unde# A#ticle ?3B of the
Revised Penal Code, and sentencin& hi$ to fou# )3- %ea#s and t'o )+- $onths of p#ision co##eccional, as
$ini$u$, to ei&ht )C- %ea#s and one )*- da% of p#ision $a%o#, as $a0i$u$.
*,
On appeal, the Cou#t of
Appeals affi#$ed the decision of the t#ial cou#t. Petitione#Hs $otion fo# #econside#ation 'as denied fo# lac6
of $e#it.
5ence, the instant petition fo# #evie' on the follo'in& assi&n$ent of e##o#s:
". !5E 5ONORABLE COR! O( APPEALS 2RAAELI ERRE=, AN= !5"S ERROR "S
CORREC!"BLE "N !5"S APPEAL J @5EN "! A(("RME= !5E =EC"S"ON O( !5E
5ONORABLE COR! A KO CONA"C!"N2 !5E ACCSE= (OR )sic- !5E CR"ME O(
B"2AMI, =ESP"!E !5E NON-EL"S!ENCE O( !5E ("RS! MARR"A2E AN=
"NS(("C"ENCI O( EA"=ENCE.
"". !5E COR! ERRE= "N CONA"C!"N2 !5E ACCSE= (OR )sic- !5E CR"ME O(
B"2AMI =ESP"!E CLEAR PROO( !5A! !5E MARR"A2E BE!@EEN !5E ACCSE=
AN= PR"AA!E COMPLA"NAN! 5A= BEEN =ECLARE= NLL AN= AO"= AB "N"!"O AN=
@"!5O! LE2AL (ORCE AN= E((EC!.
**
Afte# a ca#eful #evie' of the evidence on #eco#d, 'e find no co&ent #eason to distu#b the assailed
1ud&$ent.
nde# A#ticle ?3B of the Revised Penal Code, the ele$ents of the c#i$e of Bi&a$% a#e:
)*- that the offende# has been le&all% $a##ied4
)+- that the fi#st $a##ia&e has not been le&all% dissolved o#, in case his o# he# spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not %et be p#esu$ed dead acco#din& to the Civil Code4
)?- that he cont#acts a second o# subse.uent $a##ia&e4 and
)3- that the second o# subse.uent $a##ia&e has all the essential #e.uisites fo# validit%.
*+
Petitione#Hs assi&n$ent of e##o#s p#esents a t'o-tie#ed defense, in 'hich he )*- denies the e0istence of
his fi#st $a##ia&e to Ailla#e%es, and )+- a#&ues that the decla#ation of the nullit% of the second $a##ia&e on
the &#ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%, 'hich is an alle&ed indicato# that his $a##ia&e to Anca1as lac6s the
essential #e.uisites fo# validit%, #et#oacts to the date on 'hich the second $a##ia&e 'as
celeb#ated.
*?
5ence, petitione# a#&ues that all fou# of the ele$ents of the c#i$e of bi&a$% a#e absent, and
p#a%s fo# his ac.uittal.
*3
Petitione#Hs defense $ust fail on both counts.
(i#st, the p#osecution p#esented sufficient evidence, both docu$enta#% and o#al, to p#ove the e0istence of
the fi#st $a##ia&e bet'een petitione# and Ailla#e%es. =ocu$enta#% evidence p#esented 'as in the fo#$ of:
)*- a cop% of a $a##ia&e cont#act bet'een !eneb#o and Ailla#e%es, dated Nove$be# *,, *BC8, 'hich, as
seen on the docu$ent, 'as sole$ni9ed at the Manila Cit% 5all befo#e Rev. <ulieto !o##es, a Ministe# of
the 2ospel, and ce#tified to b% the Office of the Civil Re&ist#a# of Manila4
*7
and )+- a hand'#itten lette# f#o$
Ailla#e%es to Anca1as dated <ul% *+, *BB3, info#$in& Anca1as that Ailla#e%es and !eneb#o 'e#e le&all%
$a##ied.
*8
!o assail the ve#acit% of the $a##ia&e cont#act, petitione# p#esented )*- a ce#tification issued b% the
National Statistics Office dated Octobe# D, *BB74
*D
and )+- a ce#tification issued b% the Cit% Civil Re&ist#%
of Manila, dated (eb#ua#% ?, *BBD.
*C
Both these docu$ents attest that the #espective issuin& offices have
no #eco#d of a $a##ia&e celeb#ated bet'een Ae#onico B. !eneb#o and 5ilda B. Ailla#e%es on Nove$be#
*,, *BC8.
!o ou# $ind, the docu$ents p#esented b% the defense cannot ade.uatel% assail the $a##ia&e cont#act,
'hich in itself 'ould al#ead% have been sufficient to establish the e0istence of a $a##ia&e bet'een
!eneb#o and Ailla#e%es.
All th#ee of these docu$ents fall in the cate&o#% of public docu$ents, and the Rules of Cou#t p#ovisions
#elevant to public docu$ents a#e applicable to all. Pe#tinent to the $a##ia&e cont#act, Section D of Rule
*?, of the Rules of Cou#t #eads as follo's:
Sec. D. Evidence ad$issible 'hen o#i&inal docu$ent is a public #eco#d. J @hen the o#i&inal of a
docu$ent is in the custod% of a public office# o# is #eco#ded in a public office, its contents $a% be p#oved
b% a ce#tified cop% issued b% the public office# in custod% the#eof )E$phasis ou#s-.
!his bein& the case, the ce#tified cop% of the $a##ia&e cont#act, issued b% a public office# in custod%
the#eof, 'as ad$issible as the best evidence of its contents. !he $a##ia&e cont#act plainl% indicates that a
$a##ia&e 'as celeb#ated bet'een petitione# and Ailla#e%es on Nove$be# *,, *BC8, and it should be
acco#ded the full faith and c#edence &iven to public docu$ents.
Mo#eove#, an e0a$ination of the 'o#din&s of the ce#tification issued b% the National Statistics Office on
Octobe# D, *BB7 and that issued b% the Cit% Civil Re&ist#% of Manila on (eb#ua#% ?, *BBD 'ould plainl%
sho' that neithe# docu$ent attests as a positive fact that the#e 'as no $a##ia&e celeb#ated bet'een
Ae#onico B. !eneb#o and 5ilda B. Ailla#e%es on Nove$be# *,, *BC8. Rathe#, the docu$ents $e#el% attest
that the #espective issuin& offices have no #eco#d of such a $a##ia&e. =ocu$enta#% evidence as to the
absence of a #eco#d is .uite diffe#ent f#o$ docu$enta#% evidence as to the absence of a $a##ia&e
ce#e$on%, o# docu$enta#% evidence as to the invalidit% of the $a##ia&e bet'een !eneb#o and Ailla#e%es.
!he $a##ia&e cont#act p#esented b% the p#osecution se#ves as positive evidence as to the e0istence of
the $a##ia&e bet'een !eneb#o and Ailla#e%es, 'hich should be &iven &#eate# c#edence than docu$ents
testif%in& $e#el% as to absence of an% #eco#d of the $a##ia&e, especiall% conside#in& that the#e is
absolutel% no #e.ui#e$ent in the la' that a $a##ia&e cont#act needs to be sub$itted to the civil #e&ist#a#
as a condition p#ecedent fo# the validit% of a $a##ia&e. !he $e#e fact that no #eco#d of a $a##ia&e e0ists
does not invalidate the $a##ia&e, p#ovided all #e.uisites fo# its validit% a#e p#esent.
*B
!he#e is no evidence
p#esented b% the defense that 'ould indicate that the $a##ia&e bet'een !eneb#o and Ailla#e%es lac6ed
an% #e.uisite fo# validit%, apa#t f#o$ the self-se#vin& testi$on% of the accused hi$self. Balanced a&ainst
this testi$on% a#e Ailla#e%esH lette#, Anca1asH testi$on% that petitione# info#$ed he# of the e0istence of the
valid fi#st $a##ia&e, and petitione#Hs o'n conduct, 'hich 'ould all tend to indicate that the fi#st $a##ia&e
had all the #e.uisites fo# validit%.
(inall%, althou&h the accused clai$s that he too6 steps to ve#if% the non-e0istence of the fi#st $a##ia&e to
Ailla#e%es b% #e.uestin& his b#othe# to validate such pu#po#ted non-e0istence, it is si&nificant to note that
the ce#tifications issued b% the National Statistics Office and the Cit% Civil Re&ist#% of Manila a#e dated
Octobe# D, *BB7 and (eb#ua#% ?, *BBD, #espectivel%. Both docu$ents, the#efo#e, a#e dated afte# the
accusedHs $a##ia&e to his second 'ife, p#ivate #espondent in this case.
As such, this Cou#t #ules that the#e 'as sufficient evidence p#esented b% the p#osecution to p#ove the fi#st
and second #e.uisites fo# the c#i$e of bi&a$%.
!he second tie# of petitione#Hs defense hin&es on the effects of the subse.uent 1udicial decla#ation
+,
of the
nullit% of the second $a##ia&e on the &#ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%.
Petitione# a#&ues that this subse.uent 1udicial decla#ation #et#oacts to the date of the celeb#ation of the
$a##ia&e to Anca1as. As such, he a#&ues that, since his $a##ia&e to Anca1as 'as subse.uentl% decla#ed
void ab initio, the c#i$e of bi&a$% 'as not co$$itted.
+*
!his a#&u$ent is not i$p#essed 'ith $e#it.
Petitione# $a6es $uch of the 1udicial decla#ation of the nullit% of the second $a##ia&e on the &#ound of
ps%cholo&ical incapacit%, invo6in& A#ticle ?8 of the (a$il% Code. @hat petitione# fails to #eali9e is that a
decla#ation of the nullit% of the second $a##ia&e on the &#ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit% is of absolutel%
no $o$ent insofa# as the StateHs penal la's a#e conce#ned.
As a second o# subse.uent $a##ia&e cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of petitione#Hs valid $a##ia&e to
Ailla#e%es, petitione#Hs $a##ia&e to Anca1as 'ould be null and void ab initio co$pletel% #e&a#dless of
petitione#Hs ps%cholo&ical capacit% o# incapacit%.
++
Since a $a##ia&e cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of a
valid $a##ia&e is auto$aticall% void, the nullit% of this second $a##ia&e is not pe# se an a#&u$ent fo# the
avoidance of c#i$inal liabilit% fo# bi&a$%. Pe#tinentl%, A#ticle ?3B of the Revised Penal Code c#i$inali9es
>an% pe#son 'ho shall cont#act a second o# subse.uent $a##ia&e befo#e the fo#$e# $a##ia&e has been
le&all% dissolved, o# befo#e the absent spouse has been decla#ed p#esu$ptivel% dead b% $eans of a
1ud&$ent #ende#ed in the p#ope# p#oceedin&s>. A plain #eadin& of the la', the#efo#e, 'ould indicate that
the p#ovision penali9es the $e#e act of cont#actin& a second o# a subse.uent $a##ia&e du#in& the
subsistence of a valid $a##ia&e.
!hus, as soon as the second $a##ia&e to Anca1as 'as celeb#ated on Ap#il *,, *BB,, du#in& the
subsistence of the valid fi#st $a##ia&e, the c#i$e of bi&a$% had al#ead% been consu$$ated. !o ou# $ind,
the#e is no co&ent #eason fo# distin&uishin& bet'een a subse.uent $a##ia&e that is null and void pu#el%
because it is a second o# subse.uent $a##ia&e, and a subse.uent $a##ia&e that is null and void on the
&#ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%, at least insofa# as c#i$inal liabilit% fo# bi&a$% is conce#ned. !he
StateHs penal la's p#otectin& the institution of $a##ia&e a#e in #eco&nition of the sac#osanct cha#acte# of
this special cont#act bet'een spouses, and punish an individualHs delibe#ate dis#e&a#d of the pe#$anent
cha#acte# of the special bond bet'een spouses, 'hich petitione# has undoubtedl% done.
Mo#eove#, the decla#ation of the nullit% of the second $a##ia&e on the &#ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%
is not an indicato# that petitione#Hs $a##ia&e to Anca1as lac6s the essential #e.uisites fo# validit%. !he
#e.uisites fo# the validit% of a $a##ia&e a#e classified b% the (a$il% Code into essential )le&al capacit% of
the cont#actin& pa#ties and thei# consent f#eel% &iven in the p#esence of the sole$ni9in& office#-
+?
and
fo#$al )autho#it% of the sole$ni9in& office#, $a##ia&e license, and $a##ia&e ce#e$on% 'he#ein the pa#ties
pe#sonall% decla#e thei# a&#ee$ent to $a##% befo#e the sole$ni9in& office# in the p#esence of at least t'o
'itnesses-.
+3
nde# A#ticle 7 of the (a$il% Code, an% $ale o# fe$ale of the a&e of ei&hteen %ea#s o#
up'a#ds not unde# an% of the i$pedi$ents $entioned in A#ticles ?D
+7
and ?C
+8
$a% cont#act $a##ia&e.
+D
"n this case, all the essential and fo#$al #e.uisites fo# the validit% of $a##ia&e 'e#e satisfied b% petitione#
and Anca1as. Both 'e#e ove# ei&hteen %ea#s of a&e, and the% volunta#il% cont#acted the second $a##ia&e
'ith the #e.ui#ed license befo#e <ud&e Alf#edo B. Pe#e9, <#. of the Cit% !#ial Cou#t of Lapu-lapu Cit%, in the
p#esence of at least t'o 'itnesses.
Althou&h the 1udicial decla#ation of the nullit% of a $a##ia&e on the &#ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit%
#et#oacts to the date of the celeb#ation of the $a##ia&e insofa# as the vinculu$ bet'een the spouses is
conce#ned, it is si&nificant to note that said $a##ia&e is not 'ithout le&al effects. A$on& these effects is
that child#en conceived o# bo#n befo#e the 1ud&$ent of absolute nullit% of the $a##ia&e shall be conside#ed
le&iti$ate.
+C
!he#e is the#efo#e a #eco&nition '#itten into the la' itself that such a $a##ia&e, althou&h void
ab initio, $a% still p#oduce le&al conse.uences. A$on& these le&al conse.uences is incu##in& c#i$inal
liabilit% fo# bi&a$%. !o hold othe#'ise 'ould #ende# the StateHs penal la's on bi&a$% co$pletel% nu&ato#%,
and allo' individuals to delibe#atel% ensu#e that each $a#ital cont#act be fla'ed in so$e $anne#, and to
thus escape the conse.uences of cont#actin& $ultiple $a##ia&es, 'hile be&uilin& th#on&s of hapless
'o$en 'ith the p#o$ise of futu#it% and co$$it$ent.
As such, 'e #ule that the thi#d and fou#th #e.uisites fo# the c#i$e of bi&a$% a#e p#esent in this case, and
affi#$ the 1ud&$ent of the Cou#t of Appeals.
As a final point, 'e note that based on the evidence on #eco#d, petitione# cont#acted $a##ia&e a thi#d ti$e,
'hile his $a##ia&es to Ailla#e%es and Anca1as 'e#e both still subsistin&. Althou&h this is i##elevant in the
dete#$ination of the accusedHs &uilt fo# pu#poses of this pa#ticula# case, the act of the accused displa%s a
delibe#ate dis#e&a#d fo# the sanctit% of $a##ia&e, and the State does not loo6 6indl% on such activities.
Ma##ia&e is a special cont#act, the 6e% cha#acte#istic of 'hich is its pe#$anence. @hen an individual
$anifests a delibe#ate patte#n of floutin& the foundation of the StateHs basic social institution, the StateHs
c#i$inal la's on bi&a$% step in.
nde# A#ticle ?3B of the Revised Penal Code, as a$ended, the penalt% fo# the c#i$e of bi&a$% is p#ision
$a%o#, 'hich has a du#ation of si0 )8- %ea#s and one )*- da% to t'elve )*+- %ea#s. !he#e bein& neithe#
a&&#avatin& no# $iti&atin& ci#cu$stance, the sa$e shall be i$posed in its $ediu$ pe#iod. Appl%in& the
"ndete#$inate Sentence La', petitione# shall be entitled to a $ini$u$ te#$, to be ta6en f#o$ the penalt%
ne0t lo'e# in de&#ee, i.e., p#ision co##eccional 'hich has a du#ation of si0 )8- $onths and one )*- da% to
si0 )8- %ea#s. 5ence, the Cou#t of Appeals co##ectl% affi#$ed the decision of the t#ial cou#t 'hich
sentenced petitione# to suffe# an indete#$inate penalt% of fou# )3- %ea#s and t'o )+- $onths of p#ision
co##eccional, as $ini$u$, to ei&ht )C- %ea#s and one )*- da% of p#ision $a%o#, as $a0i$u$.
@5ERE(ORE, in vie' of all the fo#e&oin&, the instant petition fo# #evie' is =EN"E=. !he assailed
decision of the Cou#t of Appeals in CA-2.R. CR No. +*8?8, convictin& petitione# Ae#onico !eneb#o of the
c#i$e of Bi&a$% and sentencin& hi$ to suffe# the indete#$inate penalt% of fou# )3- %ea#s and t'o )+-
$onths of p#ision co##eccional, as $ini$u$, to ei&ht )C- %ea#s and one )*- da% of p#ision $a%o#, as
$a0i$u$, is A(("RME= in toto.
SO OR=ERE=.
%a"ide, Jr., C.J. -Cairman., Pangani$an, /ando"al-0utierre1, Corona, and A1cuna, JJ., concu#.
Puno, J., join te opinion of J. Vitug.
Vitug, J., see sepa#ate opinion.
2uisum$ing, J., 1oin the dissent in vie' of void nuptia.
Carpio, J., see dissentin& opinion.
Austria-Martine1, J., 1oin the dissent of <. Ca#pio.
Carpio-Morales, J., 1oin the dissent of <. Ca#pio.
Tinga, J., 1oin the dissent of <. Ca#pio.
Callejo, /r., J., see sepa#ate dissent.
SEPARATE OPINION6
-ITUG, J.:
Ae#onico !eneb#o has been cha#&ed 'ith bi&a$% fo# cont#actin&, 'hile still bein& $a##ied to 5ilda
Ailla#e%es, a second $a##ia&e 'ith p#ivate co$plainant Leticia Anca1as. !eneb#o a#&ues that since his
second $a##ia&e 'ith Anca1as has ulti$atel% been decla#ed void ab initio on the &#ound of the latte#Hs
ps%cholo&ical incapacit%, he should be ac.uitted fo# the c#i$e of bi&a$%.
!he offense of bi&a$% is co$$itted 'hen one cont#acts >a second o# subse.uent $a##ia&e befo#e the
fo#$e# $a##ia&e has been le&all% dissolved, o# befo#e the absent spouse has been decla#ed
p#esu$ptivel% dead b% $eans of a 1ud&$ent #ende#ed in the p#ope# p#oceedin&s>.
*
Bi&a$% p#esupposes
a valid p#io# $a##ia&e and a subse.uent $a##ia&e, cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of the p#io# union,
'hich 'ould have been bindin& 'e#e it not fo# its bein& bi&a$ous.
@ould the absolute nullit% of eithe# the fi#st o# the second $a##ia&e, p#io# to its 1udicial decla#ation as
bein& void, constitute a valid defense in a c#i$inal action fo# bi&a$%M
" believe that, e0cept fo# a void $a##ia&e on account of the ps%cholo&ical incapacit% of a pa#t% o# both
pa#ties to the $a##ia&e unde# A#ticle ?8 of the (a$il% Code )as so he#einafte# e0plained-, the ans'e# $ust
be in the affi#$ative. Aoid $a##ia&es a#e ine0istent f#o$ the ve#% be&innin&, and no 1udicial dec#ee is
#e.ui#ed to establish thei# nullit%.
+
As ea#l% as the case of People vs. A#a&on
?
this Cou#t has unde#sco#ed
the fact that the Revised Penal Code itself does not, unli6e the #ule then p#evailin& in Spain, #e.ui#e the
1udicial decla#ation of nullit% of a p#io# void $a##ia&e befo#e it can be #aised b% 'a% of a defense in a
c#i$inal case fo# bi&a$%. 5ad the la' conte$plated othe#'ise, said the Cou#t, > an e0p#ess p#ovision to
that effect 'ould o# should have been inse#ted in the la', )but that in- its absence, )the cou#ts- a#e bound
b% )the- #ule of st#ict inte#p#etation> of penal statutes. "n cont#ast to a voidable $a##ia&e 'hich le&all%
e0ists until 1udiciall% annulled )and, the#efo#e, not a defense in a bi&a$% cha#&e if the second $a##ia&e
'e#e cont#acted p#io# to the dec#ee of annul$ent-
3
the co$plete nullit%, ho'eve#, of a p#eviousl%
cont#acted $a##ia&e, bein& void ab initio and le&all% ine0istent, can out#i&htl% be defense in an indict$ent
of bi&a$%.
"t has been held that, b% vi#tue of A#ticle 3, of the (a$il% Code, a pe#son $a% be convicted of bi&a$%
althou&h the fi#st $a##ia&e is ulti$atel% ad1ud&ed void ab initio if, at the ti$e the second $a##ia&e is
cont#acted, the#e has as %et no 1udicial decla#ation of nullit% of the p#io# $a##ia&e.
7
" $aintain st#on&
#ese#vations to this #ulin&. A#ticle 3, of the (a$il% Code #eads:
>A#ticle 3,. !he absolute nullit% of the p#evious $a##ia&e $a% be invo6ed fo# pu#poses of #e$a##ia&e on
the basis solel% of the final 1ud&$ent decla#in& such p#evious $a##ia&e void.>
"t is onl% >fo# pu#pose of #e$a##ia&e> that the la' has e0p#essed that the absolute nullit% of the p#evious
$a##ia&e $a% be invo6ed >on the basis solel% of the final 1ud&$ent decla#in& such p#evious $a##ia&e
void.> "t $a% not be a$iss to state that unde# the #e&i$e of the Civil Code of *B7,, the Sup#e$e Cou#t, in
@ie&el vs. <ud&e Se$pio-=i%,
8
has held that a subse.uent $a##ia&e of one of the spouses of a p#io# void
$a##ia&e is itself )the subse.uent $a##ia&e- void if it 'e#e cont#acted befo#e a 1udicial decla#ation of nullit%
of the p#evious $a##ia&e. Althou&h this p#onounce$ent has been abandoned in a late# decision of the
cou#t in Iap vs. Cou#t of Appeals,
D
the (a$il% Code, ho'eve# has seen it fit to adopt the @ie&el #ule but
onl% fo# pu#pose of #e$a##ia&e 'hich is 1ust to sa% that the subse.uent $a##ia&e shall itself be conside#ed
void. !he#e is no clea# indication to conclude that the (a$il% Code has a$ended o# intended to a$end
the Revised penal Code o# to abandon the settled and p#evailin& 1u#isp#udence on the $atte#.
C
A void $a##ia&e unde# A#ticle ?8 of the (a$il% Code is a class b% itself. !he p#ovision has been f#o$
Canon la' p#i$a#il% to #econcile the &#ounds fo# nullit% of $a##ia&e unde# civil la' 'ith those of chu#ch
la's.
B
!he >ps%cholo&ical incapacit% to co$pl%> 'ith the essential $a#ital obli&ations of the spouses is
co$pletel% distinct f#o$ othe# &#ounds fo# nullit% 'hich a#e confined to the essential o# fo#$al #e.uisites of
a $a##ia&e, such as lac6 of le&al capacit% o# dis.ualification of the cont#actin& pa#ties, 'ant of consent,
absence of a $a##ia&e license, o# the li6e.
!he effects of a $a##ia&e attended b% ps%cholo&ical incapacit% of a pa#t% o# the pa#ties the#eto $a% be
said to have the ea#$a#6s of a voidable, $o#e than a void, $a##ia&e, #e$ainin& to be valid until it is
1udiciall% dec#eed to be a nullit%. !hus, A#ticle 73 of the (a$il% Code conside#s child#en conceived o# bo#n
of such a void $a##ia&e befo#e its 1udicial decla#ation of nullit% to be le&iti$ate si$ila# to the #ule on a
voidable $a##ia&e. "t is e0pected, even as " believe it safe to assu$e, that the spousesH #i&hts and
obli&ations, p#ope#t% #e&i$e and successional #i&hts 'ould continue unaffected, as if it 'e#e a voidable
$a##ia&e, unless and until the $a##ia&e is 1udiciall% decla#ed void fo# basicall% t'o #easons: (i#st,
ps%cholo&ical incapacit%, a ne'l%-added &#ound fo# the nullit% of a $a##ia&e unde# the (a$il% Code,
b#eaches neithe# the essential no# the fo#$al #e.uisites of a valid $a##ia&es4
*,
and second, unli6e the
othe# &#ounds fo# nullit% of $a##ia&e )i.e., #elationship, $ino#it% of the pa#ties, lac6 of license, $ista6e in
the identit% of the pa#ties- 'hich a#e capable of #elativel% eas% de$onst#ation, ps%cholo&ical incapacit%,
ho'eve#, bein& a $ental state, $a% not so #eadil% be as evident.
**
"t 'ould have been lo&ical fo# the
(a$il% Code to conside# such a $a##ia&e e0plicitl% voidable #athe# than void if it 'e#e not fo# appa#ent
atte$pt to $a6e it closel% coincide 'ith the Canon La' rules and nomenclature.
"ndeed, a void $a##ia&e due to ps%cholo&ical incapacit% appea#s to $e#el% diffe# f#o$ a voidable $a##ia&e
in that, unli6e the latte#, it is not convalidated b% eithe# cohabitation o# p#esc#iption. "t $i&ht be #ecalled
that p#io# to #epublic Act No. C7??, fu#the# a$endin& the (a$il% Code, an action o# defense of absolute
nullit% of $a##ia&e fallin& unde# A#ticle ?8, celeb#ated befo#e the effectivit% of the Code, could p#esc#ibe in
ten %ea#s follo'in& the effectivit% of the (a$il% Code. !he initial p#ovision of the ten-%ea# pe#iod of
p#esc#iption see$s to bet#a% a #eal consciousness b% the f#a$e#s that $a##ia&es fallin& unde# A#ticle ?8
a#e t#ul% $eant to be ine0istent.
Conside#ations, both lo&ical and p#actical, 'ould point to the fact that a >void> $a##ia&e due to
ps%cholo&ical incapacit% #e$ains, fo# all intents and pu#poses, to be bindin& and efficacious until 1udiciall%
decla#ed othe#'ise. @ithout such $a##ia&e havin& fi#st been decla#ed a nullit% )o# othe#'ise dissolved-, a
subse.uent $a##ia&e could constitute bi&a$%. !hus, a civil case .uestionin& the validit% of the fi#st
$a##ia&e 'ould not be a p#e1udicial issue $uch in the sa$e 'a% that a civil case assailin& a p#io#
>voidable> $a##ia&e )bein& valid until annulled- 'ould not be a p#e1udicial .uestion to the p#osecution of a
c#i$inal offense fo# bi&a$%.
"n cases 'he#e the second $a##ia&e is void on &#ounds othe# than the e0istence of the fi#st $a##ia&e, this
Cou#t has decla#ed in a line of cases that no c#i$e of bi&a$% is co$$itted.
*+
!he Cou#t has e0plained that
fo# a pe#son to be held &uilt% of bi&a$%, it $ust, even as it needs onl%, be sho'n that the subse.uent
$a##ia&e has all the essential ele$ents of a valid $a##ia&e, 'e#e it not fo# the subsistin& fi#st union.
5ence, 'he#e it is established that the second $a##ia&e has been cont#acted 'ithout the necessa#%
license and thus void,
*?
o# that the accused is $e#el% fo#ced to ente# into the second )voidable-
$a##ia&e,
*3
no c#i$inal liabilit% fo# the c#i$e of bi&a$% can attach. "n both and li6e instances, ho'eve#, the
lapses #efe#s to the ele$ents #e.ui#ed fo# cont#actin& a valid $a##ia&e. "f, then, all the #e.uisites fo# the
pe#fection of the cont#act $a##ia&e, f#eel% and volunta#il% ente#ed into, a#e sho'n to be e0tant, the
c#i$inal liabilit% fo# bi&a$% can unassailabl% a#ise.
S#*7% 8"y7(olo/#7!l #*7!8!7#$y, u8o* $(% o$(%) (!*&, &o%" *o$ )%l!$% $o !* #*9#).#$y #* $(%
%l%.%*$", %#$(%) %""%*$#!l o) 9o).!l, #* 7o*$!7$#*/ ! 3!l#& .!))#!/%, $(% &%7l!)!$#o* o9 *ull#$y
"u'"%:u%*$ $o $(% '#/!.ou" .!))#!/% &u% $o $(!$ /)ou*&, ;#$(ou$ .o)%, ;oul& '%
#*7o*"%:u%*$#!l #* ! 7)#.#*!l 7(!)/% 9o) '#/!.y. !he 1udicial decla#ation of nullit% of a bi&a$ous
$a##ia&e on the &#ound of ps%cholo&ical incapacit% $e#el% nullifies the %99%7$" of the $a##ia&e but it does
not ne&ate the fact of 8%)9%7$#o* of the bi&a$ous $a##ia&e. "ts subse.uent decla#ation of nullit% dissolves
the #elationship of the spouses but, bein& alien to the #e.uisite conditions fo# the pe#fection of the
$a##ia&e, the 1ud&$ent of the cou#t is no defense on the pa#t of the offende# 'ho had ente#ed into it.
Acco#din&l%, " vote to dis$iss the petition
TENEBRO -S CA GR 151054, FEB 14,2114
!eneb#o cont#acted $a##ia&e 'ith Anca1as in *BB,. !he t'o lived to&ethe# continuousl% and 'ithout
inte##uption until the latte# pa#t of *BB*, 'hen !eneb#o info#$ed Anca1as that he had been p#eviousl%
$a##ied to a ce#tain 5ilda Ailla#e%es in *BC8. Petitione# the#eafte# left the con1u&al d'ellin& 'hich he
sha#ed 'ith Anca1as, statin& that he 'as &oin& to cohabit 'ith Ailla#e%es. "n *BB?, petitione#
cont#acted %et anothe# $a##ia&e 'ith a ce#tain Nilda Aille&as. Anca1as the#eafte# filed a co$plaint fo#
bi&a$% a&ainst petitione#. Aille&as counte#ed that his $a##ia&e 'ith Ailla#e%es cannot be p#oven as a
fact the#e bein& no #eco#d of such. 5e fu#the# a#&ued that his second $a##ia&e, 'ith Anca1as, has
been decla#ed void ab initio due to ps%cholo&ical incapacit%. 5ence he cannot be cha#&ed fo#
bi&a$%.
ISSUE< @hethe# o# not !eneb#o is &uilt% of bi&a$%.
+EL< !he p#osecution 'as able to establish the validit% of the fi#st $a##ia&e. As a second o#
subse.uent $a##ia&e cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of petitione#Hs valid $a##ia&e to Ailla#e%es,
petitione#Hs $a##ia&e to Anca1as 'ould be null and void ab initio co$pletel% #e&a#dless of petitione#Hs
ps%cholo&ical capacit% o# incapacit%. Since a $a##ia&e cont#acted du#in& the subsistence of a valid
$a##ia&e is auto$aticall% void, the nullit% of this second $a##ia&e is not pe# se an a#&u$ent fo# the
avoidance of c#i$inal liabilit% fo# bi&a$%. Pe#tinentl%, A#ticle ?3B of the Revised Penal Code
c#i$inali9es Nan% pe#son 'ho shall cont#act a second o# subse.uent $a##ia&e befo#e the fo#$e#
$a##ia&e has been le&all% dissolved, o# befo#e the absent spouse has been decla#ed p#esu$ptivel%
dead b% $eans of a 1ud&$ent #ende#ed in the p#ope# p#oceedin&sO. A plain #eadin& of the la',
the#efo#e, 'ould indicate that the p#ovision penali9es the $e#e act of cont#actin& a second o# a
subse.uent $a##ia&e du#in& the subsistence of a valid $a##ia&e.
Read full te3t ere.
S%8!)!$% O8#*#o* o9 Ju"$#7% -#$u/
<ustice Aitu& pointed out that void ab initio $a##ia&es )e0cept those fallin& unde# the p#inciple of
ps%cholo&ical incapacit%- should be allo'ed to be used as a valid defense fo# bi&a$%. Aoid ab initio
$a##ia&es #e.ui#e no 1udicial dec#ee to establish thei# nullit%. "t is t#ue that the Revised Penal Code
does not #e.ui#e the fi#st o# second $a##ia&e to be decla#ed void to avoid a c#i$inal case of
bi&a$% but this should onl% be applicable to voidable $a##ia&es - because a&ain, void ab initio
$a##ia&es #eall% do not need such 1udicial dec#ee.
R!#u0l.1 2$. D,y"/
GR N". 135541, M,&15 24, 2))4
2(CS;
!ose and 2elisa Dayot were married at t#e 1asay City "all on November +/, -.:H. &n
lieu of a marriage license, t#ey eCecuted a sworn a$davit t#at t#ey #ad lived
toget#er for at least 7years. 4n (ugust -..6, !ose contracted marriage wit# a
certain Rufna 1ascual. #ey were bot# employees of t#e National Statistics and
Coordinating )oard. 2elisa t#en fled on !une -..D an action for bigamy against !ose
and an administrative complaint wit# t#e 4$ce of t#e 4mbudsman. 4n t#e ot#er
#and, !ose fled a complaint on !uly -..D for annulment andIor declaration of nullity
of marriage w#ere #e contended t#at #is marriage wit# 2elisa was a s#am and #is
consent was secured t#roug# fraud.
&SS>?; 8#et#er or not !ose3s marriage wit# 2elisa is valid considering t#at t#ey
eCecuted a sworn a$davit in lieu of t#e marriage license re9uirement.
"?BD;
C( indubitably establis#ed t#at !ose and 2elisa #ave not lived toget#er for fve years
at t#e time t#ey eCecuted t#eir sworn a$davit and contracted marriage. !ose and
2elisa started living toget#er only in !une -.:H, or barely fve mont#s before t#e
celebration of t#eir marriage on November -.:H. 2indings of facts of t#e Court of
(ppeals are binding in t#e Supreme Court.
#e solemni'ation of a marriage wit#out prior license is a clear violation of t#e law
and invalidates a marriage. 2urt#ermore, <t#e falsity of t#e allegation in t#e sworn
a$davit relating to t#e period of !ose and 2elisa3s co#abitation, w#ic# would #ave
9ualifed t#eir marriage as an eCception to t#e re9uirement for a marriage license,
cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a 9uintessential fact t#at t#e law
precisely re9uired to be deposed and attested to by t#e parties under oat#=. "ence,
!ose and 2elisa3s marriage is void ab initio. #e court also ruled t#at an action for
nullity of marriage is imprescriptible. #e rig#t to impugn marriage does not
prescribe and may be raised any time.
R!#u0l.1 "6 /5! 5.l.##.+!$ 2$ J"$! A. D,y"/ GR N". 135541 M,&15 24, 2))4
2act of t#e Case; 4n November +/, -.:H !ose and 2elisa Dayot were married at t#e
1asay City "all. &n lieu of a marriage license, t#ey eCecuted a sworn a$davit
attesting t#at bot# of t#em are legally capacitated and t#at t#ey co#abited for
atleast fve years w#en in fact t#ey only barely 0nown eac# ot#er since 2ebruary
-.:H.4n -..D, !ose fled a complaint for (nnulment andIor Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage contending t#at t#eir marriage was s#am, as to no ceremony was
celebrated between t#emJ t#at #e did not eCecute t#e sworn statement t#at #e and
2elisa #ad co#abited for atleast fve yearsJ and t#at #is consent was secured
t#roug# fraud. "is sister, #owever, testifed as witness t#at !ose voluntarily gave #is
consent during t#eir marriage. #e complaint was dismissed on Regional rial Court
stating t#at !ose is deemed estopped from assailing t#e legality of #is marriage for
lac0 of marriage license. &t is claimed t#at !ose and 2elisa #ad lived toget#er from
-.:H to -..6, and t#at it too0 !ose seven years before #e soug#t t#e declaration of
nullityJ #e RC ruled t#at !ose3s action #ad prescribe. &t cited (rt :, of t#e New Civil
Code w#ic# re9uires t#at t#e action for annulment must be commenced by t#e
in*ured party wit#in four years after t#e discovery of fraud. !ose appealed to t#e
Court of (ppeals w#ic# rendered a decision declaring t#eir marriage void ab initio
for absence of marriage license. 2elisa soug#t a petition for review praying t#at t#e
Court of (ppeal3s (mended decision be reversed and set aside.
&ssue; @-A 8#et#er t#e falsity of an a$davit of marital co#abitation, w#ere t#e
parties #ave in trut# fallen s#ort of t#e minimum fve5year re9uirement., e%ectively
renders t#e marriage voib an initio for lac0 of marriage. @+A 8#et#er or not t#e
action for nullity prescribes as t#e case #ere w#ere !ose fled a complaint after
seven years from contracting marriage.
"eld; @-AKes.#e intendment of law or fact leans towards t#e validity of marriage,
will not salvage t#e parties3 marriage, and eCtricate t#em from t#e e%ect of a
violation of t#e law. #e Court protects t#e fabric of t#e institution of marriage and
at t#e same time wary of deceptive sc#emes t#at violate t#e legal measures set
fort# in t#e law. #e case cannot fall under irregularity of t#e marriage license, w#at
#appens #ere is an absence of marriage license w#ic# ma0es t#eir marriage void for
lac0 of one of t#e essential re9uirement of a valid marriage. @+A No. (n action for
nullity is imprescriptible. !ose and 2elisa3s marriage was celebrated san a marriage
license. #e rig#t to impugn a void marriage does not prescribe.
Su$,+ N.1-," C,&.7" 2$. Su$,+ Y!! C,&.7"
GR No. -D+7+. 2ebruary +, +66-
2(CS;
S14/ Santiago C(riEo married petitioner Susan Nicdao on !une +6, -.H.,
wit# w#om #e #ad two c#ildren, Sa#lee and Sandee. 4n November -6, -.:+, S14/
CariEo also married respondent Susan Kee. &n -.::, S14/ CariEo became
bedridden due to diabetes and tuberculosis, and died on November +D, -..+, under
t#e care of Susan Kee w#o spent for #is medical and burial eCpenses. )ot# Susans
fled claims for monetary benefts and fnancial assistance from various government
agencies pertaining to t#e deceased. Nicdao was able to collect 1-/H,666 from
M)(&, 1CCL&, commutation, N(14BC4M and 1ag5ibig, w#ile Kee received a total of
1+-,666 from GS&S burial and SSS burial insurance.
4n December -/, -..D, Kee fled for collection of money against N&cdao,
praying t#at Nicdao be ordered to return to #er at least one5#alf of t#e 1-/H,666
N&cdao #ad collected. 2or failing to fle #er answer, N&cdao was declared in default.
Kee admitted t#at #er marriage to t#e deceased too0 place during t#e
subsistence of and wit#out frst obtaining a *udicial declaration of nullity of t#e
marriage between Nicdao and CariEo. )ut s#e claimed good fait#, #aving no
0nowledge of t#e previous marriage until at t#e funeral w#ere s#e met Nicdao w#o
introduced #erself as t#e wife of t#e deceased. Kee submitted t#at CariEo3s
marriage to Nicdao was void because it was solemni'ed wit#out t#e re9uired
marriage license.
&SS>?S; @-A 8#et#er or not t#e subse9uent marriage is null and voidJ
@+A 8#et#er or not, if yes to above, t#e wife of t#e deceased is entitled to
collect t#e deat# benefts from government agencies despite t#e nullity of t#eir
marriage.
"?BD;
>nder (rticle /6 of t#e 2amily Code, t#e nullity of a previous marriage
may be invo0ed for purposes of remarriage on t#e basis solely of a fnal *udgment
declaring suc# marriage void. Meaning, w#ere t#e absolute nullity of a previous
marriage is soug#t to be invo0ed for purposes of contracting a second marriage, t#e
sole basis acceptable in law, for said pro*ected marriage to be free from legal
infrmity, is a fnal *udgment declaring t#e previous marriage void. "owever, for
purposes ot#er t#an remarriage, no *udicial action is necessary to declare a
marriage an absolute nullity. 2or ot#er purposes, suc# as but not limited to t#e
determination of #eirs#ip, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a c#ild, settlement of estate,
dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for t#at matter, t#e court may
pass upon t#e validity of marriage even after t#e deat# of t#e parties t#ereto, and
even in a suit not directly instituted to 9uestion t#e validity of said marriage, so long
as it is essential to t#e determination of t#e case.
>nder t#e Civil Code w#ic# was t#e law in force w#en t#e marriage of
petitioner and t#e deceased was solemni'ed in -.H., a valid marriage license is a
re9uisite of marriage, and t#e absence t#erof, sub*ect to certain eCceptions, renders
t#e marriage void ab initio.
&t does not follow, #owever, t#at since t#e marriage of Nicdao and t#e
deceased was void ab initio, t#e deat# benefts would now be awarded to Kee. o
reiterate, under (rticle /6 of t#e 2amily Code, for purposes of remarriage, t#ere
must be a prior *udicial declaration of t#e nullity of a previous marriage, t#oug#
void, before a party can enter into a second marriageJ ot#erwise, t#e second
marriage would also be void.
4ne of t#e e%ects of t#e declaration of nullity of marriage is t#e
separation of t#e property of t#e spouses according to t#e applicable property
regime. Considering t#at t#e two marriages are void ab initio, t#e applicable
property regime would be not absolute community nor con*ugal partners#ip of
property, but governed by t#e provisions of (rticles -/, and -/: of t#e 2amily Code,
on 1roperty Regime of >nions 8it#out Marriage.
CARINO -S CARINO GR 112569 FEB 2, 2111
"n *B8B SPO3 Santia&o Ca#ino $a##ied Susan Nicdao Ca#ino. 5e had + child#en 'ith he#. "n *BB+,
SPO3 cont#acted a second $a##ia&e, this ti$e 'ith Susan Iee Ca#ino. "n *BCC, p#io# to his second
$a##ia&e, SPO3 is al#ead% bed#idden and he 'as unde# the ca#e of Iee. "n *BB+, he died *? da%s
afte# his $a##ia&e 'ith Iee. !he#eafte#, the spouses 'ent on to clai$ the benefits of SPO3. Nicdao
'as able to clai$ a total of P*3,,,,,.,, 'hile Iee 'as able to collect a total of P+*,,,,.,,. "n *BB?,
Iee filed an action fo# collection of su$ of $one% a&ainst Nicdao. She 'anted to have half of the
P*3,6. Iee ad$itted that he# $a##ia&e 'ith SPO3 'as sole$ni9ed du#in& the subsistence of the
$a##ia&e bPn SPO3 and Nicdao but the said $a##ia&e bet'een Nicdao and SPO3 is null and void
due to the absence of a valid $a##ia&e license as ce#tified b% the local civil #e&ist#a#. Iee also
clai$ed that she onl% found out about the p#evious $a##ia&e on SPO3Hs fune#al.
ISSUE< @hethe# o# not the absolute nullit% of $a##ia&e $a% be invo6ed to clai$ p#esu$ptive
le&iti$es.
+EL< !he $a##ia&e bet'een Nicdao and SPO3 is null and void due the absence of a valid $a##ia&e
license. !he $a##ia&e bet'een Iee and SPO3 is li6e'ise null and void fo# the sa$e has been
sole$ni9ed 'ithout the 1udicial decla#ation of the nullit% of the $a##ia&e bet'een Nicdao and SPO3.
nde# A#ticle 3, of the (C, the absolute nullit% of a p#evious $a##ia&e $a% be invo6ed fo# pu#poses
of #e$a##ia&e on the basis solel% of a final 1ud&$ent decla#in& such p#evious $a##ia&e void.
Meanin&, 'he#e the absolute nullit% of a p#evious $a##ia&e is sou&ht to be invo6ed fo# pu#poses of
cont#actin& a second $a##ia&e, the sole basis acceptable in la', fo# said p#o1ected $a##ia&e to be
f#ee f#o$ le&al infi#$it%, is a final 1ud&$ent decla#in& the p#evious $a##ia&e void. 5o'eve#, fo#
pu#poses othe# than #e$a##ia&e, no 1udicial action is necessa#% to decla#e a $a##ia&e an absolute
nullit%. (o# othe# pu#poses, such as but not li$ited to the dete#$ination of hei#ship, le&iti$ac% o#
ille&iti$ac% of a child, settle$ent of estate, dissolution of p#ope#t% #e&i$e, o# a c#i$inal case fo# that
$atte#, the cou#t $a% pass upon the validit% of $a##ia&e even afte# the death of the pa#ties the#eto,
and even in a suit not di#ectl% instituted to .uestion the validit% of said $a##ia&e, so lon& as it is
essential to the dete#$ination of the case. "n such instances, evidence $ust be adduced, testi$onial
o# docu$enta#%, to p#ove the e0istence of &#ounds #ende#in& such a p#evious $a##ia&e an absolute
nullit%. !hese need not be li$ited solel% to an ea#lie# final 1ud&$ent of a cou#t decla#in& such
p#evious $a##ia&e void.
!he SC #uled that Iee has no #i&ht to the benefits ea#ned b% SPO3 as a police$an fo# thei# $a##ia&e
is void due to bi&a$%4 she is onl% entitled to p#ope#ties, $one% etc o'ned b% the$ in co$$on in
p#opo#tion to thei# #espective cont#ibutions. @a&es and sala#ies ea#ned b% each pa#t% shall belon& to
hi$ o# he# e0clusivel% )A#t. *3C of (C-. Nicdao is entitled to the full benefits ea#ned b% SPO3 as a
cop even if thei# $a##ia&e is li6e'ise void. !his is because the t'o 'e#e capacitated to $a##% each
othe# fo# the#e 'e#e no i$pedi$ents but thei# $a##ia&e 'as void due to the lac6 of a $a##ia&e
license4 in thei# situation, thei# p#ope#t% #elations is &ove#ned b% A#t *3D of the (C 'hich p#ovides
that eve#%thin& the% ea#ned du#in& thei# cohabitation is p#esu$ed to have been e.uall% cont#ibuted
b% each pa#t% J this includes sala#ies and 'a&es ea#ned b% each pa#t% not'ithstandin& the fact that
the othe# $a% not have cont#ibuted at all.

Ninal vs. Ba%ado& ?+C SCRA *++
(AC!S:
Pepito Ninal 'as $a##ied 'ith !eodulfa Bellones on Septe$be# +8, *BD3. !he% had ? child#en
na$el% Bab%line, "n&#id and A#chie, petitione#s. =ue to the shot inflicted b% Pepito to !eodulfa, the
latte# died on Ap#il +3, *BC7 leavin& the child#en unde# the &ua#dianship of En&#ace Ninal. * %ea#
and C $onths late#, Pepito and No#$a Bada%o& &ot $a##ied 'ithout an% $a##ia&e license. !he%
instituted an affidavit statin& that the% had lived to&ethe# fo# at least 7 %ea#s e0e$ptin& f#o$ secu#in&
the $a##ia&e license. Pepito died in a ca# accident on (eb#ua#% *B, *BDD. Afte# his death,
petitione#s filed a petition fo# decla#ation of nullit% of the $a##ia&e of Pepito and No#$a alle&in& that
said $a##ia&e 'as void fo# lac6 of $a##ia&e license.
"SSES:
*. @hethe# o# not the second $a##ia&e of Pepito 'as voidM
+. @hethe# o# not the hei#s of the deceased $a% file fo# the decla#ation of the nullit% of PepitoHs
$a##ia&e afte# his deathM
5EL=:
!he $a##ia&e of Pepito and No#$a is void fo# absence of the $a##ia&e license. !he% cannot be
e0e$pted even thou&h the% instituted an affidavit and clai$ed that the% cohabit fo# at least 7 %ea#s
because f#o$ the ti$e of PepitoHs fi#st $a##ia&e 'as dissolved to the ti$e of his $a##ia&e 'ith
No#$a, onl% about +, $onths had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his fi#st 'ife had sepa#ated in fact, and
the#eafte# both Pepito and No#$a had sta#ted livin& 'ith each othe# that has al#ead% lasted fo# five
%ea#s, the fact #e$ains that thei# five-%ea# pe#iod cohabitation 'as not the cohabitation conte$plated
b% la'. 5ence, his $a##ia&e to No#$a is still void.
Aoid $a##ia&es a#e dee$ed to have not ta6en place and cannot be the sou#ce of #i&hts. "t can be
.uestioned even afte# the death of one of the pa#ties and an% p#ope# inte#ested pa#t% $a% attac6 a
void $a##ia&e.
Ninal vs. )ayadog MG.R. No. -DD,,:N Marc# -/, +666
2act;
1epito married #is second wife Norma a year and eig#t mont#s after #is frst wife
eodulfa3s deat#. 1epito and Norma got married wit#out any marriage license
because t#ey lived toget#er for 7 years and t#us eCempt from marriage license.
Some years after, 1epito died in a car accident.
#e #eirs as petitioners, fearing problems in successional rig#ts @succession only
occurs after t#e deat# of an ascendantA due to t#e second marriage, fled a Opetition
for declaration for nullity of marriage3 @a.0.a. declaration of nullity of void marriagesA
between 1epito @deceasedA and Norma using t#e absence of a marriage license as a
legal basis.
&ssues;
#e lower court dismissed t#e petition because;
@-A #e 2amily Code is silent w#et#er t#e petition #as a 3cause of action3. Can t#ere
be suc# a petition w#en t#e #eirs3 parent is deceasedG
@+A (re t#e #eirs a Oproper party3G
@DA Determination w#et#er t#e second marriage is void ab initio @from t#e
beginningA is a must but is a di%erent matter. Loid marriages cannot be attac0ed
collaterally.
@/A 8#et#er t#e petition for declaration for nullity of marriage #as prescribed.
#e lower court ruled;
@-A 1etitioners s#ould #ave fled an action to declare null and void t#eir fat#er3s
marriage before t#e latter3s deat#.
@+A #e prescription period and t#e proper party in an annulment proceeding were
used as a basis to dismiss petitioner3s case.
1etitioners disagree wit# t#e decision and petitions for a review.
"eld;
#e Supreme Court ruled t#at;
@-A #e applicable law, for t#e determination of marriage, is t#e Civil Code and not
t#e 2amily Code. @&n determining t#e validity of marriage, it is to be tested by t#e
law in force at t#e time t#e marriage was contracted.A
@+A #ere is no second marriage. #e absence of a marriage license renders
marriage void ab initio. #e eCemption for a marriage license, t#e co#abitation, was
not t#e one described by t#e Civil Code. &t is not t#e one described by t#e Civil Code
because t#e co#abitation, after t#e frst marriage, was only twenty mont#s w#ereas
t#e law re9uires fve years. &f t#e respondent too0 into consideration t#e ot#er years
and mont#s before t#e second marriage, t#en t#e co#abitation would include t#e
period of t#e frst marriage. #is is in violation of t#e law.
@DA Separation in fact @not t#e legal separationA by t#e frst marriage does not count
co#abitation.
<#is 75year period s#ould be t#e years immediately before t#e day of t#e marriage
and it s#ould be a period of co#abitation c#aracteri'ed by eCclusivity P meaning no
t#ird party was involved at any time wit#in t#e 7 years and continuity P t#at is
unbro0en.=
@/A #e *udge3s ruling @lower courtA, w#ere void and voidable marriages are made
identical is erroneous. Loid and voidable marriages are not identical.
<( marriage t#at is annulable is valid until ot#erwise declared by t#e courtJ w#ereas
a marriage t#at is void ab initio is considered as #aving never to #ave ta0en place.=
<( voidable can be generally ratifed or confrmed by free co#abitation or
prescription w#ile a void marriage can never be ratifed.=
<( voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally eCcept in a direct proceeding
w#ile a void marriage can be attac0ed collaterally.=
<Loid marriages can be 9uestioned even after t#e deat# of eit#er party but voidable
marriages can be assailed only during t#e lifetime of t#e parties and not after deat#
of eit#er, in w#ic# case t#e parties and t#eir o%spring will be left as if t#e marriage
#ad been perfectly valid.=
<#e action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unli0e voidable marriages
w#ere t#e action prescribes.=
<4nly t#e parties to a voidable marriage can assail it but any proper interested
party may attac0 a void marriage.<
<Loid marriages #ave no legal e%ects eCcept t#ose declared by law concerning t#e
properties of t#e alleged spouses, regarding co5owners#ip or owners#ip t#roug#
actual *oint contribution, and its e%ect on t#e c#ildren born to suc# void marriages
as provided in (rticle 76 in relation to (rticle /D and // as well as (rticle 7-, 7D and
7/ of t#e 2amily Code. 4n t#e contrary, t#e property regime governing voidable
marriages is generally con*ugal partners#ip and t#e c#ildren conceived before its
annulment are legitimate.=
@7A #e Supreme Court re9uires a *udicial decree of nullity of second marriage
before determining succession rig#ts.
<!urisprudence under t#e Civil Code states t#at no *udicial decree is necessary in
order to establis# t#e nullity of a marriage. )ut (rticle /6 of t#e 2amily Code
eCpressly provides t#at t#ere must be a *udicial declaration of t#e nullity of a
previous marriage, t#oug# void, before a party can enter into a second marriage.=
<"owever, ot#er t#an for purposes of remarriage, no *udicial action is necessary to
declare a marriage an absolute nullity. 2or ot#er purposes, suc# as but not limited to
determination of #eirs#ip, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a c#ild, settlement of estate,
dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for t#at matter, t#e court may
pass upon t#e validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to 9uestion
t#e same so long as it is essential to t#e determination of t#e case. #is is wit#out
pre*udice to any issue t#at may arise in t#e case. 8#en suc# need arises, a fnal
*udgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if t#e purpose is ot#er t#an to
remarry. #e clause <on t#e basis of a fnal *udgment declaring suc# previous
marriage void= in (rticle /6 of t#e 2amily Code connotes t#at suc# fnal *udgment
need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage.=

You might also like