Enrico vs Heirs of Sps. Eulogio & Trinidad Medinaceli | Annulment | Marriage


173614 FACT: It is petition assailing the RTC’s reinstatement order on the formerly dismissed filed action for the declaration of nullity of marriage between the petitioner and respondents father. Eulogio Medinaceli and Trinidad CatliMedinaceli, were married on June 14, 1962, begotten seven children. Trinidad died on May 1, 2004; Eulogio married another woman named Lolita Enrico on August 26, 2004. Six months later, Eulogio passed away. Respondents filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage between Petition er and the respondent’s late father on two grounds: 1. that the marriage lacks the requisite of marriage license, and; 2. the lack of marriage ceremony due to respondent’s father serious illness that made its performance impossible. Loleta, defend her stand by citing Article 34 of the family code arguing her exemption from getting marriage license. She sought then the dismissal of the respondent’s filed action by citing the AM -02-11-10-SC, Sec. 2, par. (a) Rule of the family code. Pursuant to “AM-02-11-10-SC” embodied the rule on declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages RTC dismissed the respondents filed action. Respondents filed motion for reconsideration invoking the ruling in the case of Niñal v. Bayadog, holding that the heirs of a deceased spouse have the standing to assail a voidable marriage even after death of one of the spouses. RTC granted the motion and issued an order for reinstatement of the case. Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration but denied, thereby petitioner assailed a petition directly to Supreme Court. ISSUES: 1.)Whether or not respondent heirs can assail the validity of said marriage after the death of Eulogio. 2.) Whether which of the two rule “AM 02-11-10-SC” or “Niñal v. Bayadog” shall govern the instant case HELD: Petition is GRANTED. Respondent/heirs have NO legal standing to assail the validity of the second marriage after the death of their father; because the rule on “AM 02-11-10-SC” shall govern the said petition, under the Family Code of the Philippines. Particularly Sec 2, par. (a) Provides that a petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Question: Why the rule on AM 02-11-10-SC should govern this case not the held decision on Niñal v. Bayadog case whereas the two cases expressed a common cause of issue? Here the court resolved that; in Niñal v. Bayadog case the heirs were allowed to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of their father’s second marriage even after their father’s death because the impugned marriage there was solemnized prior to the affectivity of the Family Code. Unlike in this case Enrico v Heirs of Medinaceli where same holding cannot be applied because the marriage here was celebrated in 2004 where the Family Code is already effective and under family code is embodied the rule on “AM 02 -11-10-SC” where this rule shall govern petitions for the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages. Nonetheless, as the heirs major concern here, the court supplied; that the heirs have still remedy to protect their successional rights 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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful