CATALAN v.

CA
1. Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent
Orlando on June 4, 1950. Thereafter, they migrated to
the United States of America and allegedly became
naturalized citizens thereof. After 38 years of marriage,
Felicitas and Orlando divorced in April 1988.
2. Two months after the divorce, Orlando married
respondent Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan.
3. Contending that said marriage was bigamous since
Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with Eusebio
Bristol, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage with damages against Orlando and
Merope.
4. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not
a real party-in-interest, but it was denied. Trial on the
merits ensued.
5. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner.
a. Subsequent marriage of Merope and Orlando is
declared null and void ab initio.
b. Defendants are to pay damages and other fees
c. The donation in consideration of marriage is
ordered revoked and the property donated is
awarded to the heirs of Juliana Braganza.
6. Respondent appealed the decision to the CA. CA
reversed the decision of RTC.
ISSUE/HELD:
WON the petitioner has the personality to file a petition
for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the
respondents on the ground of bigamy. IT CANNOT BE
ASCERTAINED. Case remanded to the trial Court.

This issue may not be resolved without first

determining the corollary issue of whether the
petitioner and respondent had indeed become
naturalized citizens and whether they had actually
been judicially granted a divorce decree.
o Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found
that petitioner and respondent Orlando were
naturalized American citizens and that they
obtained a divorce decree in April 1988.
However, after a careful review of the

records, we note that other than the

allegations in the complaint and the
testimony during the trial, the records are
bereft of competent evidence to prove their
naturalization and divorce.
We are not therefore dealing in this case with
Filipino citizens whose marital status is governed by
the Family Code and our Civil Code, but with
American citizens who secured their divorce in the
U.S. and who are considered by their national law to
be free to contract another marriage.
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be
recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such
decree is valid according to the national law of the
foreigner. However, before it can be recognized by
our courts, the party pleading it must prove the
divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to
the foreign law allowing it, which must be proved
considering that our courts cannot take judicial
notice of foreign laws.
Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part
of the evidence, we cannot rule on the issue of
whether petitioner has the personality to file the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. After
all, she may have the personality to file the
petition if the divorce decree obtained was a
limited divorce or a or a mensa et thoro the foreign
law may restrict remarriage even after the divorce
decree becomes absolute.In such case, the RTC
would be correct to declare the marriage of the
respondents void for being bigamous,
Petitioners personality to file the petition to
declare the nullity of marriage cannot be
ascertained because of the absence of the
divorce decree and the foreign law allowing
it. Hence, a remand of the case to the trial court
for reception of additional evidence is necessary to
determine whether respondent Orlando was
granted a divorce decree and whether the foreign
law which granted the same allows or restricts
remarriage.

If it is proved that a valid divorce decree was

obtained and the same did not allow respondent
Orlandos remarriage, then the trial court should
declare respondents marriage as bigamous and
void ab initio but reduce the amount of moral
damages fromP300,000.00 to P50,000.00 and
exemplary
damages
from P200,000.00
to P25,000.00. On the contrary, if it is proved that a
valid divorce decree was obtained which allowed
Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must
dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of
marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas
Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the
same.

ENRICO v. HEIRS OF EULOGIO MEDINACELI

1. Respondents, heirs of Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli
(Eulogio) and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli (Trinidad) filed
with the RTC, an action for declaration of nullity of
marriage of Eulogio and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico.
2. Substantially, the complaint alleged, inter alia, that
Eulogio and Trinidad were married on 14 June 1962
and they had 7 children. On 1 May 2004, Trinidad died.
3. On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married petitioner before
the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan. Six months
later, or on 10 February 2005, Eulogio passed away.
4.
In impugning petitioners marriage to Eulogio,
respondents averred the following:
a. That the same was entered into without the
requisite marriage license. They argued that
Article 348 of the Family Code is not applicable.
b. Lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogios
serious illness which made its performance
impossible.
5. In her answer, petitioner maintained:
a. That she and Eulogio lived together as husband
and wife under one roof for 21 years openly and
publicly; hence, they were exempted from the
requirement of a marriage license.

b. From their union were born Elvin Enrico and

Marco Enrico, all surnamed Medinaceli, on 28
October
1988
and
30
October
1991,
respectively.
c. She further contended that the marriage
ceremony was performed in the Municipal Hall
of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and solemnized by the
Municipal Mayor.
d. She sought the dismissal of the action on the
ground that it is only the contracting parties
while living who can file an action for
declaration of nullity of marriage.
6. RTC granted the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of
cause of action invoking section 2 (a) of AM 02-11-10SC which provides that a petition for declaration of
Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage may be filed solely
by the husband or the wife. The heirs of the deceased
spouse cannot substitute their late father in bringing
the action to declare the marriage null and void.
7. Respondents filed an MR and the RTC reversed its prior
Order. They said that the assailed Order ignored the
ruling in Nial v. Bayadog.
a. The heirs of a deceased spouse have the
standing to assail a void marriage even after the
death of the latter.
8. RTC believes that sec. 2(a) of the Rules on Declaration
of Absolute Nullity of Marriage is applicable only when
both parties to a void marriage is still living. Upon the
death of the anyone of the guilty party to the void
marriage, his heirs may file a petition to declare the
marriage void.
ISSUE/HELD: WON The heirs o Eulogio anf Trinidad can invoke
the nullity of the marriage of their deceased father. No.

The ruling in Nial case cannot be applied because the

impugned marriage therein was solemnized prior to
the effectivity of the Family Code. The Court in Nial
recognized that the applicable law to determine the
validity of the two marriages involved therein was civil

code, which was the law in effect at the time of its

celebration.
On the other hand, Petitioners marriage with Eulogio
was celebrated in 2004.
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as
contained in the said Administrative Matter is explicit
in scope.
o The Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriages and
annulment of voidable marriages under the
Family Code of the Philippines. The Rules of
Court shall apply suppletorily.
o There is no need to reconcile the ruling in Nial
and the provisions of AM No 02-11-10-SC
because they vary in scope and application.
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under
the Family Code of the Philippines, and is
prospective in its application. The marriage of
petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26
August 2004, and it squarely falls within the
ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
o The Court must resort to Section 2(a) of A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC, which provides: Section 2. Petition

for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

(a) Who may file. A petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely
by the husband or the wife

Carlos. Teofilo is married to Felicidad and had a son

Teofilo Carlos II.
3. When
Teofilo
died,
his
brother
the
petitioner commenced an action, docketed as Civil
Case No. 95-135, against respondents Felicidad and
Teofilo Carlos II with the following causes of action: (a)
declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child;
(c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and (e)
sum of money and damages.
4. Petitioner avers that the marriage between his brother
Teofilo and Felicidad is null and void in view of the
absence of a marriage license and that their son,
Teofilo Carlos II is neither a natural nor an adopted son
of the couple.
ISSUE/HELD: WON Juan De Dios Carlos (petitioner) has the
personality to invoke the nullity of the marriage of his late
brother to Felicidad Sandoval (respondent). CANNOT BE
ASCERTAINED. The case is REMANDED to the Trial Court.
Ratio:

(FC) A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of

void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or
wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases
commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-1110-SC (March 15, 2003); and (2) Marriages celebrated
during the effectivity of the Civil Code.

Section 2(a) of the Rule makes it the sole right of the husband
or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriage.However, the rule does not apply to cases
already commenced before March 15, 2003, although the
marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code.
Such rule became effective on March 15 2003 and is of
prospective application.

Applicable law is the law in effect at the time of the

celebration of marriage. The marriage of Teofilo and

There is no ambiguity in the Rule. When the law is

clear, no explanation of it is required.

Carlos v. Sandoval
1. Petitioner Juan de Dios Carlos and Teofilo Carlos are
brothers. During the lifetime of their father, their
father agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo. The
agreement was made in order to avoid the payment of
inheritance taxes.
2. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to deliver and turn over the
share of the other legal heir, petitioner Juan De Dios

Felicidad was on May 14, 1962. The New Civil Code is

the applicable law.

Under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at

the time the respondents were married, there is no
specific provision as to who can file a petition to
declare the nullity of marriage. However, the absence of
a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license
for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such
person must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited
or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to
the avails of the suit.

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 partyin-interest and must be based on a cause of action.
INTEREST1

MEJO DIFFERENT TOPIC:

The case must be remanded to determine whether or not

petitioner is a real-party-in-interest to seek the declaration of
nullity of the marriage in controversy.
o

Under the law on succession, successional rights are

transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent
and the compulsory heirs are called to succeed by
operation of law.

1 Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest or an

interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case,
as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a
mere incidental interest.