I.

II.

III.

Title:

Juan De Dios Carlos v. Felicidad Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos II

G.R. 179922, 16 December 2008

illegitimate, or legally adopted child by Teofilo (3) declaring Carlos as the sole owner
of the parcles of land (4) ordered the cancellation of the contracts and TCTs.

Doctrine
It is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the
name of the real party-in-interest.

Felicidad appealed to CA stating that the RTC erred in rendering summary judgment
annulling their marriage and declaring Teofilo II as not an illegitimate child of
Teofilo.

Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or

judgment of the case. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action. When plaintiff is not the real party-ininterest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.

CA reversed and set aside the RTC ruling. Rendition of summary judgment contrary
to law and public policy. Under Sec 1, Rule 19 of Revised rules of Court, in actions
for annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the
complaint must be proved. Bare allegation that Teofilo II was merely purchased from
indigent couple by Felicidad is was insufficient to support total forfeiture of a minors
right from his putative filiation. Carlos moved for reconsideration and inhibition of
ponente but twin motions were both denied.

Carlos filed this petition for certiorari with SC.

Facts

Sps. Felix Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate, leaving six parcels of land to their
compulsory heirs, Teofilo Campos and Juan De Dios Carlos.

During the lifetime of Felix, he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo to avoid the
payment of inheritance taxes. Teofilo then deliver and turn over the share of Carlos.

3 Parcels of land were then transferred to Teofilo. Parcel No. 4 was registered in the
name of Carlos.

Teofilo died intestate leaving his wife Felicidad Sandoval and their son Teofilo Carlos
II. Parcel nos. 5 and 6 were then registered to Felicidad and Teofilo II.

Carlos and Felicidad executed a deed of extrajudicial partition. Parties entered into
two more contracts and divided between them the 3rd and 4th parcels of land.

Carlos commenced an action against Felicidad and Teofilo II with the RTC
Muntinlupa on the ff. grounds: (1) declaration of nullity of marriage (2) status of a
child (3) recovery if property (4) reconveyance and (5) sum of money and damages.

Carlos stated that the marriage of Teofilo with Felicidad was a nullity in view of the
absence of the required marriage license; that Teofilo II was neither natural nor
adopted child of Teofilo; that the contracts entered into with Felicidad should be
avoided; the TCTs should be cancelled and that the subject properties be reconveyed
to him.

Felicidad denied Carlos averment in the complaint and stated that the lack of details
re: the marriage license did not invalidate her marriage to Teofilo, and that Teofilo II
was an illegitimate child of Teofilo with another woman and prayed that the
complaint be dismissed.

Felicidad moved for summary judgment attaching in her motion the affidavit of the
Judge who solemnized her marriage with Teofilo and the certificate of live birth of
Teofilo II where Felicidad and Teofilo were designated as parents. Carlos opposed
and filed his own summary judgment on the ground of irregularity of the contract
evidencing marriage, presenting as well the certification of the Local Civil Registrar
certifying that there was no record of birth of Teofilo II and that in another case
Felicidad stated that Teofilo II was her child with Teofilo.

RTC Felicidads Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Carlos Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted: (1) declaring the marriage null and void ab initio for
lack of requisite of marriage license (2) declaring Teofilo II as not natural,

IV.

Issues
(1) Whether Carlos is a real-party-in-interest to seek the declaration of nullity of marriage
in controversy. (Legal personality of petitioner to bring the nullity of marriage case is
contingent upon the final declaration that Teofilo II is not a legitimate, adopted, or
illegitimate son of Teofilo.)

V.

Held
Carlos commenced the nullity of marriage when the applicable law is the Civil Code. But
the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the marriage void. But the
Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the marriage void. Plaintiff
must be the real party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law that every action must
be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.
Interest means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or
judgment of the case. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action. When plaintiff is not the real party-ininterest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.
The case must be remanded to determine whether or not petitioner is a real-party-ininterest to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage in controversy.
A brother is not among those considered as compulsory heirs. But although a collateral
relative, such as a brother, does not fall within the ambit of a compulsory heir, he still has a
right to succeed to the estate. The presence of descendants, ascendants or illegitimate
children excludes collateral relatives from succeeding to the estate of the decedent.
If Teofilo II is declared and finally proven not to be the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted
son of Teofilo, Carlos would then have a personality to seek the nullity of marriage. Carlos
then succeeds to the other half of the estate of Teofilo, and the first half to Felicidad. If the
subject marriage is found to be void ab initio, Carlos succeeds to the entire estate.
If Teofilo II is proven to be a legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted son of Teofilo,
then petitioner has no legal personality to ask for the nullity of marriage of his deceased
brother and respondent Felicidad.
RTC is ordered to conduct the trial on the merits.
So ordered.