TENORIO, Racquel Victoria D.

Persons & Family Relations

1-D Judge Bonifacio

VAN DORN vs ROMILLO Jr.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the orders of the RTC.

Petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the USA.
They were married in Hongkong and established residence in the Philippines and produced two
children. They divorced in Nevada and it is also where petitioner remarried Theodore Van Dorn.
Private respondent filed a case against petitioner with regard to a business in Ermita, which
respondent claims as Conjugal property and he asks to be declared with right to manage.
Petitioner claims that said act is barred by his confirmation in their Nevada divorce that they had
no community property. The court denied dismissal because said property is in the Philippines
and so the divorce has no bearing in the case. Hence, the certiorari proceeding.

ISSUE
Whether the Nevada divorce is to be given merit in the Philippines

DECISION
The private respondent contends that the divorce cannot be held valid in the Philippines
because it is against our laws. However, the Philippines recognizes divorce by an alien in another
country. The divorce that took place between private respondent and petitioner received no
contention from private respondent. In fact he sent his lawyers on his behalf, stating that they
wish to get a divorce by reason of incompatibility and that there is no community property to be
adjudicated. With this, the court cannot rule in favor of private respondent because being a
citizen of the United States it was his own laws that made the divorce valid.

DOCTRINE
Article 15 of the Civil Code talks about laws on family rights binding upon citizens of the
Philippines even though living abroad. However, private respondent is a citizen of the USA and
pursuant to his national law, he is no longer the husband of petitioner, and it being a valid
divorce, is recognized here in the Philippines.

PILAPIL vs IBAY-SOMERA

FACTS

This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the
Regional Trial Court.

Imelda Pilapil was married to Erich Geiling in Germany and their relationship gave birth
to one child. Geiling eventually filed for divorce in Germany stating as causes failure of the
marriage. Said divorce was granted by the Local Court of Germany. After said divorce, Geiling
filed two consecutive complaints of adultery against Pilapil for having relationships with Chia
and Chua. She asked the court to have her arraignment deferred but to no avail, as well as the
motion to quash due to lack of jurisdiction. A temporary restraining order was eventually issued
to prevent him from implementing said order.

ISSUE

Whether or not a criminal case for adultery which took place after a divorce is barred by
the previously acquired decree of divorce

RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative and did not lift the temporary restraining order issued
against the prosecution of Pilapil. This was decided based on two concepts. First is that the Civil
Code of the Philippines recognizes divorce acquired by an alien spouse in another country
provided that they are valid based on their national law. The second concept is that adultery
requires an offended spouse.

In the first instance, Geiling’s divorce decree which he acquired in Germany is

recognized by the Philippines pursuant to the Code. This means that when Pilapil had
relationships, she was already considered divorced and can validly enter relationships. She was
no longer tied to the marriage. In the second concept, a case for adultery is instituted by a written
complaint of an offended spouse. This means that the marital status is relevant. It must occur at
the time of the subsistence of the marriage. This is where the present facts fail. The two were
already validly divorced. Hence, no adultery can take place 5 months after.

SAN LUIS vs SAN LUIS

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Felicisimo San Luis was married to Vriginia Sulit. This relationship bore six children.
Virginia Sulit died in 1963. With this Felicisimo was able to marry Merry Lee Crown which
marriage bore a son. Five years into the marriage, Merry filed for divorce in Hawaii which was
granted by the court. Felicisimo eventually married herein repsondent Felicidad San Luis with
whom he had no children. When Felicisimo died in 1992, Felicidad filed for the dissolution of
their conjugal assets and estate settlement stating the legal heirs of Felicisimo was her as the
legal wife, the six children from the first marriage and the son from the second marriage. The son
of Merry contested this saying that she was not the legal wife hence not a legal heir because
Felicisimo was still married to Merry. He justified this by saying that the divorce decree acquired
in Hawaii is not recognized in the Philippines of whom Felicisimo was a citizen. The court sided
with the son and declared Felicidad’s marriage to Felicisimo as null and void ab intio. The Court
of Appeal however, reversed this decision.

ISSUE
 Whether or not the divorce decree granted to Merry Lee Crown is recognized in the
Philippines

RULING

The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Article 15 of the Civil Code
provides that the Philippines recognizes divorce decrees acquired by the alien spouse in another
country provided that it is valid according to their national law. In the present case, Merry Lee
Crown’s divorce decree is considered valid. This provision permits the Filipino form a mixed
marriage to enter into another marriage because the law does not wish to keep the person
attached while the alien spouse is free to marry and is considered single.

REPUBLIC vs IYOY

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Crasus Iyoy was married to Fely Iyoy in 1961 and this marriage gave birth to five
children. Fely Iyoy eventually left for the States to provide for their family in 1984 and in less
than a year sent Crasus documents to sign with regard to a divorce that she applied for. Crasus
eventually found out that Fely married Stephen Micklus in 1985 and their relationship has
conceived of a child. Crasus eventually questioned the validity of Fely’s subsequent marriage.
The Court of Appeals in deciding this case sided with Fely.

ISSUE

Whether or not a divorce decree acquired by a Filipino from the United States is valid
and recognized in the Philippines

RULING

The court decided in the negative and reversed the Appellate Court’s decision. Basing
from the facts, Fely only became a citizen in 1988 and acquired the divorce in 1984, marrying
Micklus a year after. This means that paragraph two of Article 26 cannot be applied in such a
way that, Fely is not yet considered an alien at the time the divorce was acquired and therefore
she does not have the capacity to remarry and the marriage is still considered as subsisting. The
Civil Code also provides that Filipino Citizen, with regard to family laws and status are governed
by Philippine laws regardless of where they are. Fely, being a Filipino Citizen then, is not
permitted by our laws to acquire a divorce decree since such is not recognized in the Philippines.
REPUBLIC vs ORBECIDO III

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Regional Trial Court.

Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros Villanueva in Ozamis City in the year 1941.
This relationship gave birth two a son and daughter. Said son was with Lady when she left for
the States in 1986. Cipriano knew eventually that his wife has become a naturalized citizen of the
States and learned that she has married another man after acquiring a divorce decree. Cipriano
asked the declaration of the court permitting him to remarry. The Solicitor General as
representative for the State contends that he cannot be granted permission to remarry because
Lady was not a foreign citizen specifically when he married her and the law only recognizes
divorce acquired by the alien spouse. Petition was denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Civil Code permits Cipriano to remarry after a divorce was acquired
by Lady

RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative, however, it denied Cipriano permission to remarry.

The court in answering in the affirmative on the issue based their decision on paragraph 2
of Section 26 of the Family Code which provides for the recognition of a divorce decree validly
acquired by the alien spouse in another country. This is to permit the Filipino spouse to remarry
as a matter of fairness because the foreign spouse ceased to be attached to the Filipino. What is
relevant here is that Lady was no longer a citizen of the Philippines when she acquired the
divorce bringing her within the purview of Section 26. She is considered an alien who obtained a
divorce decree. This then capacitates Cipriano to remarry. Unfortunately, for his petition to be
granted, he has to prove to the court that a divorce decree has been validly acquired by his wife.
However, he failed to do so, hence, the court cannot permit him to remarry.

NINAL vs BAYADOG

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari on the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones in 1974. Said marriage gave birth to 5
children. Teodulfa was killed after being shot by Pepito and less than 2 years after, Peptio and
Norma Bayadog was married without a marriage license. This was because they claimed to have
been living together for five years meaning they did not need to acquire a marriage license.
Pepito eventually died and the children from the marriage to Teodulfa filed for the declaration of
nullity of marriage of their father to Norma. Norma responded by saying that they have no cause
of action because they were not parties recognized by the Civil code pursuant to Article 47. The
lower court decided that the death extinguished the marriage of Pepito to Norma.
ISSUE

Whether or not the marriage between the two should be considered null and void by
reason of lack of marriage license

RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative. One of the marriages permitted to be solemnized
without a valid marriage license is that when the parties have cohabited as husband and wife for
5 years and have lived together as such only without a marriage contract. Basing from the facts,
the parties have merely cohabited as husband and wife for less than 2 years. The time from
which Norma and Pepito started counting was from the time they started to live together without
noting that a marriage between Pepito and Teodulfa was still subsisting. This cannot be
considered as cohabitation as husband and wife because they cannot be considered one then,
Pepito being a husband of somebody else. Said cohabitation must be unbroken and disturbed by
a third-party. In this case a third-party existed because Pepito was still married.

VILLANUEVA vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Orland Villanueva was married to Lilia Canalita-Villanueva in 1988. Orland eventually

filed for annulment of their marriage by reason of force and duress employed on him in order to
marry Lilia who was then pregnant. He claims to have received harassing phone calls and visits
from three men. He also claims that the never cohabited and that he couldn’t have impregnated
her before marriage and that the child died upon delivery. Lilia however contests that he freely
entered into the marriage and that they lived together for one month and he wrote her letters
while he was in Manila. He visited her and knew of her pregnancy and the child dying because
of premature birth. The case was dismissed and Orland was ordered to pay Lilia damages.

ISSUE

Whether or not the marriage may be annulled

RULING

The court ruled in the negative. The court said that it took Orland four years to claim that
he was coerced into the marriage which then justifies the possibility that he is asking for the
annulment of said marriage by reason of a bigamy case he is facing. Also, his being a security
guard must have given him proper knowledge when it comes to defending himself making the
claims of force due to facts stated above untenable. Also, his claim that they did not cohabit is
not a ground for the annulment of marriage especially since he failed to prove that this was due
to fraud, intimidation, lack of consent and the other grounds for annulment.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs QUINTERO-HAMANO

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

Quintero-Hamano was married to a Japanese National named Tosho Hamano. There

relationship started when they lived together in Japan in 1986 and said relationship eventually
gave birth to a child. On January of 1988, they were married in Cavite. However, Tosho left for
Japan a month after and did not return as promised. He only gave two months of financial
support and eventually stopped. Her attempts at communication failed and later on found out that
even as Tosho visited the Philippines, he did not come to see them. This prompted respondent to
file for the nullification of their marriage, however summons remained unserved. After
presentation of evidence, the trial court declared their marriage null and void by reason of
psychological incapacity. Herein petitioner through the Solicitor General questions the
correctness of said decision as it failed to meet the standards meant by Article 36 of the Family
Code.

ISSUE

Whether or not Tosho can be considered psychologically incapacitated to warrant the

nullification of their marriage

RULING

The court ruled in the negative and petition was granted. Based on the case of Molina,
psychological incapacity’s root cause must be a) medically and clinically defined b) alleged in
the complaint c) sufficiently proven by experts d) clearly explained in the decision. In these
guidelines, Quintero-Hamano’s evidence failed. Psychological incapacity is characterized by
gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. The evidence failed to show that it was a
psychological illness. Abandonment cannot be considered psychological in nature. For
psychological incapacity to prosper, the failure of performance of the marital obligation must be
due to the psychological incapacity or illness of a person not mere failure or dismissal of a
marital obligation.

DEDEL vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Deldel was married to Sharon Corpuz and said marriage produced four children. During
the course of their marriage, petitioner asserts that Sharon demonstrated immaturity and
irresponsibility. He claims that Sharon entered into extra marital affairs and was even confined in
a hospital for treatment by a clinical psychiatrist. Said extra-marital affairs continued specifically
that with Ibrahim which bore two children. When Ibrahim left the country, she went back to
Dedel and Dedel took her in and her children with Ibrahim. However, Sharon eventually
followed Ibrahim to Jordan with her two children. With this abandonment of Sharon, Dedel seeks
the nullification of their marriage. The lower court garnted this by reason of psychological
incapacity as attested to by Dr. Daya. He says that the affairs that Sharon had, were due to an
Anti-social Personality disorder. This decision of the trial court was reversed and set aside by the
Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether or not it was sufficiently proven that Sharon was psychologically incapacitated
enough to warrant an annulment of their marriage

RULING

The court ruled in the negative and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. A
person’s sexual infidelity and her marriage to another which caused her abandonment of her
family with Dedel, as much as these are unfortunate in nature, cannot be considered as
psychological incapacity because they are mere products of immaturity and other factors. What
is necessary in psychological incapacity is to show that there is a psychological illness or
disorder which is grave in nature that would cause the spouse’s failure to perform the marital
obligations and not just a show of rejection or irresponsibility toward said obligations.

LAM vs CHUA

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals

Lam and Chua were married in the eyar 1984 and said marriage conceived a son. Chua
claims that Lam was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations. To
justify the claims, Chua says that he is irresponsible and keeps on asking for money for luxury
items. Lam does not support his family and he rarely comes home. He was also said to be a
womanizer and mismanages their conjugal properties. With this set-up, Chua had no choice but
to agree to dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains and separation of properties. This
was granted by the regional trial court. The spouses have been living separately and Chua seeks
the nullification of her marriage with Lam. Chua presented evidence stating the facts given
above but failed to show how much is needed for child support. The case was reopened at her
instance and she presented evidence showing that Lam has been married twice before their
marriage which renders it bigamous. The Trial Court declared their marriage void and ordered
Lam to pay child support of 20,000 a month. This was contested by Lam stating that a common
fund was agreed upon wherein they would both contribute 250,000 each for the support of their
child. The CA affirmed the trial courts decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not the marriage should be declared null and void for psychological
incapacity or for being bigamous in nature and whether or not the 20,000 monthly support is
justified.
RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative on the first issue and declared it null and void by reason
of bigamy. It was sufficiently proven that Lam was previously married and incapacitated to
marry again. Said claim was not even contested by Lam through his petitions which only
questioned the monthly support. He then is estopped from questioning the nullification of
marriage.

With regard to the second issue, the court decided that the monthly support was not
justified because it was decided beyond the scope of the questions raised. Also, Chua failed to
show the amount of support actually needed and so the court upheld the cpncept of a fund agreed
upon.

MALLION vs ALCANTARA

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Mallion was married to Alcantara and in 1995, Mallion filed a petition seeking thhe
nullification of their marriage by reason of psychological incapacity. Due to his failure to
sufficiently prove the incapacity, the court denied the petition for nullification. Once again, in
1999, he filed a petition for nullification of their marriage now by reason of lack of marriage
license at the time the marriage was solemnized. Alcantara contested the petition by invoking res
judicata and forum shopping. The petition was denied as well as the motion for reconsideration
subsequently filed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the issue of marriage invalidity due to lack of marriage license may be
raised when the nullification of marriage was also seeked by reason of psychological incapacity.

RULING

The court ruled in the negative. The concept of res judicata prohibits this. Res judicata is
a bar due to prior judgment. In the present case the same relief is sought which is the
nullification of marriage now for a different ground. Said issue has already been settled. In fact,
in the first petition, Mallion claimed that their marriage was solemnized and celebrated in
accordance with law. This admission prevents him from taking a different stand in the present
case where he claims otherwise. The court does not favor those who present their claims in
pieces on different actions.

CARATING-SIAYNGCO vs SIAYNGCO

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
 Juanita Carating Siayngco was married to Manuel Siayngco. Their marriage did not
produce children however, the adopted a boy. Manuel, after being married for 24 years filed a
petition to the court seeking the nullification of their marriage by reason of psychological
incapacity exhibited through over domineering attitude and causing him embarrassment and
humiliation. The lower court denied his petition. The CA on the other hand reversed the decision
relying on the doctor’s findings that bith parties are psychologically incapacitated.

ISSUE

Whether or not one or both of the parties were proven psychologically incapacitated
sufficient to warrant the nullification of their marriage.

RULING

The court ruled in the negative. Manuel’s relationship with another was caused merely by
his sexual infidelity which does not fall within the purview of psychological incapacity. This act
is caused by his desire to have children which he himself admitted. The testimonies of the doctor
failed to show that this infidelity is caused by a psychological illness or disorder. It is necessary
that it his by reason of a psychological disorder that he will be completely unable to perform his
marital obligations.

With regard to Juanita, Manuel failed to show that her actions constitute psychological
incapacity that would render her unable to perform her marital obligations and that a doctor has
in fact stated otherwise. The evidence adduced failed to show sufficiently that the couple or
either of the spouse were psychologically incapacitated, rather it showed that they were merely
having the marital trouble of becoming strangers to each other and wanting to get out of it. The
marriage thus cannot be declared null and void.

NAVARRO Jr. vs CECILIO-NAVARRO

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner and respondent were childhood sweethearts who eventually got married and
their marriage gave birth to four children. The first part of their marriage was lived in harmony.
However, the petitioner claims that even before their marriage respondent would complain when
she didn’t get what she wanted from him and she quarreled with him a lot during their marriage
for not having time for her and was always jealous. A marriage counselor testified that when she
saw petitioner he was harassed, distraught and unhappy and that she found the marriage to be
dysfunctional and destructive. Reconciliation, she said, was impossible. Velasco, another doctor
testified that professionals per se are incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of
marriage because of their time and goals. The respondent was said to be incapacitated because
she did not support her husband and was not understanding of his profession as a doctor.

Respondent on the other hand claims that she had no marital problems until petitioner had
an affair with another doctor and she caught him in a motel where they had an altercation.
Petitioner eventually stopped coming home. She said she only refused to have sex with his
husband, as his husband claims, due to her discovery of the affair. She also said that she did love
her husband. The trial court held that both were psychologically incapacitated and that the
marriage is now null and void. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals decided that the marriage still
subsists.

ISSUE

Whether or not the parties are psychologically incapacitated and such should warrant the
nullification of their marriage.

RULING

The Court affirmed the decision of the CA. Psychological Incapacity must be
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability for it to nullify a marriage. It
must be a mental incapacity that truly renders a person incapable of performing basic marital
obligations such as “living together, observing mutual love, respect and fidelity as well as render
mutual help and support”. It must be confined to the most serious cases that would truly remove
the significance of marriage. In this case, the quarrels and bickering as well as the constant
arguments cannot be considered as psychological incapacity. Difficulty, refusal or neglect in
performing then marital obligations is not sufficient, it must be some psychological illness. A
previous decision of the court gave guidelines for deciding similar cases. One of the guidelines
says that the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff and any doubts should be decided in favor of
the subsistence of marriage. The testimony of the marriage counselor was based only on the
claims of petitioner and has no probative value and the statement of the other witness is highly
debatable, hence there is doubt.

LANDICHO vs RELOVA

FACTS

This is an original petition in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction.

Rolando Landicho was married to Elvira Makatangay when he contracted a second

marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia. He was charged with the offense of bigamy for the fact stated
above. Pasia eventually filed an action before the Court of First Instance seeking to declare her
marriage null and void ab initio because there was force, threats and intimidation and because it
was bigamous in character. Landicho then filed a third party complaint against Makatangay
seeking the declaration of their marriage as null and void due to force, threat and intimidation
beings what compelled him to marry Makatnagay. He then moved to suspend the proceedings of
the criminal case claiming that it raises a prejudicial question due to the pending annulment case
filed by him against Makatangay. The lower court denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether or not a criminal case for bigamy should be suspended while a civil action for
the annulment of marriage is pending because the latter raises a prejudicial question
RULING

The court ruled in the negative. It agreed with the decision of the lower court due to some
points. One is that annulment cases do not always raise a prejudicial question that would render
it a hindrance to a criminal proceeding. Also, an annulment of marriage is not for the parties to
decide but should be left to the determination of the competent courts. A subsequent marriage
cannot be contracted before a judicial declaration of the nullity of the previous marriage is
shown. Otherwise, the party contracting a subsequent marriage is at risk of being charged of
bigamy. This means that Landicho can still be tried for bigamy because the subsequent marriage
was contracted despite the fact that there was no declaration that the previous marriage is already
null and void.

DONATO vs LUNA

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to review the
resolution of the Court of First Instance.

Leonilo Donato contracted a marriage with Rosalinda Maluping on June 30, 1978. He
also contracted a marriage with Paz B. Abayan on September 26, 1978. Upon finding out that
Donato had a subsisting marriage, Abayan filed for annulment of their marriage by reason of
deceit because she did not know he was married. Maluping eventually filed a criminal case
against Donato for bigamy. Maluping then moved for the suspension of the trial for the criminal
case because the case on the nullity of his second marriage was still pending and it raises a
prejudicial question. He claims that he wants his second marriage annulled because there was no
valid marriage license presented and there was use of threat and force and that the decision in
said case is material to the criminal case. Luna, the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila
denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether or not a criminal case for bigamy should be suspended while a civil action for
the annulment of marriage is pending because the latter raises a prejudicial question

RULING

The court decided in the negative. A prejudicial question arises in a case the “resolution
of which question is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal”. It is necessary that the decision in the case would determine
the outcome of the other. The court relied on Landicho vs Relova wherein it was stated that a
prejudicial question does not necessarily arise from a bigamy case when there is a pending
annulment proceeding. In the present case, it was the second wife who filed for the annulment of
their marriage by reason of deceit and not petitioner. It is necessary that for a prejudicial question
to arise, it was the one accused of bigamy who also filed for annulment of the subsequent
marriage because of reasons such as force or threat meaning he had no choice but to contract
another marriage. It was only a year after his second marriage when he claimed to have been
forced to marry for the second time and has been living with private respondent for 5 years as if
they were husband and wife which made the marriage license dispensable. The petition for
annulment was not his initiative hence, he cannot claim that a prejudicial question arises.

WIEGEL vs SAMPIO-DIY

FACTS

This is a petition to review the orders of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

Karl Heinz Wiegel filed an action before the court for the declaration of the nullity of his
marriage with Lilia Olivia Wiegel because there was a subsisting marriage between her and
Eduardo A. Maxion. Lilia admitted said marriage but claims it is null and void because she and
Eduardo were forced into the marriage. In the pre-trial the issue agreed upon was the status of the
previous marriage assuming there was force. Lilia asked the court for an opportunity to present
evidence that the first marriage was vitiated by force and that her first husband was already
married to someone else. Respondent judge ruled against the presentation of evidence because
the presence of force in the first marriage has already been agreed upon. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES

Whether or not the previous marriage was void or voidable

Whether or not there is ground for nullity of marriage

RULING

The court found the marriage merely voidable and that there remains to be a ground for
nullity of marriage. The marriage is just voidable because assuming there is force, it only falls
under the Article 80 of the Civil Code wherein force is classified. This means that the marriage is
valid until annulled. With this it can be said that there was a marriage subsisting when Lilia
married Karl making their marriage void. The presentation of evidence with regard to the
marriage of the first husband to another is also unnecessary because a marriage needs a judicial
declaration of its nullity before it can be considered as a void marriage.

DOMINGO vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Delia Domingo married petitioner Roberto Domingo in 1976. In 1983 however, she
found out that Roberto was already married when they contracted their marriage to one Ermelina
dela Paz who sued them for bigamy. Delia also claims that she works in Saudi Arabia and visits
only for a month in a year and that she has purchases properties with her earnings and entrusted
the administration of these to Roberto. Petitioner is said to be purely dependent on Delia and is
not employed. Delia filed an action before the court seeking the declaration of the nullity of their
marriage by reason of a previous marriage as well as Separation of Property. Roberto moved to
dismiss this petition claiming that since there is a subsisting marriage, theirs is void from the
beginning and needs no judicial declaration and that he had no property of the private respondent
in his possession. The court denied the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE

Whether or not the court erred in ruling that a judicial declaration is still necessary hence
motion to dismiss should be denied

RULING

The court ruled in the negative and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Pursuant to New Civil Code which provides that a judicial declaration of the nullity of marriage
is necessary before the acquisition of a subsequent marriage, the court decided that proceedings
for a judicial declaration must not be dismissed. This provision is for purposes of acquiring
another marriage and also for the protection of the party who may be at risk of being charged of
bigamy. The court also ruled that the separation of property is to be ruled by provisions provided
in the new civil code as related to marriages eventually rendered void by reason of a subsisting
marriage. This means that when the court decides upon the nullity of their marriage or declares it
to be so, the court also has jurisdiction over the terms of property separation in accordance with
law.

BELTRAN vs PEOPLE

FACTS

This is an instant petition filed for review to the Supreme Court.

Meynardo Beltran was married to Charmaine Felix with whom he stayed married to for
24 years and produced four children. Eventually, Meynardo filed a petiton for the nullification of
their marriage by reason of psychological incapacity. In her answer, Charmaine avers that
Meynardo was living with another woman and has abandoned them. Charmaine eventually filed
a criminal case for concubinage. Petitioner filed a petition to defer the criminal proceeding
because he claims that it raises a prejudicial question seeing as there is a possibility that the civil
case and criminal case would give rise to conflicting decisions. This petition was denied by the
lower court, hence the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the pending case for the nullification of marriage raises a prejudicial
question to the criminal case

RULING

The court ruled in the negative. For a prejudicial question to arise, it is necessary that the
criminal case is dependent upon the same set of facts as the civil case and that the decision in the
civil case would determine the guilt or innocence in the criminal case. In the present case Article
40 of the Family code governs which states that the absolute nullity of a marriage requires a final
judgment from the courts. In this case, the cohabitation with another began before a judgment
that the previous marriage is void, giving the respondent the right to file a criminal case. The
result of the civil case is immaterial since a subsequent judgment of nullification of marriage
cannot be a defense to concubinage. This is because it is not for the couples to decide and declare
the nullity of their marriage but a task given to the courts.

MERCADO vs TAN

FACTS

This is a petition for review on the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Dr. Vincent Mercado was married to Ma. Consuelo Tan in 1991 and produced a child.
However Tan discovered that Mercado was already married to one Maria Thelma Oliva in 1976
with whom he also had children. Tan eventually filed a complaint for bigamy against Mercado.
Mercado on the other hand, filed a petition for the nullification of his marriage with Oliva which
was granted by the court. The bigamy case proceeded and Mercado admits that the two
marriages were consummated but contests that since the first marriage has already been declared
null and void, bigamy could no longer be charged against him. The lower court as well as the
Court of Appeals found him guilty, hence this petition.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner can still be proceeded against for bigamy after a subsequent
declaration of the nullity of marriage of the first one consummated

RULING

The Court ruled in the affirmative. The Family Code now provides that for the absolute
nullity of marriage to be considered, it is necessary that a judicial declaration of nullity be
obtained. This is most helpful before contracting a subsequent marriage. Said provision is a
safeguard so as to lessen the risk of being charged of bigamy. Such circumstance is present in
this case. The subsequent acquisition of a judicial declaration of the nullity of marriage cannot be
a hindrance to a bigamy case. Besides, said nullification was seeked only after a complaint for
bigamy was filed against him. It is necessary that before contracting a marriage one is already
capacitated to remarry by virtue of a declaration of marriage and not after.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs NOLASCO

FACTS

Gregorio Nolasco met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in England during a port call,
Nolasco being a seaman. Parker then lived with him in the ship for 6 months and married her
after his seman’s contract expired. After said marriage, he was able to be employed as seaman
again and left the country while Janet stayed with his parents in Antique. The parents eventually
wrote to him saying that Janet has left Antique and that she has already given birth. He claimed
that he has looked for her in England and even wrote letters to the bar where he met her but the
same was returned to him. He also asked friends for information but to no avail. Nolasco
eventually filed for a petition of declaration of presumptive death of Janet. Basing from the
above fact, the trial court granted the petition. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this case
saying that the presumptive death Nolasco claims is not based on a well-founded belief and thus
cannot be granted by the Court. The CA affirmed the lower court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not Nolasco was able to comply with the requisites of Article 41 of the
Family Code specifically the need for a well-founded belief that the spouse is dead, which would
warrant the declaration of presumptive death

RULING

The Court ruled in the negative and reversed and set aside the decision of the lower and
appellate courts.

One of the requirements for the declaration of presumptive death is that it is based on a
well founded belief. The others are the year of absence and the wish to remarry. In the present
case, Nolasco claims that he searched for Janet in England, asked friends and wrote to a bar. It
can be seen that his search was not a diligent one. He merely depended on chance when he
looked for her in a big city abroad and asked acquaintances. He did not, as he should have,
acquired the help and assistance of authorities both local and that of the British Embassy so as to
perform a better search. The court thus cannot declare Janet presumptively dead by reason of
lack of well founded belief.

ARMAS vs CALISTERIO

FACTS

Teodorico Calisterio was married to Marietta. He is the seond husband of Armas since
she was previously married to James Bounds in 1946. James diappeared in 1947 and Marietta
married Teodorico 11 years after the disappearance. In 1992, Teodorico died intestate leaving
properties amounting to about six hundred thousand pesos. Antonia Armas, the surviving sister
of Teodorico, filed a petition to have her son declared as adminsitartor of the estate of Teodorico,
her being the sole surviving heir of Teodorico because his marriage to Marietta was bigamous in
nature. Marietta contested this saying that his marriage with Teodorico is valid having contracted
it only 11 years after the disappearance of the first husband. The lower court ruled in favor of
Armas and garnted their petition. The CA upon appeal however, reversed the decision basing on
Marietta’s claim that it is the Civil Code in force at the time of the marriage to Teodorico that
should be upheld and not the present Family Code.

ISSUE

Whether or not the marriage between Teodorico and Marietta is valid

RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative. The marriage between Teodorico and Marietta took
place in 1958. During said year it was the Civil Code which was in force and the provision
governing their marriage states that a subsequent marriage may validly be contacted so long as
the spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years and it is with good faith that the spouse
left remarries. Since James Bounds has been absent for 11 years before the marriage between
Teodorico and Marietta took place, the marriage must be declared valid. It was way beyond the
seven years prescribed by law. A judicial declaration was not yet deemed necessary at that time
so long as the party involved is able to show that they have complied with the necessary
requisites. It was the time when the issue arose that should be considered and not the present
time.

MANUEL vs PEOPLE

FACTS

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals finding
petitioner guilty of bigamy.

On July 28, 1975, Eduardo Manuel was married to Rubylus Gana in Makati. Said wife
was eventually convicted for estafa and Manuel has had no communication with her for 20 years.
Sometime in 1996, Manuel met Tina Gandalera, a student, in Dagupan. She was then 21, and
Eduardo was 39. He then visited him and they even went to a motel where, despite Tina’s
resistance, Eduardo was able to have his way with her. He offered her marriage and even brought
his parents to Baguio to meet Tina’s parents and assured them that their son was single. This is
also what appears in the marriage contract. They were married in April of 1996. After being able
to build a home together, eventually Eduardo rarely came home and did not send money for
support. Tina claims that everytime she asks him about these matters he slaps her. Eventually,
Eduardo got all his things and left. Upon investigating, Tina discovered in the NSO that Eduardo
was already married and so she filed a case for bigamy. Eduardo contends however, that Tina
knew of his previous marriage and that he believed in good faith that his marriage was already
dissolved because of his wife’s absence for 20 years.

The lower court as well as the appellate court ruled in favor of Tina Gandalera.

ISSUE

Whether or not Eduardo should be held liable for bigamy and that moral damages should
be awarded to Ganadalera.

RULING

The court affirmed the decision of the appellate court. In the issue of bigamy, the court
justified their decision by the fact that ignorance of the law does not excuse Eduardo from
complying with the necessary requirements before a person can contract a second marriage. In
his case, what was important was the judicial declaration of presumption of death of his first
wife. This is because of provisions in the Civil Code as well as the Revised Penal Code which
requires said judicial declaration to avoid being charged of bigamy. This was also found
necessary in order to prevent problems in the future with respect to the second marriage.

When it comes to the moral damages, the respondent claimed that said damages cannot
be granted because bigamy is not included in the specific cases where moral damages is to be
granted according to Article 2219 of the Civil Code. The court ruled that although bigamy was
not included in the list of cases provided for by Article 219, moral damages may nevertheless be
granted in light of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. Article 19 provides for the principle
of Abuse of Rights which has three requisites in order to be invoked. They are 1) that there is a
legal right or duty 2) exercised in bad faith and 3) the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another. The court finds the elements present in said case because he assured Gandalera that he
was single and even indicated this in the marriage contract. Also, according to Article 20, if the
standards setforth in the previous provision is not met, the person who willfully violates this is to
responsible and in Article 21, said person must compensate the person damages or injured by his
act. From these provisions, a grant of moral damages is justified because Gandalera was willfully
made to believe that she was marrying a single man and she dutifully served him as a wife only
to be deceived by him.

MORIGO vs PEOPLE

FACTS

Lucio Morigo decided to marry Lucia Barrette when she came home from Canada after
being sweethearts for some time. They were married in 1990 at the Iglecia Filipina Nacional.
Lucia eventually left for Canada again leaving Lucio. Lucia then petitioned for a divorce decree
in Ontario which was later on granted by the Court of Ontario. After discovery of this fact, he
married Maria Lumbago and later on paryed for the declaratgion of the nullity of his marriage
with Lucia because no marriage ceremony actually took place. The lower court in turn filed a
case for bigamy against him. They said that nullification of marriage is not a defense for bigamy.
Also, that the divorce acquired by Lucia is not recognized in the Philippines, Ontario having no
jurisdiction over the marriage of the couple.

Upon appeal, the CA declared the marriage between Lucio aqnd Lucia as null and void ab
initio. Lucio then seeked the dismissal of his case for bigamy by reason of the declaration of his
marriage with Lucia as null and void meaning no marriage took place. The lower court and court
of Appeals found that said nullification is not a valid defense for bigamy.

ISSUE

Whether or not a declaration of marriage as void ab intio is a valid defense for bigamy

RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative. In the present case, the marriage was declared void ab
initio. This means that the marriage was null from the very beginning and no marriage took place
by reason of the absence of an authorized solemnizing officer which is an essential requisite. It is
considered that Lucio was never married to Lucia and therefore when he contracted the marriage
with another woman he was not considered married. Thus, no bigamy took place.

TENEBRO vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

Tenebro was married to Ancajas before a judge in a trial court in Lapu-lapu city. This
marriage took place in 1990. Eventually Tenebro showed Ancajas a marriage certificate
involving him and a Villareyes, a marriage consummated in 1986. Tenebro left their home and
said that he will cohabit with Villareyes. However, in 1993, he married another woman named
Villegas. After discovering this, Ancajas corresponded with Villareyes asking her if their
marriage did take place and Villareyes answered in the affirmative. With this, Ancajas filed a
case for bigamy. Tenebro claimed that he only had children with Villareyes but there was no
existing valid marriage between them because there was no ceremony that took place and also
there is no record of their marriage in the civil registrar. The lower court found him guilty of
bigamy and said decision was later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner contested
this by invoking psychological incapacity in the second marriage.

ISSUE

Whether or not Tenebro’s marriage to Villareyes was valid and whether he may invoke
psychological incapacity in the judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on liability for bigamy

RULING

With regard to the first issue, the court ruled in the affirmative and ruled in the negative
on the latter. For the first issue, Villareyes was able to present a valid marriage certificate and her
handwritten statement. These were sufficient documentary evidence that can prove that a
marriage was solemnized since that is what is stated in the document and signed by the parties.

When a court declares a marriage null and void by reason of psychological incapacity it
does not declare the marriage non-existent from the very beginning. This means that a marriage
is still considered to have taken place. With this, the court ruled that a subsequent marriage was
considered contracted while another marriage subsists thus constituting bigamy.

BUCCAT vs BUCCAT

FACTS

Petitioner met defendant in 1938 and married her the same year. Eighty nine days into the
marriage, defendant gave birth to a child. It is for this reason that petitioner is seeking the
annulment of their marriage. He said she claimed to be a virgin entering into the marriage. The
court decided in favor of the defendant despite the fact that she did not appear. The court found it
untenable that petitioner did not notice that defendant was pregnant at the time of marriage
because she was about 6 months pregnant then. Upon appeal, said decision was affirmed.
ISSUE

Whether or not the marriage can be declared annulled based on the evidence adduced

RULING

The court affirmed the decision of the lower court. This is due to the fact that it was
impossible for a person whose intelligence cannot be questioned, being a first year law student,
to not have noticed the severe stage and advanced stage that the person he was marrying was in
at that time. His claim of developed abdomens being normal is not something the court can
accept because it was not just a normal developed abdomen but one in an advanced and severe
stage of pregnancy. The court cannot accept that there is fraud.

AQUINO vs DELIZO

FACTS

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Conchita Delizo married Fernando Aquino in 1954 while she was pregnant. Aquino now
claims that her pregnancy was concealed from him because it was of another man while Delizo
claims that it was their child out of wedlock. Aquino filed a petition for nullification of marriage
by reason of fraud. He presented the marriage contractv while Delizo did not present any. The
court ruled in favor of Delizo and did not invalidate the marriage because the concealment of the
pregnancy does not constitute the fraud that would invalidate a marriage. Aquino tried to reopen
the case but it was denied and the CA eventually affirmed the lower court’s decision saying that
it was impossible for him not to have noticed that the girl was pregnant. A motion for
reconsideration was filed or chance to present further evidence to the lower court which he id.
These evidences were his brother’s statement that he himself fathered the child and hid this fact
from petitioner and showed pictures of Delizo saying she was naturally plump. The petition was
denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not concealment of pregnancy constitutes fraud that could annul the marriage

RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative. In the Family Code, the law includes fraud as grounds
for nullification of a marriage. In the present case, the pregnancy was concealed from petitioner
at the time of the marriage and said child was of another man. This constitutes fraud and can
justify an annulment. Petitioner was able to show that the girl was naturally plump or fat which
does not make it obvious that she is pregnant. It has been shown that pregnancy is usually
obvious on the 6th month when the roundness actually appears. The case was then remanded for a
new trial.
TUASON vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

Maria Tuason and Emilio Tuason were a married in 1972 and this relationship produced
children. Maria now claims that Emilio manifested psychological incapacity through violence
causing her physical injuries and drug use which causes him a suspended penalty. Maria then
filed a petition for annulment by reason of this. Tuason responded with denial stating that their
relationship was lived in harmony until some differences manifested themselves. The marriage
was annulled and eventually Maria filed for administration of conjugal properties which Emilio
opposed. His counsel asked the court to have the hearing moved because the counsel was out of
the country. On the day of the hearing Emilio failed to show up and so he was declared to have
waived his right to present evidence. The court declared the marriage null and void. Maria then
filed a “Motion for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Adjudication to Plaintiff of
the Conjugal Properties” which was eventually contested by Emilio and he later on filed for
relief from the decision of the court. This was denied and the CA affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not Emilio may claim for relief from the judgment of the CA

RULING

The court ruled in the negative. It is necessary when attempting to have a final judgment
set aside to be justified by fraud, accident or mistake. In this case it was the negligence of
petitioner which caused his failure to present evidence. He claims that it was for medical reasons
that he was not able to make it to the hearing but failure to notify counsel is not the fault of the
court. He was given the chance to be in court but he negligently threw away this chance. He
cannot blame the court for this because said decision was well within due process of law. This
means, he cannot claim relief from judgment.

CORPUS vs OCHOTORENA

FACTS

Mariano Macias filed a petition for the nullification of his marriage with Margie Macias.
This was raffled to Judge Ochotorena. Said judge immediately served summons to Margie which
she did not receive because her whereabouts were unknown and she only found out about it
through a newspaper. Margie then filed a Motion to dismiss which the judge disregarded and
proceeded with the petition of Mariano. The judge proceeded with the hearing without the
resolution of the motions.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent acted with bias and partiality as well as ignorance of the law
RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative. Then judge acted on the petition for nullification and
proceeded with it without acting on the motion to dismiss which was filed within the period
prescribed by law. The judge performed a so called “procedural shortcut” and ignored the motion
of the petitioner. The judge also did not follow the Rules of Court which requires an investigation
to be made first by the prosecuting attorney with regard to collusion and if none, to intervene and
check for fabrications in the evidence. It is only after this that a case may be tried on its merits.
Said order by the court did not take place thus, the judge’s actions were erroneous.