Atienza v.

Brillantes
A.M. No. MTJ-92-706
March 29, 1995

Topic: Final judgment declaring the marriage void

Legal basis: Art. 40 FC. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes
of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

Facts:
Atienza charged Judge Francisco Brillantes with Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety
for cohabiting with Atienza’s common law wife, Yolanda de Castro. Furthermore, Brillantes
prevented complainant from visiting his children with de Castro. Atienza also claimed that
respondent was already married to a certain Zenaida Ongkiko, but respondent refuted this,
saying he was never married to Ongkiko. This was because his two marriages with Ongkiko were
contracted without the requisite marriage license. When Brillantes married de Castro in civil
rights, he claims to believe, in good faith, that he was single and not married to Ongkiko.

Issue: Whether or not Brillantes should be charged with Gross Immorality and Appearance of
Impropriety for contracting a subsequent marriage with de Castro.

Held: Yes.
Under Art. 40 of the Family Code, a final judgment declaring the marriage void is necessary for
contracting another marriage. Even though respondent first married Ongkiko in 1965 and said
marriage is governed by the Civil Code, Art. 40 of the Family Code is given retroactive effect
(under Art. 265 FC) insofar as it does not prejudice vested rights. As a general rule, procedural
rules such as Art. 40 do not violate vested rights. Hence, Art. 40 is applicable to Brillantes’
marriage with Ongkiko, and subsequently, with de Castro. Aside from his failure to secure a final
judgment of nullity before marrying de Castro, he also failed to secure the requisite marriage
license for his marriage with Ongkiko. This, according to the Court, is a failure on Brillantes’ part
to meet the standard of moral fitness needed in the legal profession. He was thus dismissed from
service.