ENGRACE NIÑAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the minors

BABYLINE NIÑAL, INGRID NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL & PEPITO NIÑAL, JR.,
petitioners, v. NORMA BAYADOG, respondent.
G.R. No. 133778. March 14, 2000

Facts:

Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. She was shot by
Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. One year and 8 months thereafter, Pepito
and respondent Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. In lieu
thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating that
they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were
thus exempt from securing a marriage license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car
accident

After their father’s death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the
marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a
marriage license. The case was filed under the assumption that the validity or invalidity
of the second marriage would affect petitioner’s successional rights.
Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action
since they are not among the persons who could file an action for annulment of marriage
under Article 47 of the Family Code.

Issues:

(a) Whether or not Pepito and Norma’ living together as husband and wife for at least five
years exempts them from obtaining a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family
Code of the Philippines.

(b) Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action against defendant in asking for the
declaration of the nullity of marriage of their deceased father, Pepito G. Niñal, with her
specially so when at the time of the filing of this instant suit, their father Pepito G. Niñal
is already dead

Ruling:

(a) On the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife
for five years without the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be computed on
the basis of cohabitation as “husband and wife” where the only missing factor is the
special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five-year common
law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage,
should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. The five-
year period should be the years immediately before the day the marriage and it should be
a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity—meaning no third party was
involved at any time within the five years, and continuity—that is, unbroken. Otherwise,
if that five-year cohabitation period is computed without any distinction as to whether
the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law
would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law
relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with
their spouse.

(b) The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage.
Voidable and void marriages are not identical. Consequently, void marriages can be
questioned even after the death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only
during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in which case the parties
and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid.

G.R. No. 135830 – 471 SCRA 266 – Civil Law – Family Code – Annulment of
Marriage – Proper Party

Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos were brothers who each had three
parcels of land by virtue of inheritance. Later Teofilo died intestate. He was survived
by his wife Felicidad Sandoval and their son, Teofilo Carlos II. Upon Teofilo’s death,
two parcels of land were registered in the name of Felicidad and Teofilo II. In August
1995, Carlos commenced an action for the annulment of the marriage between Teofilo
and Felicidad. In his complaint, Carlos asserted that the marriage between his late
brother and Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage
license. He likewise maintained that his deceased brother was neither the natural nor
the adoptive father of Teofilo Carlos II. He argued that the properties covered by such
certificates of title, including the sums received by respondents as proceeds, should be
reconveyed to him.

ISSUE: Who may file an action for annulment of marriage?

HELD: 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. 02-11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during
the effectivity of the Civil Code. Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the
marriage. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
solely by the husband or the wife. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a
petition for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the
spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal
right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior
to the death of their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity of the
marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement
of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the
concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution. The Rule
extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code
which took effect on August 3, 1988.

The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks
the beginning of the end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a
nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse. But the Rule never intended to
deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their successional rights.

While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean
that the compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under the law. They
can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on
Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage
of the spouses, 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.

It is emphasized, however, that 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. This is so, as the new Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003
is prospective in its application.

Carlos commenced the nullity of marriage case against Felicidad in 1995. The
marriage in controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law would govern
depends upon when the marriage took place.

The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the
applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its
celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the
marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an action for the declaration
of nullity of marriage?

True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents
were married, or even in the Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can
file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however, 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 party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of action. Thus, in Ninal v.
Badayog, the Court held that the children have the personality to file the petition to
declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects
their successional rights

LLAVE V. REPUBLIC

G.R. No. 169766, [March 30, 2011]

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision dated August 17, 2004 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 61762 and its subsequent Resolution dated
September 13, 2005, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City, Branch 89 declaring petitioner Estrellita Juliano-Llave s (Estrellita)
marriage to Sen. Mamintal A.J. Tamano (Sen. Tamano) as void ab initio.

FACTS:

Around 11 months before his death, Sen. Tamanomarried Estrellita twice – initially under
the Islamic laws and tradition on May 27, 1993 in Cotabato City and, subsequently, under
a civil ceremony officiated by an RTC Judge at Malabang, Lanao del Sur on June 2, 1993.
In their marriage contracts, Sen. Tamano s civil status was indicated as “divorced”. Since
then, Estrellita has been representing herself to the whole world as Sen. Tamano s wife,
and upon his death, his widow.

On November 23, 1994, private respondents Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda)
and her son Adib Ahmad A. Tamano (Adib), in their own behalf and in behalf of the rest
of Sen. Tamano s legitimate children with Zorayda, filed a complaint with the RTC of
Quezon City for the declaration of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano
for being bigamous. The complaint alleged that Sen. Tamano married Zorayda on May 31,
1958 under civil rites, and that this marriage remained subsisting when he
married Estrellita in 1993.

ISSUE:

Whether the marriage between Estrellita and the late Sen. Tamano was bigamous.

HELD:
Yes. The civil code governs the marriage of Zoraydaand late Sen. Tamano; their marriage
was never invalidated by PD 1083. Sen. Tamano s subsequent marriage to Estrellita is
void ab initio.

RATIO:

The marriage between the late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda was celebrated in 1958,
solemnized under civil and Muslim rites. The only law in force governing marriage
relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950, under
the provisions of which only one marriage can exist at any given time. Under the marriage
provisions of the Civil Code, divorce is not recognized except during the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 394 which was not availed of during its effectivity.

As far as Estrellita is concerned, Sen. Tamano s prior marriage to Zorayda has been
severed by way of divorce under PD 1083, the law that codified Muslim personal laws.
However, PD 1083 cannot benefit Estrellita. Firstly, Article 13(1) thereof provides that the
law applies to “marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein only
the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim
law or this Code in any part of the Philippines.” But Article 13 of PD 1083 does not provide
for a situation where the parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites.”

HELD:

The petition is DENIED.

GR No. 196049, June 26, 2013

FACTS:

Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married

respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines. The
marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not
bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact
with each other.

Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without

the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara got married in
Quezon City. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay
allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and
started to contact Fujiki.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to re-establish their
relationship. Fujiki then helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a
family court in Japan declaring her marriage in Maekara void on the
ground of bigamy.

Later, back in the Philippines, Fujiki filed a petition for a Judicial

Recognition of Foreign Judgment before the RTC. However, the trial
court dismissed the petition maintaining that Fujiki lacks personality file
the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition

to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage
between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.

RULING:

Yes, a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize

a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or
her spouse and a foreign citizen.

Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of

the judgment, it may be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court. Section 1 of the said rule provides for who may file such petition,
to wit:
REPORT THIS AD

Sec. 1: Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event,
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been
recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the
cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the
Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil
registry is located.

In this case, there is no doubt that the prior spouse, Fujiki, has a
personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the
marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it. Thus,
he has the legal personality to file the petition. PETITION GRANTED.
 OSCAR P. MALLION, petitioner, v. EDITHA ALCANTARA, respondent.
G.R. No. 141528. October 31, 2006.

Facts:

On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar Mallion filed with the regional trial court seeking a
declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent Editha Alcantara on the ground of
psychological incapacity.

The trial court denied the petition. Likewise, it was dismissed in the Court of Appeals.

After such decision, petitioner filed another petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
with the regional trial court alleging that his marriage with respondent was null and void
due to the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage license.

Respondent filed an answer with motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata and
forum shopping.
The trial court grated her petition.

Issue:

Is the action of the husband tenable?

Ruling:

No. Section 47(b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court pertains as “bar by prior judgment” or
“estoppels by verdict,” which is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of the
second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. In Section 47(c) of the
same rule, it pertains to res judicata in its concept as “conclusiveness of judgment” or the
rule of auter action pendant which ordains that issues actually and directly resolved in a
former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving
a different cause of action. Therefore, having expressly and impliedly concealed the
validity of their marriage celebration, petitioner is now deemed to have waived
any defects therein. The Court finds then that the present action for declaration of nullity
of marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license is barred. The petition is denied for
lack of merit.