CALISTERIO VS CALISTERIO

Facts: in 1946, Marrieta was married to James William

Bounds but only a year after the marriage, James
Bounds disappeared without a trace.

After 11 years, in 1958, Marietta married Teodorico

without Marietta having priorly secured a court
declaration that James was presumptively dead. 34
years into the marriage, Teodorico died intestate.

Antonia, a surviving sister of deceased, claimed that she

is the sole surviving heir of Teodorico Calisterio, and
alleged that the marriage between Marietta and
Teodorico as bigamous and thereby null and void.

The RTC ruled in favour of Antonia, but the CA reversed

the decision.

Issue: WON the marriage between deceased Teoderico

C. And Marietta C. is valid.

Ruling: Yes. The SC affirmed the ruling of the CA. The

law in force at the time of their marriage was the Civil
Code, not the Family Code which took effect only on 03
August 1988. Article 256 of the Family Code 5 itself
limited its retroactive governance only to cases where it
thereby would not prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or
other laws.

Unlike in the Family Code, the New Civil Code does not
necessitate a judicial declaration of absence of the
absentee spouse as long as the prescribed period of 7
consecutive years of absence is met.
REPUBLIC VS HON. ESTRADA AND OLEMBERIO

Facts: On 14 October 2008, Teresita J. Olemberio filed a

Petition for Declaration of Absence and Presumption of
Death of her husband Diego before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Malaybalay.

Teresita alleged she married Diego on 25 November

1973 in Impasug-ong, Bukidnon. Sometime in December
1976, Diego left their residence and never came back.
He failed to communicate with her for the past 32 years
and never made contact with any of their children or
immediate relatives.

She alleged that she exerted all efforts to reach her

husband but failed. She filed the present petition to
declare her husband presumptively dead so that she
could contract another marriage without any
impediment.

RTC granted her petition. CA affirmed the RTC.

Issue: WON the lower courts committed an error in

appreciating the facts and circumstances of the death of
Diego.

Ruling: The SC affirmed the ruling of the CA.

In this case, the husband's absence for more than 30

years, which far exceeded the law required four years of
absence, is more than enough to declare him
presumptively dead for all legal intents and purposes.

Further, it can be clearly gleaned from the totality of

evidence that the husband had already died due to the
prevalence of New People's Army in Malaybalay.
ALCAZAR VS ALACAZAR There was no evidence presented to establish that the
husband was in any way physically incapable to
Facts: Veronica and Rey were married to each other and
consummate his marriage. In fact, the wife admitted
lived in Mindoro in the house of the husband’s parents.
that they had sex before and after the wedding. Thus,
They went back to Manila but did not live together.
incapacity to consummate does not exist in this case.
The husband went to Riyadh to work and never
Second, psychological incapacity was not proven. The
contacted the wife despite her trying to contact him. A
doctor’s testimony on Rey’s NPD was not sufficient to
year and a half later, she was told by her co-teacher
establish psychological incapacity. The case is merely a
that her husband was about to come home. She was
simple case of a married couple being apart too long,
surprised as she was not advised by him of his arrival.
becoming strangers to each other, with the husband
The husband went straight to his parents’ house in falling out of love and distancing or detaching himself as
Mindoro and when the wife went there, her brother-in- much as possible from his wife.
law told her that he didn’t know about his whereabouts.
Lastly, the allegation of the husband’s sexual infidelity is
The wife then filed an annulment case. At first, the a poor attempt to bolster the case. Sexual infidelity per
ground for annulment was based on paragraph 5, se is not psychological incapacity.
Article 45 of the Family Code for failure to consummate
the marriage. But later, it was changed to psychological
incapacity (Article 36).

The wife presented Tayag, a clinical psychologist who

testified that the husband is suffering from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD), having a grandiose sense of
self. He thinks he is too important, too unique, and too
special. It was also alleged in the complaint for
annulment the husband’s alleged sexual infidelity
because when he came home from abroad, it was said
that he lived with a certain “Sally” in his parent’s
hometown.

RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Issue: WON the husband was psychologically

incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations.

Ruling: The SC affirmed the lower courts’ decision. The

wife was right to change the ground for annulment as
Article 45(5) of the Family Code refers to lack of power
to copulate.

Incapacity to consummate denotes the permanent

inability on the part of the spouses to perform the
complete act of sexual intercourse. It may be caused by
a physical or structural defect in the anatomy of one of
the parties or it may be due to chronic illness and
inhibitions or fears arising in whole or in part from
psychophysical conditions. It may be caused by
psychogenic causes, where such mental block or
disturbance has the result of making the spouse
physically incapable of performing the marriage act.
LEDESMA VS INTESTATE ESTATE OF CIPRIANO The Macadangdang decision involved legal separation
PEDROSA but the doctrine enunciated therein should be applied
to a marriage annulment which is the situation at bar.
Facts: The marriage between Angelica and Cipriano was
declared a nullity by the RTC of Negros Occidental. The respondent presiding judge is directed to decide
the partition (liquidation) case and determine which of
The Court ordered that the properties acquired
the properties of the conjugal partnership should be
by the parties at the time they were living
adjudicated to the husband and the wife. Any
together as in a common law marriage are owned by
properties that may be adjudicated to the deceased
them as co-owners and as for the properties acquired
husband can then be distributed in accordance with his
during the marriage will form part of the conjugal
last will and testament in the special proceedings
partnership of the spouses, to be dissolved and
involving his estate.
liquidated in accordance with the provision of the Civil
Code.

Pending receipt by the court of the ordered inventory,

the husband died. In his last will and testament, Nelson
Jimena was named executor and substituted Pedrosa in
the partition proceedings.

The judge terminated the supplemental action for

partition (after annulment of the marriage) due to the
death of the husband and the pendency of intestate
proceedings over his estate.

The wife argues that respondent judge reneged in the

performance of a lawful duty when she refrained from
rendering a decision in the partition case and
considered the same closed and terminated, due to the
pendency of intestate proceedings over the deceased
husband's estate.

Issue: WON it is proper to terminate the partition

proceeding on account of the death of one of the
spouses and the pendency of intestate proceeding of
the deceased spouse’s estate

Ruling: No. The SC cited the case of Macadangdang

where a similar issue was involved.

In the said case, the Court ruled that upon the finality of
the decree of legal separation, the absolute conjugal
community property of the spouses shall be dissolved
and liquidated. Upon the liquidation and distribution
conformably with the law governing the effects of the
final decree of legal separation, the law on intestate
succession should take over in the disposition of
whatever remaining properties have been allocated to
petitioner. This procedure involves details which
properly pertain to the lower court.
 Issue: WON A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC entitled “Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages,” is applicable to the
case.

BOLOS VS BOLOS Ruling: No. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity

Facts: Cynthia filed for a petition for the declaration of
nullity of her marriage to Danilo on the ground of
Psychological Incapacity. The RTC granted the petition
for annulment but when a copy of said decision was
received by Danilo, he filed a Notice of Appeal.
The RTC denied due course to the appeal for the
husband’s failure to file the required motion for
reconsideration or new trial, in violation of Section 20 of
the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. The
RTC issued the order declaring its decision declaring the
marriage null and void as final and executory.
The RTC issued the order declaring its decision declaring
the marriage null and void as final and executory and
granting the Motion for Entry of Judgment filed by
Cynthia.
Danilo filed with the CA a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 seeking to annul the orders of the RTC as they
were rendered with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. The CA
granted the petition and reversed and set aside the
assailed orders of the RTC declaring the nullity of
marriage as final and executory. The appellate court
stated that the requirement of a motion for
reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal under A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply in this case as the
marriage between Cynthia and Danilo was solemnized
on February 14, 1980 before the Family Code took
effect.
of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which
the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in
its scope. Section 1 of the Rule, in fact, reads:
“Section 1. Scope.—This 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.”
The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves
no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those
marriages entered into during the effectivity of the
Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. The
rule sets a demarcation line between marriages covered
by the Family Code and those solemnized under the
Civil Code.8 The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to
petitioner’s interpretation that the phrase “under the
Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the
word “petitions” rather than to the word “marriages.”
In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in setting
aside the RTC decision which denied due course to
respondent’s appeal and denying petitioner’s motion
for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration.

The wife argues that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is also

applicable to marriages solemnized before the
effectivity of the Family Code. According to petitioner,
the phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-
10-SC refers to the word “petitions” rather than to the
word “marriages.” Such that petitions filed after the
effectivity of the Family Code are governed by the A.M.
No. even if the marriage was solemnized before the
same. Danilo, in his Comment, counters that A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC is not applicable because his marriage with
Cynthia was solemnized on February 14, 1980, years
before its effectivity.