You are on page 1of 3


MENDOZA ISSUE: WON Paras is the rightful
Arturo Mendoza and Jovita de Asis were surviving spouse of Tolentino?
married on Aug. 5, 1936 in Marikina.
While the marriage was still subsisting, HELD: Yes. Petition granted.
Mendoza got married to Olga Lema in
Manila on May 14, 1941. de Asis died on RATIO:
Feb. 2, 1943. Then, Mendoza contracted 1. She needs to obtain judicial
another marriage with Carmencita declaration from court first before she
Panlilio in Calamba, Laguna on Aug. 19, can request for the correction of the
1949. He was sued and convicted of entry. Publication not necessary
bigamy for the second marriage. because all the parties involved are
part of the case. Court should order
ISSUE: WON Mendoza is liable for the publication.
bigamy? 2. Conviction of Tolentino for bigamy is
best proof that his second marriage is
HELD: No. Acquitted. null and void thus, Paras is still his
rightful spouse. No need for judicial
RATIO: declaration of nullity for void
1. Sec. 29, Marriage Law Act 3613: marriages.
Any marriage subsequently contracted 3. Certificate entries though presumed to
by any person during the lifetime of be correct must yield to positive
the first spouse shall be illegal and evidence establishing their inaccuracy.
void unless first marriage has been
annulled, dissolved or first spouse has WIEGEL V. SEMPIO-DIY
been absent for 7 consecutive years Lilia Olivia Wiegel got married to Karl
without news if he/she is still alive. Heinz Wiegel on July, 1978 at the Holy
Judicial declaration of nullity is only Catholic Apostolic Christian Church in
necessary for third case. THUS, HIS Makati. Karl, upon learning that Lilia had
MARRIAGE WITH LEMA IS NULL AND a subsisting marriage, filed for a
VOID WITHOUT NEED FOR JUDICIAL declaration of nullity of their marriage.
DECLARATION. Lilia contracted her first marriage with
2. Third marriage was contracted after Eduardo Maxion on June 25, 1972. She
the death of the first spouse, thus not claims that the first marriage is not valid
bigamous. because they were forced to enter the
union and Maxion was married to
TOLENTINO V. PARAS someone else at that time.
Amado Tolentino was married to Serafia
G. Tolentino on July 31, 1943. While ISSUE: WON Lilia’s first marriage is void?
marriage was still subsisting, he
contracted another marriage with Ma. HELD: No. It’s voidable. Petition
Clemente at Paombong, Bulacan on Nov. dismissed.
1, 1948. He was convicted with bigamy.
After serving his sentence, he continued RATIO:
living with Clemente until he died on July 1. Presence of force only makes a
25, 1974. Ma. Clemente was the marriage voidable, not void. (CC ART.
surviving spouse indicated in his death 85) It is valid until annulled and since
certificate. Tolentino claims that she is there was no annulment, marriage is
the rightful surviving spouse and still valid.
petitions for correction of the death 2. Even if marriage is void, judicial
certificate. Lower court dismissed declaration of nullity is still needed
petition for lack of publication. especially for purposes of remarriage.
TERRE V. TERRE him, he got her pregnant then he
Dorothy Terre first met Jordan Terre when abandoned her. He made a mockery of
they were 4th year high school the institution of marriage. Thus, not
classmates in Cadiz City High School. worthy to be a member of the Bar.
She was then married to Merlito
Bercenilla. Jordan courted her and this ATIENZA V. BRILLANTES JR.
continued when they moved to Manila to Lupo Atienza lived together with Yolanda
pursue their education. Jordan, then a de Castro with whom he has two
freshman law student, told Dorothy that children. He purchased a house in Bel-
her marriage with Bercenilla was void ab Air, Makati where his family stayed. He
initio because they are first cousins. stays there too whenever he’s in Manila.
Believing in Jordan and with the consent In Dec., 1991, he was surprised to see
of her mother and ex-in-laws, she Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Judge
married Jordan on June 14, 1977. Jordan Francisco Brillantes sleeping on his bed.
wrote “single” as Dorothy’s civil status Their boy informed him that Brillantes
despite latter’s protests. Jordan said it had been cohabiting with de Castro.
didn’t matter because marriage was void Later on, Brillantes prevented him from
to begin with. After their marriage, visiting his children. He claims that
Dorothy supported Jordan because he Brillantes is married to Zenaida Ongkiko
was still studying then. They had a son, with whom he has five children. Atienza
Jason, who was born on June 25, 1981. filed a complaint for Gross Immorality &
Shortly after she gave birth, Jordan Appearance of Impropriety against
disappeared. She learned that he Brillantes.
married Vilma Malicdem. Dorothy filed
charges for abandonment of minor, Brillantes claims that his marriage to
bigamy and grossly immoral conduct. Ongkiko is not valid because of lack of
Jordan was already a member of the Bar marriage license. According to him,
then. Ongkiko abandoned him 19 years ago
Jordan claimed that he was unaware of leaving their children with him. He claims
Dorothy’s first marriage and that she that he believed that he was single when
sent her out of the house when he he married de Castro because his first
confronted her about it. He contracted marriage was void.
the second marriage, believing that his
marriage to Dorothy was void ab initio ISSUE: WON Brillantes can contract a
because of her prior subsisting marriage. second marriage without a judicial
ISSUE: WON a judicial declaration of declaration of nullity?
nullity is needed to enter into a
subsequent marriage? HELD: No. Dismissed from service.

HELD: Yes. Jordan Terre disbarred. RATIO:
1. FC Art. 40: judicial declaration of
RATIO: nullity of previous marriage is needed
1. Jordan failed to rebut evidence before one can enter into a second
presented by Dorothy. marriage. Rule has retroactive effect
2. As a law student, he should have thus applicable to Brillantes even if he
known that even if Dorothy’s first got married under the Civil Code.
marriage was void ab initio, she still 2. Bad faith and sinister motives of
needed a judicial declaration before Brillantes proven by his marriage to
she can contract another marriage. Ongkiko. They underwent two
(GOMEZ V. LIPANA; FC ART. 40) ceremonies however he never got a
3. Jordan has displayed a deeply flawed license. Then, he immorally and
moral character. Dorothy supported
illegally cohabited with de Castro. Not not dissolve the marriage tie.
fit for the judiciary. Cohabitation for at least five years
exempts them from the marriage
BORJA-MANZANO V. SANCHEZ license but it does not free them of
Herminia Borja-Mariano was married to their legal impediment to contract a
the late David Manzano on May 21, 1966. subsequent marriage.
They had four children. However, on 3. Marriage was void & bigamous. Judge
March 22, 1993, David contracted displayed gross ignorance of the law.
another marriage with Luzviminda Payao
before Infanta, Pangasinan MTC Judge
Roque Sanchez. During that time, Payao
was also married to Domingo Relos.
Payao and David issued an affidavit
stating that they were both married
however due to incessant quarrels, they
both left their families and they no longer
communicated with them. They have
lived together as husband & wife for 7
years. Judge agreed to solemnize the
marriage. Herminia filed charges of gross
ignorance of the law against Sanchez.

ISSUE: WON David Manzano’s marriage
with Payao is valid?

HELD: NO. Sanchez fined P20,000.00

1. FC Art. 34: legal ratification of
marital cohabitation exempts a
couple from obtaining a marriage
license but the ff requisites must be
a. lived together as husband & wife
for at least five years
b. no legal impediment to marry
each other
c. fact of absence of legal
impediment must be present at
time of marriage
d. affidavit stating that they’ve been
living together for at least 5 years
& without legal impediments
e. solemnizing officer should execute
sworn statement that he
ascertained qualifications of
contracting parties.
2. None of requisites were present. They
declared that they were separated
but judge still solemnized marriage.
Mere separation and free & voluntary
cohabitation with another person do