Ty vs CA

GR No. 127406, November 27, 2000

FACTS:

Private respondent, Edgardo Reyes, was married with Anna Villanueva in a civil
ceremony in March 1977 in Manila and subsequently had a church wedding in August
1977. Both weddings were declared null and void ab initio for lack of marriage license
and consent of the parties. Even before the decree nullifying the marriage was issued,
Reyes wed Ofelia Ty herein petitioner on April 1979 and had their church wedding in
Makati on April 1982. The decree was only issued in August 1980. In January 1991,
Reyes filed with RTC a complaint to have his marriage with petitioner be declared null
and void. AC ruled that a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage with
Anna must first be secured before a subsequent marriage could be validly contracted.
However, SC found that the provisions of the Family Code cannot be retroactively
applied to the present case for doing so would prejudice the vested rights of the
petitioner and of her children.

ISSUE:

Whether or not damages should be awarded to Ofelia Ty.

HELD:

SC is in the opinion of the lower courts that no damages should be awarded to the wife
who sought damages against the husband for filing a baseless complaint causing her
mental anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, social humiliation and alienation
from her parents. Aside from the fact, that petitioner wants her marriage to private
respondent held valid and subsisting. She is likewise suing to maintain her status as
legitimate wife. To grant her petition for damages would result to a situation where
the husband pays the wife damages from conjugal or common funds. To do so, would
make the application of the law absurd. Moreover, Philippine laws do not comprehend
an action for damages between husband and wife merely because of breach of a
marital obligation.
Hence, the petition was granted. Marriage between Ty and Reyes is declared valid and
subsisting and the award of the amount of P15,000 is ratified and maintained as
monthly support to their 2 children for as long as they are of minor age or otherwise
legally entitled thereto.

NOTES from Family Law Volume I Book:

The first and second marriages were contracted in 1977 and 1979, respectively, and
thus governed by the provisions of the Civil Code. The first marriage of private
respondent being void for lack of license and consent, there was no need for judicial
declaration of its nullity before he could contract a second marriage. Thus, the second
marriage is valid.