SALADO, VIEN SHARELL V.

JD 1-E

LUCILA DAVID and THE HEIRS OF RENE F. AGUAS, namely: PRINCESS LUREN D.
AGUAS, DANICA LANE D. AGUAS, SEAN PATRICK D. AGUAS, SEAN MICHAEL D.
AGUAS and SAMANTHA * D. AGUAS, petitioners, vs. CHERRY S. CALILUNG, respondent.
G.R. No. 241036. January 26, 2021.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Lucila David and Rene F. Aguas entered into a marital union on November 24, 1981 and had
five children; Princess Luren D. Aguas, Danica Lane D. Aguas, Sean Patrick D. Aguas, Sean Michael D.
Aguas, and Samantha D. Aguas, the Aguas heirs. Rene filed a petition to declare their marriage null and
void due to Lucila's psychological incapacity. The court granted the petition and ordered the division of
their conjugal properties, including a parcel of land and a house. However, the court's decision was not
registered, and the partition was not carried out.

Rene later entered into a second marriage with Cherry S. Calilung on October 7, 2006 and on
November 17, 2015 Rene died intestate. Cherry filed a petition for the settlement of Rene’s estate, which
led for Lucila and the Aguas heirs to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of Rene and Cherry's
marriage (RTC petition) on the ground that the said subsequent marriage was entered into without
complying the provisions in Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code on the partition and distribution of
the properties of the previous marriage and the delivery of the presumptive legitimes. The petition was
initially assigned to a Family Court RTC Branch 59 but was later transferred to another court RTC Branch
60 due to a jurisdictional issue. RTC Branch 60 dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE/S

1. Whether or not Branch 60 has jurisdiction over the RTC petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage;

2. Whether or not Branch 60 committed an error in dismissing the RTC petition for nullity of
marriage; and

3. Whether or not the petitioners are the real parties-in-interest to the subject RTC petition for nullity
of marriage.

RULING

• The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is under the jurisdiction of the RTC branch
designated as Family Court, and Branch 59 has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the RTC
petition per Resolution in A.M. No. 08-8-460-RTC issued by the Supreme Court revoking the
designation of Branch 60 as special court for family court cases and designated Branch 59 as
special court to try and decide family court cases in lieu of Branch 60.
• The RTC Branch 60 did not commit an error in dismissing RTC petition on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.

• Petitioners are not the real parties-in-interest since it was not filed by an aggrieved or injured
spouse, who are the only parties who can file a petition for declaration of nullity of void marriages.
The petition was filed by the heirs of Rene, which constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of
his marriage with Cherry. The Aguas heirs are the children of the deceased spouse whose marriage
is sought to be annulled. They have no legal personality to file the petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage of their father with Cherry. They can only question the validity of the marriage
of the said spouses in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of their deceased father filed in
the regular courts. Lucila, on the other hand, is not the wife in the marriage that she and her
children sought to annul. She is not a spouse of Rene, as their marriage having been declared null
and void from the very beginning on the ground of psychological incapacity. Accordingly, Lucila,
could not be the aggrieved or injured spouse, so she has no legal standing to file the complaint for
nullity of marriage of the spouses Rene and Cherry. Hence, the petition was not filed by real party-
in-interest.

WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED. The Orders dated November 24, 2017 and June 13,
2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 60 in Civil Case No. R-ANG-
17-03316-CV are hereby AFFIRMED.