persons marriage case 3

7/25/2019 Persons Marriage Case 3

1/37

1.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 133778 March 14, 2000

ENGRACE NIAL for !r"!#f a$% a"G&ar%'a$ ad Litemof (h! )'$or"*A*+LINE NIAL, INGRI NIAL,ARCIE NIAL - PEPITO NIAL,R.,petitioners,

vs.NORMA *A+AOG,responent.

+NARES/SANTIAGO,J.:

Ma! the heirsof a ecease person file apetition for the eclaration of nullit! of his"arria#e after his eath$

1. Pepito Ni%al &as "arrie to Teoulfa'elloneson Septe"ber (), 1*+.

Petitioner-NR/0- NI/2 is thech'#%ofPepito Ni%al to Teoulfa 'ellones.

(. Teoulfa &as shot b! Pepito resultin# inher eath on /pril (, 1*34.

5. On Dece"ber 11, 1*3), PepitoanresponentNor"a 'aa!o# #ot "arrie'(ho&( a$ )arr'a! #'c!$"!.

. In lieu 6stea, position, place, lieu7 thereof,Pepito an Nor"a e8ecute an affiavitate Dece"ber 11, 1*3) statin# that the!ha live to#ether as husban an &ife for atleast five !ears an !r! (h&" !!)( fro)"!c&r'$ a )arr'a! #'c!$"!.

4. On Februar! 1*, 1**+, Pepito ie in acar accient. /fter their father9s eath,petitioners file apetition for eclaration ofnullit! of the "arria#e of Pepito to Nor"aalle#in# that the sai "arria#e &as voi for

lac: of a "arria#e license.

R!'o$a# Tr'a# Co&r(5" R'$6

;u#e Ferinan ;. Marcos of the Re#ionalTrial 0ourt of Toleo 0it!, 0ebu, 'ranch 4*,is"isse the petition after finin# that theFa"il! 0oe is hether or not plaintiffs have acause of action a#ainst efenant inas:in# for the eclaration of thenullit! of "arria#e of their eceasefather, Pepito . Ni%al, &ith herspeciall! so &hen at the ti"e of thefilin# of this instant suit, their fatherPepito . Ni%al is alrea! ea?

6(7 >hether or not the secon"arria#e of plaintiffs9 ecease

father &ith efenant is null an voiab initio?

657 >hether or not plaintiffs areestoppe fro" assailin# the valiit!of the secon "arria#e after it &asissolve ue to their father9s eath. 1

Thus, the lo&er court rule that petitionersshoul have file the action to eclare null

an voi their father9s "arria#e toresponent before his eath, appl!in# b!analo#! /rticle + of the Fa"il! 0oe&hich enu"erates the ti"e an the persons&ho coul initiate an action for annul"entof "arria#e. (@ence, this petition for revie&

1
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_133778_2000.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_133778_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_133778_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_133778_2000.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/mar2000/gr_133778_2000.html#fnt1


2/37

&ith this 0ourt #roune on a pure Auestionof la&.

S&r!)! Co&r(5" R'$6

The t&o "arria#es involve herein havin#been sole"niBe prior to the effectivit! ofthe Fa"il! 0oe 6F07,the applicable la&toeter"ine their valiit! is the 0ivil 0oe&hich &as the la& in effect at the ti"e oftheir celebration. 4

/ vali "arria#e license is a reAuisite of"arria#e uner Ar('c#! 3 of the 0ivil 0oe,)the absence of &hich reners the "arria#evoid ab initiopursuant to /rticle 3C657 +inrelation to /rticle 43. 3

Th! r!&'r!)!$( a$% '""&a$c! of)arr'a! #'c!$"! '"the State9se"onstration of its involve"ent anparticipation in ever! "arria#e, in the

"aintenance of &hich the #eneral public isintereste. *

@o&ever, there are several instancesreco#niBe b! the 0ivil 0oe &herein a"arria#e license is ispense &ith, one of&hich is that provie in Ar('c#! 79,1referrin# to the "arria#e of a "an an a&o"an &ho have live to#ether ane8clusivel! &ith each other as husban an

&ife for a continuous an unbro:en perioof at least five !ears before the "arria#e.Th! ra('o$a#!&h! no license is reAuire insuch case is to avoi e8posin# the parties tohu"iliation, sha"e an e"barrass"entconco"itant &ith the scanalouscohabitation of persons outsie a vali

"arria#e ue to the publication of ever!applicant9s na"e for a "arria#e license. Thepublicit! attenin# the "arria#e license "a!iscoura#e such persons fro" le#iti"iBin#their status. 14To preserve peace in the

fa"il!, avoi the peepin# an suspicious e!eof public e8posure an contain the source of#ossip arisin# fro" the publication of theirna"es, the la& ee"e it &ise to preservetheir privac! an e8e"pt the" fro" thatreAuire"ent.

The onl! issue that nees to be resolvepertains to &hat nature of cohabitation isconte"plate uner /rticle +) of the 0ivil

0oe to &arrant the countin# of the five !earperio in orer to e8e"pt the future spousesfro" securin# a "arria#e license.

>or:in# on the assu"ption that Pepito anNor"a have live to#ether as husban an&ife for five !ears &ithout the benefit of"arria#e, (ha( f':!/!ar !r'o% "ho% ;!co)&(!% o$ (h! ;a"'" of a coha;'(a('o$a"


3/37

It shoul be note that a license is reAuirein orer to notif! the public that t&o personsare about to be unite in "atri"on! an thatan!one &ho is a&are or has :no&le#e ofan! i"pei"ent to the union of the t&o shall

"a:e it :no&n to the local civil re#istrar. 1+The 0ivil 0oe provies=

/rt. )5= . . . This notice shall reAuestall persons havin# :no&le#e of an!i"pei"ent to the "arria#e to avicethe local civil re#istrar thereof. . . .

/rt. )= pon bein# avise of an!alle#e i"pei"ent to the "arria#e,

the local civil re#istrar shallforth&ith "a:e an investi#ation,e8a"inin# persons uner oath. . . .

This is reiterate in the Fa"il! 0oe thus=

/rt. 1+ provies in part= . . . Thisnotice shall reAuest all personshavin# :no&le#e of an!i"pei"ent to the "arria#e to avisethe local civil re#istrar thereof. . . .

/rt. 13 reas in part= . . . In case ofan! i"pei"ent :no&n to the localcivil re#istrar or brou#ht to hisattention, he shall note o&n theparticulars thereof an his finin#sthereon in the application for a"arria#e license. . . .

In this case, at the ti"e of Pepito an

responent9s "arria#e, it cannot be sai thatthe! have live &ith each other as husbanan &ife for at least five !ears prior to their&ein# a!. Fro" the ti"e Pepito9s first"arria#e &as issolve to the ti"e of his"arria#e &ith responent, onl! about t&ent!"onths ha elapse. -ven assu"in# that

Pepito an his first &ife ha separate infact, an thereafter both Pepito anresponent ha starte livin# &ith each otherthat has alrea! laste for five !ears, the factre"ains that their five!ear perio

cohabitation &as not the cohabitationconte"plate b! la&. It shoul be in thenature of a perfect union that is vali unerthe la& but renere i"perfect onl! b! theabsence of the "arria#e contract. P!'(oha% a "&;"'"('$ )arr'a! a( (h! (')!h!$ h! "(ar(!% coha;'('$ '(hr!"o$%!$(. I( '" '))a(!r'a# (ha( h!$(h! #':!% '(h !ach o(h!r, P!'(o ha%a#r!a% ;!!$ "!ara(!% '$ fac( fro) h'"

#af "o&"!.The subsistence of the"arria#e even &here there &as actualseverance of the filial co"panionshipbet&een the spouses cannot "a:e an!cohabitation b! either spouse &ith an! thirpart! as bein# one as


4/37

/rticle + pertains to the #rouns, periosan !r"o$" ho ca$ f'#! a$ a$$)!$("&'(, not a suit for eclaration of nullit! of"arria#e.The 0oe is silent as to &ho canfile a petition to eclare the nullit! of a

"arria#e.

?o'%a;#! a$% :o'% )arr'a!" ar! $o('%!$('ca#.

1. / "arria#e that is annulable is :a#'% untilother&ise eclare b! the court? &hereas a"arria#e that is voi ab initiois co$"'%!r!%a" ha:'$ $!:!r (o ha:! (a=!$ #ac!(1ancannot be the source of ri#hts.

(. The first can be #enerall! ratifie orconfir"e b! free cohabitation orprescription &hile the other can never beratifie.

5. / voiable "arria#e cannot be assailecollaterall! e8cept in a irect proceein#&hile a voi "arria#e can be attac:ecollaterall!.

. 0onseAuentl!, voi "arria#es can beAuestione even after the eath of eitherpart!but voiable "arria#es can be assaileonl! urin# the lifeti"e of the parties annot after eath of either, in &hich case theparties an their offsprin# &ill be left as ifthe "arria#e ha been perfectl! vali. ((

4. That is &h! the action or efense fornullit! is i"prescriptible, unli:e voiable

"arria#es &here the action prescribes.

). Onl! the parties to a voiable "arria#ecan assail itbut an! proper intereste part!"a! attac: a voi "arria#e.

+. Voi "arria#es have no le#al effectse8cept those eclare b! la& concernin# the

properties of the alle#e spouses, re#arin#coo&nership or o&nership throu#h actualGoint contribution, (5an its effect on thechilren born to such voi "arria#es asprovie in /rticle 4C in relation to /rticle

5 an as &ell as /rticle 41, 45 an 4 ofthe Fa"il! 0oe. On the contrar!, thepropert! re#i"e #overnin# voiable"arria#es is #enerall! conGu#al partnershipan the chilren conceive before itsannul"ent are le#iti"ate.

0ontrar! to the trial court9s rulin#, the eathof petitioner9s father e8tin#uishe thealle#e "arital bon bet&een hi" an

responent. The conclusion is erroneous anprocees fro" a &ron# pre"ise that there&as a "arria#e bon that &as issolvebet&een the t&o. It shoul be note thattheir "arria#e &as voi hence it is ee"eas if it never e8iste at all an the eath ofeither e8tin#uishe nothin#.

;urispruence uner the 0ivil 0oe statesthat no Guicial ecree is necessar! in orerto establish the nullit! of a "arria#e. (


5/37

"a! be "aterial, either irect or collateral,in an! civil court bet&een an! parties at an!ti"e, &hether before or after the eath ofeither or both the husban an the &ife, anupon "ere proof of the facts renerin# such

"arria#e voi, it &ill be isre#are ortreate as none8istent b! the courts.< It isnot li:e a voiable "arria#e &hich cannotbe collaterall! attac:e e8cept in irectproceein# institute urin# the lifeti"e ofthe parties so that on the eath of either, the"arria#e cannot be i"peache, an is "ae#oo ab initio.()'ut /rticle C of theFa"il! 0oe e8pressl! provies that there"ust be a Guicial eclaration of the nullit!

of a previous "arria#e, thou#h voi, beforea part! can enter into a secon "arria#e(+an such absolute nullit! can be base onl!on a final Gu#"ent to that effect. (3For thesa"e reason, the la& "a:es either the actionor efense for the eclaration of absolutenullit! of "arria#e i"prescriptible.(*0orollaril!, if the eath of either part! &oule8tin#uish the cause of action or the #rounfor efense, then the sa"e cannot beconsiere i"prescriptible.

@o&ever, other than for purposes ofre"arria#e, no Guicial action is necessar! toeclare a "arria#e an absolutenullit!.1wphi1For other purposes, such asbut not li"ite to eter"ination of heirship,le#iti"ac! or ille#iti"ac! of a chil,settle"ent of estate, issolution of propert!re#i"e, or a cri"inal case for that "atter,the court "a! pass upon the valiit! of

"arria#e even in a suit not irectl! instituteto Auestion the sa"e so lon# as it is essentialto the eter"ination of the case. This is&ithout preGuice to an! issue that "a! arisein the case. >hen such nee arises, a finalGu#"ent of eclaration of nullit! is

necessar! even if the purpose is other than tore"arr!.

The clause


6/37

(


Manila

FIRST DIVISION

A.M. No. MT/00/132@ March 8,20016For"erl! A.M. No. OCA IPI No. @@/709/

MT7

ERMINIA *ORA/MANANO,petitioner,vs.UGE ROBUE R. SANCE, MTC,I$fa$(a, Pa$a"'$a$,responent.

R E S O L U T I O N

A?IE, R., C.J.6

1. On (1 Ma! 1*)) @-RMINI/ 'OR;/

M/N "arrie to Davi ManBano an ha chilren.

(. On (( March 1**5, ho&ever, her husbancontracte another "arria#e &ith one2uBvi"ina Pa!aobefore responent;u#e.5

Co&r( A%)'$'"(ra(or r!co))!$%a('o$6

That responent ;u#e be foun &'#( ofro"" '$ora$c! of (h! #aan be orereto pa! a fine of P(,CCC, &ith a &arnin# thata repetition of the sa"e or si"ilar act &oulbe ealt &ith "ore severel!.

S&r!)! Co&r(5" R'$6

/rticle 5 of the Fa"il! 0oe provies=

No license shall be necessar! for the

"arria#e of a "an an a &o"an &hohave live to#ether as husban an&ife for at least five !ears an&ithout an! le#al i"pei"ent to"arr! each other. The contractin#parties shall state the fore#oin# factsin an affiavit before an! personauthoriBe b! la& to a"inisteroaths. The sole"niBin# officer shallalso state uner oath that he

ascertaine the Aualifications of thecontractin# parties an foun nole#al i"pei"ent to the "arria#e.

For this provision on le#al ratification of"arital cohabitation to appl!, the follo&in#reAuisites "ust concur=

6


7/37

1. The "an an &o"an "ust havebeen livin# to#ether as husban an&ife for at least five !ears before the"arria#e?

(. The parties "ust have no le#ali"pei"ent to "arr! each other?

5. The fact of absence of le#ali"pei"ent bet&een the parties "ustbe present at the ti"e of "arria#e?

. The parties "ust e8ecute anaffiavit statin# that the! have liveto#ether for at least five !ears Han

are &ithout le#al i"pei"ent to"arr! each other? an

4. The sole"niBin# officer "uste8ecute a s&orn state"ent that heha ascertaine the Aualifications ofthe parties an that he ha foun nole#al i"pei"ent to their "arria#e.)

Not all of these reAuire"ents are present inthe case at bar. It is si#nificant to note that in

their separate affiavits e8ecute on ((March 1**5 an s&orn to before responent;u#e hi"self, Davi ManBano an2uBvi"ina Pa!ao e8pressl! state the factof their prior e8istin# "arria#e. /lso, intheir "arria#e contract, it &as inicate thatboth &ere


8/37

/DOPT-D, &ith the MODIFI0/TION thatthe a"ount of fine to be i"pose uponresponent ;u#e RoAue SancheB isincrease to P(C,CCC.

SO ORD-R-D.

5.


Manila

SECON I?ISION

G.R. No. 190172 >!;r&ar 13,2008

REINEL ANTON+ *. E CASTRO,petitioner,vs.ANNA*ELLE ASSIAO/E CASTRO,responent.

E C I S I O N

TINGA,J.6

This is a petition for revie& of the Decision1of the 0ourt of /ppeals in 0/R 0V. No.)*1)),(eclarin# that 617 Reianna Tricia /.De 0astro is the le#iti"ate chil of thepetitioner? an 6(7 that the "arria#e bet&een

petitioner an responent is vali untilproperl! nullifie b! a co"petent court in aproceein# institute for that purpose.

The facts of the case, as culle fro" therecors, follo&.

Petitioner an responent "et an beca"es&eethearts in 1**1. The! planne to #et"arrie, thus the! applie for a "arria#elicense &ith the Office of the 0ivil Re#istrar

of Pasi# 0it! in Septe"ber 1**. The! hatheir first se8ual relation so"eti"e inOctober 1**, an ha re#ularl! en#a#e inse8 thereafter. >hen the couple &ent bac: tothe Office of the 0ivil Re#istrar, the"arria#e license ha alrea! e8pire. Thus,in orer to push throu#h &ith the plan, inlieu of a "arria#e license, the! e8ecute anaffiavit ate 15 March 1**4 statin# thatthe! ha been livin# to#ether as husban

an &ife for at least five !ears. The couple#ot "arrie on the sa"e ate, &ith ;u#e;ose 0. 'ernabe, presiin# Gu#e of theMetropolitan Trial 0ourt of Pasi# 0it!,a"inisterin# the civil rites. Nevertheless,after the cere"on!, petitioner anresponent &ent bac: to their respective

8
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt2


9/37

ho"es an i not live to#ether as husbanan &ife.

On 15 Nove"ber 1**4, responent #avebirth to a chil na"e Reinna Tricia /. De

0astro.Since the chilKs birth, responenthas been the one supportin# her out of herinco"e as a #overn"ent entist an fro"her private practice.

On ;une 1**3, responent file aco"plaint for support a#ainst petitionerbefore the Re#ional Trial 0ourt of Pasi#0it! 6trial court.5In her co"plaint,responent alle#e that she is "arrie to

petitioner an that the latter has


10/37

on the basis of the "arria#e apparentl! anvoluntaril! entere into b! petitioner anresponent.+The ispositive portion of theecision reas=

DERE>ORE,pre"isesconsiere, the Decision ate 1)October (CCC, of the Re#ional Trial0ourt of Pasi# 0it!, National 0apital;uicial Re#ion, 'rach +C, in ;DR0No. )(), is A>>IRME&ith theMOI>ICATIONS 617 eclarin#Reianna Tricia /. De 0astro, as thele#iti"ate chil of the appellant anthe appellee an 6(7 eclarin# the

"arria#e on 15 March 1**4 bet&eenthe appellant an the appellee valiuntil properl! annulle b! aco"petent court in a proceein#institute for that purpose. 0ostsa#ainst the appellant.3

S&r!)! Co&r(5" R'$6

'efore us, petitioner contens that the trialcourt properl! annulle his "arria#e &ithresponent because as sho&n b! theevience an a"issions of the parties, the"arria#e &as celebrate &ithout a "arria#elicense. @e stresses that the affiavit the!e8ecute, in lieu of a "arria#e license,containe a false narration of facts, the truthbein# that he an responent never liveto#ether as husban an &ife. The falseaffiavit shoul never be allo&e ora"itte as a substitute to fill the absence of

a "arria#e license.1CPetitioner aitionall!ar#ues that there &as no nee for theappearance of a prosecutin# attorne! in thiscase because it is onl! an orinar! action forsupport an not an action for annul"ent oreclaration of absolute nullit! of "arria#e.In an! case, petitioner ar#ues that the trial

court ha Gurisiction to eter"ine theinvaliit! of their "arria#e since it &asvalil! invo:e as an affir"ative efense inthe instant action for support. 0itin# severalauthorities,11petitioner clai"s that a voi

"arria#e can be the subGect of a collateralattac:.Thus, there is no necessit! to instituteanother inepenent proceein# for theeclaration of nullit! of the "arria#ebet&een the parties. The refilin# of anothercase for eclaration of nullit! &here thesa"e evience an parties &oul bepresente &oul entail enor"ous e8pensesan an8ieties, &oul be ti"econsu"in# forthe parties, an &oul increase the buren of

the courts.1(

Finall!, petitioner clai"s that invie& of the nullit! of his "arria#e &ithresponent an his vi#orous enial of thechilKs paternit! an filiation, the 0ourt of/ppeals #ravel! erre in eclarin# the chilas his le#iti"ate chil.

In a resolution ate 1) Februar! (CC, the0ourt reAuire responent an the Office ofthe Solicitor eneral 6OS7 to file theirrespective co""ents on the petition.15

In her 0o""ent,1responent clai"s thatthe instant petition is a "ere ilator! tacticto th&art the finalit! of the ecision of the0ourt of /ppeals. -choin# the finin#s anrulin#s of the appellate court, she ar#ues thatthe le#iti"ac! of their "arria#e cannot beattac:e collaterall!, but can onl! berepuiate or conteste in a irect suitspecificall! brou#ht for that purpose. >ith

re#ar to the filiation of her chil, shepointe out that co"pare to her cani anstrai#htfor&ar testi"on!, petitioner &asuncertain, if not evasive in ans&erin#Auestions about their se8ual encounters.Moreover, she as that espite thechallen#e fro" her an fro" the trial court,

10
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt14


11/37

petitioner stron#l! obGecte to bein#subGecte to DN/ testin# to prove paternit!an filiation.14

For its part, the OS avers that the 0ourt of

/ppeals erre in holin# that it &asi"proper for the trial court to eclare nullan voi the "arria#e of petitioner anresponent in the action for support. 0itin#the case ofNial v. Bayadog,1)it states thatcourts "a! pass upon the valiit! of a"arria#e in an action for support, since theri#ht to support fro" petitioner hin#es onthe e8istence of a vali "arria#e. Moreover,the evience presente urin# the

proceein#s in the trial court sho&e thatthe "arria#e bet&een petitioner anresponent &as sole"niBe &ithout a"arria#e license, an that their affiavit 6ofa "an an &o"an &ho have live to#etheran e8clusivel! &ith each other as husbanan &ife for at least five !ears7 &as false.Thus, it conclues the trial court correctl!hel that the "arria#e bet&een petitioneran responent is not vali.1+In aition, theOS a#rees &ith the finin#s of the trialcourt that the chil is an ille#iti"ate chil ofpetitioner an thus entitle to support.13

I""&!"6

T&o :e! issues are presente before us.First, h!(h!r (h! (r'a# co&r( ha% (h!&r'"%'c('o$to eter"ine the valiit! of the"arria#e bet&een petitioner an responentin an action for support an secon, &hether

the chil is the au#hter of petitioner.

/nent the first issue, the 0ourt hols that thetrial court ha Gurisiction to eter"ine thevaliit! of the "arria#e bet&een petitioneran responent. The valiit! of a voi

"arria#e "a! be collaterall! attac:e.1*Thus, inNial v. Bayadog, &e hel=

@o&ever, other than for purposes ofre"arria#e, no Guicial action is

necessar! to eclare a "arria#e anabsolute nullit!. For other purposes,such as but not li"ite toeter"ination of heirship, le#iti"ac!or ille#iti"ac! of a chil, settle"entof estate, issolution of propert!re#i"e, or a cri"inal case for that"atter, the court "a! pass upon thevaliit! of "arria#e even in a suitnot irectl! institute to Auestion the

sa"e so lon# as it is essential to theeter"ination of the case. This is&ithout preGuice to an! issue that"a! arise in the case. >hen suchnee arises, a final Gu#"ent ofeclaration of nullit! is necessar!even if the purpose is other than tore"arr!. The clause


12/37

#rouns renerin# such a "arria#e anabsolute nullit!.((

ner the Fa"il! 0oe, the absence of an!of the essential or for"al reAuisites shall

rener the "arria#e voi ab initio, &hereas aefect in an! of the essential reAuisites shallrener the "arria#e voiable.(5

In the instant case, it is clear fro" theevience presente that petitioner anresponent i not have a "arria#e license&hen the! contracte their "arria#e.Instea, the! presente an affiavit statin#that the! ha been livin# to#ether for "ore

than five !ears.(

@o&ever, responentherself in effect a"itte the falsit! of theaffiavit &hen she &as as:e urin# crosse8a"ination, thusE

/TTJ. 0/RPIO=

'ut espite of 6sic7 the fact that!ou have not been livin# to#ether ashusban an &ife for the last five!ears on or before March 15, 1**4,

!ou si#ne the /ffiavit, is thatcorrect$

/ Jes, sir.(4

The falsit! of the affiavit cannot beconsiere as a "ere irre#ularit! in thefor"al reAuisites of "arria#e. The la&ispenses &ith the "arria#e licensereAuire"ent for a "an an a &o"an &ho

have live to#ether an e8clusivel! &itheach other as husban an &ife for acontinuous an unbro:en perio of at leastfive !ears before the "arria#e.

The ai" of this provision is to avoie8posin# the parties to hu"iliation, sha"e

an e"barrass"ent conco"itant &ith thescanalous cohabitation of persons outsie avali "arria#e ue to the publication ofever! applicantKs na"e for a "arria#elicense.()

In the instant case, there &as no


13/37

1. I a" the le#iti"ate father ofR-I/NN/ TRI0I/ /. D- 0/STRO&ho &as born on Nove"ber 5, 1**4at 'etter 2ivin#, Para%aAue, MetroManila?5C

>e are li:e&ise incline to a#ree &ith thefollo&in# finin#s of the trial court=

That Reinna Tricia is the chil of theresponent &ith the petitioner issupporte not onl! b! the testi"on!of the latter, but also b! responentKso&n a"ission in the course of histesti"on! &herein he concee that

petitioner &as his for"er #irlfrien.>hile the! &ere s&eethearts, heuse to visit petitioner at the latterKshouse or clinic. /t ti"es, the! &oul#o to a "otel to have se8. /s a resultof their se8ual alliances, petitionerbeca"e pre#nant &hich ulti"atel!le to their "arria#e, thou#h invali,as earlier rule. >hile responentclai"s that he &as "erel! force touner#o the "arria#e cere"on!, thepictures ta:en of the occasion revealother&ise 6-8hs. TE PILIPPINES,Petitioner,vs.OSE A. A+OT,Responent.

8 8

G.R. No. 17@474

13
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_160172_2008.html#fnt31


14/37

>ELISA TECSON/A+OT,Petitioner,vs.OSE A. A+OT,Responent.

D - 0 I S I O N

CICO/NAARIO,J.:

'efore us are t&o consoliate petitions..R. No. 1+4431 an .R. No. 1+*+ arePetitions for Revie& uner Rule 4 of theRules of 0ourt file b! the Republic of thePhilippines an Felisa TecsonDa!ot6Felisa7, respectivel!, both challen#in# the/"ene Decision1of the 0ourt of /ppeals,

ate + Nove"ber (CC), in 0/.R. 0VNo. )3+4*, &hich eclare the "arria#ebet&een ;ose Da!ot 6;ose7 an Felisa voiab initio.

1. On ( Nove"ber 1*3), ;ose an Felisa&ere "arrie at the Pasa! 0it! @all. In lieuof a "arria#e license, ;ose an Felisae8ecute a s&orn affiavit,5also ate (Nove"ber 1*3), attestin# that both of the"ha attaine the a#e of "aturit!, an that

bein# un"arrie, the! ha live to#ether ashusban an &ife for at least five !ears.

(. Felisa e8poune that &hile her "arria#eto ;ose &as subsistin#, the latter contracte"arria#e &ith a certain Rufina Pascual6Rufina7on 51 /u#ust 1**C.

5. On 5 ;une 1**5, Felisa file an action forbi#a"! a#ainst ;ose.

. On + ;ul! 1**5, ;ose file a 0o"plaintfor /nnul"ent anLor Declaration of Nullit!of Marria#e &ith the Re#ional Trial 0ourt6RT07, 'i%an, 2a#una, 'ranch (4.

R!'o$a# Tr'a# Co&r(5" R'$6

On () ;ul! (CCC, the RT0 renere aDecision3is"issin# the 0o"plaint.

The RT0 rule that fro" the testi"onies anevience presente, the "arria#e celebrate

bet&een ;ose an Felisa on ( Nove"ber1*3) &as vali.It is"isse ;oseKs version

of the stor! as i"plausible, an rationaliBe.

Moreover, on the "atter of frau, the RT0rule that ;oseKs action ha prescribe. I(c'(!% Ar('c#! 8711 of (h! N! C':'# Co%!h'ch r!&'r!" (ha( (h! ac('o$ fora$$)!$( of )arr'a! )&"( ;!co))!$c!% ; (h! '$&r!% ar( '(h'$

fo&r !ar" af(!r (h! %'"co:!r of (h!fra&%.

Co&r( of A!a#5" R'$6

>@-R-FOR-, the Decision appeale fro"is /FFIRM-D.15

The 0ourt of /ppeals applie the 0ivil 0oeto the "arria#e bet&een ;ose an Felisa as it&as sole"niBe prior to the effectivit! of the

Fa"il! 0oe. The appellate court observethat the circu"stances constitutin# frau as a#roun for annul"ent of "arria#e uner/rticle 3)1of the 0ivil 0oe i not e8ist inthe "arria#e bet&een the parties. Further, itrule that the action for annul"ent of"arria#e on the #roun of frau &as filebe!on the prescriptive perio provie b!la&. The 0ourt of /ppeals struc: o&n;oseKs appeal in the follo&in# "anner=

Nonetheless, even if &e consier that frauor inti"iation &as e"plo!e on ;ose in#ivin# his consent to the "arria#e, the actionfor the annul"ent thereof ha alrea!prescribe. /rticle 3+ 67 an 647 of the 0ivil0oe provies that the action for annul"ent

14
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt14


15/37

of "arria#e on the #roun that the consentof a part! &as obtaine b! frau, force orinti"iation "ust be co""ence b! saipart! &ithin four 67 !ears after theiscover! of the frau an &ithin four 67

!ears fro" the ti"e the force or inti"iationcease. Inas"uch as the frau &as alle#el!iscovere b! ;ose in Februar!, 1*3+ thenhe ha onl! until Februar!, 1**1 &ithin&hich to file an action for annul"ent of"arria#e. @o&ever, it &as onl! on ;ul! +,1**5 that ;ose file the co"plaint forannul"ent of his "arria#e to Felisa.14

2i:e&ise, the 0ourt of /ppeals i not

accept ;oseKs assertion that his "arria#e toFelisa &as voi ab initio for lac: of a"arria#e license. It rule that the "arria#e&as sole"niBe uner /rticle +)1)of the0ivil 0oe as one of e8ceptional character,&ith the parties e8ecutin# an affiavit of"arria#e bet&een "an an &o"an &hohave live to#ether as husban an &ife forat least five !ears. The 0ourt of /ppealsconclue that the falsit! in the affiavit tothe effect that ;ose an Felisa ha liveto#ether as husban an &ife for the perioreAuire b! /rticle +) i not affect thevaliit! of the "arria#e, seein# that thesole"niBin# officer &as "isle b! thestate"ents containe therein. In this "anner,the 0ourt of /ppeals #ave creence to the#oofaith reliance of the sole"niBin#officer over the falsit! of the affiavit. Theappellate court further note that on theorsal sie of sai affiavit of "arria#e,

Rev. To"as V. /tienBa, the sole"niBin#officer, state that he too: steps to ascertainthe a#es an other Aualifications of thecontractin# parties an foun no le#ali"pei"ent to their "arria#e. Finall!, the0ourt of /ppeals is"isse ;oseKs ar#u"entthat neither he nor Felisa &as a "e"ber of

the sect to &hich Rev. To"as V. /tienBabelon#e. /ccorin# to the 0ourt of/ppeals, /rticle 4)1+of the 0ivil 0oe inot reAuire that either one of the contractin#parties to the "arria#e "ust belon# to the

sole"niBin# officerKs church or reli#ioussect. The prescription &as establishe onl!in /rticle +13of the Fa"il! 0oe &hich oesnot #overn the partiesK "arria#e.

Differin# &ith the rulin# of the 0ourt of/ppeals, ;ose file a Motion forReconsieration thereof.1avvphi1@iscentral opposition &as that the reAuisites forthe proper application of the e8e"ption fro"

a "arria#e license uner /rticle +) of the0ivil 0oe &ere not full! attenant in thecase at bar. In particular, ;ose cite the le#alconition that the "an an the &o"an "usthave been livin# to#ether as husban an&ife for at least five !ears before the"arria#e. -ssentiall!, he "aintaine that theaffiavit of "arital cohabitation e8ecute b!hi" an Felisa &as false.

The 0ourt of /ppeals #rante ;oseKs Motionfor Reconsieration an reverse itself./ccorin#l!, it renere an /"eneDecision, ate + Nove"ber (CC), the falloof &hich reas=

>@-R-FOR-, the Decision ate /u#ust11, (CC4 is R-0/22-D an S-T /SID-an another one entere eclarin# the"arria#e bet&een ;ose /. Da!ot an Felisa0. Tecson voi ab initio.

Furnish a cop! of this /"ene Decision tothe 2ocal 0ivil Re#istrar of Pasa! 0it!.1*

In its /"ene Decision, the 0ourt of/ppeals relie on the rulin# of this 0ourt inNi%al v. 'a!ao#,(Can reasone that=

15
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt20


16/37

In Ni%al v. 'a!ao#, &here the contractin#parties to a "arria#e sole"niBe &ithout a"arria#e license on the basis of theiraffiavit that the! ha attaine the a#e of"aGorit!, that bein# un"arrie, the! ha

live to#ether for at least five 647 !ears anthat the! esire to "arr! each other.

/rticle 3C657 of the 0ivil 0oe provies thata "arria#e sole"niBe &ithout a "arria#elicense, save "arria#es of e8ceptionalcharacter, shall be voi fro" the be#innin#.Inas"uch as the "arria#e bet&een ;ose anFelisa is not covere b! the e8ception to thereAuire"ent of a "arria#e license, it is,

therefore, voi ab initio because of theabsence of a "arria#e license.(1

Felisa sou#ht reconsieration of the/"ene Decision, but to no avail. Theappellate court renere a Resolution((ate1C Ma! (CC+, en!in# FelisaKs "otion.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Mean&hile, the Republic of the Philippines,

throu#h the Office of the Solicitor eneral6OS7, file a Petition for Revie& beforethis 0ourt in .R. No. 1+4431, pra!in# thatthe 0ourt of /ppealsK /"ene Decisionate + Nove"ber (CC) be reverse an setasie for lac: of "erit, an that the "arria#ebet&een ;ose an Felisa be eclare valian subsistin#. Felisa file a separatePetition for Revie&, oc:ete as .R. No.1+*+, si"ilarl! assailin# the appellate

courtKs /"ene Decision. On 1 /u#ust(CC+, this 0ourt resolve to consoliate thet&o Petitions in the interest of unifor"it! ofthe 0ourt rulin#s in si"ilar cases brou#htbefore it for resolution.(5

The Republic of the Philippines propounsthe follo&in# ar#u"ents for the allo&anceof its Petition, to &it=

I

R-SPOND-NT F/I2-D TOOV-RT@RO> T@-PR-SMPTION OF T@-V/2IDITJ OF @IS M/RRI/-TO F-2IS/.

II

R-SPOND-NT DID NOT 0OM-

TO T@- 0ORT >IT@ 02-/N@/NDS /ND S@O2D NOT '-/22O>-D TO PROFIT FROM@IS O>N FR/D2-NT0OND0T.

III

R-SPOND-NT IS -STOPP-DFROM /SS/I2IN T@-2-/2ITJ OF @IS M/RRI/-

FOR 2/0 OF M/RRI/-2I0-NHS-.(

0orrelative to the above, Felisa sub"its thatthe 0ourt of /ppeals "isapplie Ni%al.(4Sheifferentiates the case at bar fro" Ni%al b!reasonin# that one of the parties therein haan e8istin# prior "arria#e, a circu"stance&hich oes not obtain in her cohabitation&ith ;ose. Finall!, Felisa auces that ;ose

onl! sou#ht the annul"ent of their "arria#eafter a cri"inal case for bi#a"! an ana"inistrative case ha been file a#ainsthi" in orer to avoi liabilit!. Felisasur"ises that the eclaration of nullit! oftheir "arria#e &oul e8onerate ;ose fro"an! liabilit!.

16
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt25


17/37

S&r!)! Co&r(5" R'$6

For our resolution is the valiit! of the"arria#e bet&een ;ose an Felisa. To reacha consiere rulin# on the issue, &e shall

Gointl! tac:le the relate ar#u"ents venteb! petitioners Republic of the Philippinesan Felisa.

The Republic of the Philippines asserts thatseveral circu"stances #ive rise to thepresu"ption that a vali "arria#e e8istsbet&een ;ose an Felisa. For her part, Felisaechoes the clai" that an! oubt shoul beresolve in favor of the valiit! of the

"arria#e b! citin# this 0ourtKs rulin# in@ernaneB v. 0ourt of /ppeals.()To buttressits assertion, the Republic points to theaffiavit e8ecute b! ;ose an Felisa, ate( Nove"ber 1*3), attestin# that the! havelive to#ether as husban an &ife for atleast five !ears, &hich the! use in lieu of a"arria#e license.

It is the RepublicKs position that the falsit!of the state"ents in the affiavit oes notaffect the valiit! of the "arria#e, as theessential an for"al reAuisites &ereco"plie &ith? an the sole"niBin# officer&as not reAuire to investi#ate as to &hetherthe sai affiavit &as le#all! obtaine.

The Republic opines that as a "arria#euner a license is not invaliate b! the factthat the license &as &ron#full! obtaine, so"ust a "arria#e not be invaliate b! the

fact that the parties incorporate a fabricatestate"ent in their affiavit that the!cohabite as husban an &ife for at leastfive !ears. I$ a%%'('o$, (h! R!&;#'c o"'("(ha( (h! ar('!"5 )arr'a! co$(rac( "(a(!"(ha( (h!'r )arr'a! a" "o#!)$'!% &$%!rAr('c#! 79 of (h! C':'# Co%!. I( a#"o ;!ar"

(h! "'$a(&r! of (h! ar('!" a$% (h!'r'($!""!", a$% )&"( ;! co$"'%!r!% ar')ar !:'%!$c! of )arr'a!.To furtherfortif! its Petition, the Republic auces thefollo&in# ocu"ents= 617 ;oseKs notariBe

State"ent of /ssets an 2iabilities, ate 1(Ma! 1*33 &herein he &rote FelisaKs na"eas his &ife? 6(7 0ertification ate (4 ;ul!1**5 issue b! the 'aran#a! 0hair"an 1*(,one , District ( of Pasa! 0it!, attestin#that ;ose an Felisa ha live to#ether ashusban an &ife in sai baran#a!? an 657;oseKs co"pan! ID car, ate ( Ma! 1*33,inicatin# FelisaKs na"e as his &ife.

The first assi#n"ent of error co"pels this0ourt to rule on the issue of the effect of afalse affiavit uner /rticle +) of the 0ivil0oe. / surve! of the prevailin# rules is inorer.

It is be!on ispute that the "arria#e of ;osean Felisa &as celebrate on ( Nove"ber1*3), prior to the effectivit! of the Fa"il!0oe. /ccorin#l!, the 0ivil 0oe #overnstheir union. /rticle 45 of the 0ivil 0oespells out the essential reAuisites of "arria#eas a contract=

/RT. 45. No "arria#e shall be sole"niBeunless all these reAuisites are co"plie &ith=

617 2e#al capacit! of the contractin#parties?

6(7 Their consent, freel! #iven?

657 /uthorit! of the personperfor"in# the "arria#e? an

67 / "arria#e license, e8cept in a"arria#e of e8ceptional character.6-"phasis ours.7

17
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt26


18/37


19/37

#eneral rule, shoul be strictl!53butreasonabl! construe.5*The! e8ten onl! sofar as their lan#ua#e fairl! &arrants, an alloubts shoul be resolve in favor of the#eneral provisions rather than the

e8ception.C>here a #eneral rule isestablishe b! statute &ith e8ceptions, thecourt &ill not curtail the for"er or a to thelatter b! i"plication.1For the e8ception in/rticle +) to appl!, it is a sine Aua nonthereto that the "an an the &o"an "usthave attaine the a#e of "aGorit!, an that,bein# un"arrie, the! have live to#ether ashusban an &ife for at least five !ears.

/ strict but reasonable construction of/rticle +) leaves us &ith no othere8peienc! but to rea the la& as it isplainl! &ritten. The e8ception of a "arria#elicense uner /rticle +) applies onl! tothose &ho have live to#ether as husbanan &ife for at least five !ears an esire to"arr! each other. The 0ivil 0oe, in noa"bi#uous ter"s,places a "ini"u" perioreAuire"ent of five !ears of cohabitation.No other reain# of the la& can be ha,since the lan#ua#e of /rticle +) is precise.The "ini"u" reAuisite of five !ears ofcohabitation is an inispensabilit! carve inthe lan#ua#e of the la&. For a "arria#ecelebrate uner /rticle +) to be vali, this"aterial fact cannot be ispense &ith. It ise"boie in the la& not as a irector!reAuire"ent, but as one that parta:es of a"anator! character. It is &orth! to "entionthat /rticle +) also prescribes that the

contractin# parties shall state the reAuisitefacts(in an affiavit before an! personauthoriBe b! la& to a"inister oaths? anthat the official, priest or "inister &hosole"niBe the "arria#e shall also state inan affiavit that he too: steps to ascertainthe a#es an other Aualifications of the

contractin# parties an that he foun nole#al i"pei"ent to the "arria#e.

It is inubitabl! establishe that ;ose anFelisa have not live to#ether for five !ears

at the ti"e the! e8ecute their s&ornaffiavit an contracte "arria#e. TheRepublic a"itte that ;ose an Felisastarte livin# to#ether onl! in ;une 1*3), orbarel! five "onths before the celebration oftheir "arria#e.5The 0ourt of /ppeals alsonote FelisaKs testi"on! that ;ose &asintrouce to her b! her nei#hbor, TeresitaPer&el, so"eti"e in Februar! or March1*3) after the -DS/ Revolution.The

appellate court also cite FelisaKs o&ntesti"on! that it &as onl! in ;une 1*3)&hen ;ose co""ence to live in her house.4

Moreover, it is note&orth! that the Auestionas to &hether the! satisfie the "ini"u"five!ear reAuisite is factual in nature. /Auestion of fact arises &hen there is a neeto ecie on the truth or falsehoo of thealle#e facts.)ner Rule 4, factualfinin#s are orinaril! not subGect to this0ourtKs revie&.+It is alrea! &ellsettlethat=

The #eneral rule is that the finin#s of factsof the 0ourt of /ppeals are binin# on this0ourt. / reco#niBe e8ception to this rule is&hen the 0ourt of /ppeals an the trialcourt, or in this case the a"inistrative bo!,"a:e contraictor! finin#s. @o&ever, thee8ception oes not appl! in ever! instance

that the 0ourt of /ppeals an the trial courtor a"inistrative bo! isa#ree. The factualfinin#s of the 0ourt of /ppeals re"ainconclusive on this 0ourt if such finin#s aresupporte b! the recor or base onsubstantial evience.3

19
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt48


20/37

Therefore, the falsit! of the affiavit ate( Nove"ber 1*3), e8ecute b! ;ose anFelisa to e8e"pt the" fro" the reAuire"entof a "arria#e license, is be!on Auestion.

>e cannot accept the insistence of theRepublic that the falsit! of the state"ents inthe partiesK affiavit &ill not affect thevaliit! of "arria#e, since all the essentialan for"al reAuisites &ere co"plie &ith.The ar#u"ent eserves scant "erit. Patentl!,it cannot be enie that the "arria#ebet&een ;ose an Felisa &as celebrate&ithout the for"al reAuisite of a "arria#elicense. Neither i ;ose an Felisa "eet the

e8plicit le#al reAuire"ent in /rticle +), thatthe! shoul have live to#ether as husbanan &ife for at least five !ears, so as to bee8cepte fro" the reAuire"ent of a "arria#elicense.

/nent petitionersK reliance on thepresu"ption of "arria#e, this 0ourt holsthat the sa"e fins no applicabilit! to thecase at bar. E""!$('a##, h!$ ! "!a= of ar!"&)('o$ of )arr'a!, '( '" '(hr!f!r!$c! (o (h! r')a fac'! r!"&)('o$(ha( a )a$ a$% a o)a$ %!or('$(h!)"!#:!" a" h&";a$% a$% 'f! ha:!!$(!r!% '$(o a #af co$(rac( of)arr'a!.*Restate "ore e8plicitl!,persons &ellin# to#ether in apparent"atri"on! are presu"e, in the absence ofan! counterpresu"ption or evience specialto the case, to be in fact "arrie.4CThepresent case oes not involve an apparent

"arria#e to &hich the presu"ption stillnees to be applie. There is no Auestionthat ;ose an Felisa actuall! entere into acontract of "arria#e on ( Nove"ber 1*3),hence, co"pellin# ;ose to institute a0o"plaint for /nnul"ent anLor

Declaration of Nullit! of Marria#e, &hichspa&ne the instant consoliate Petitions.

In the sa"e vein, the eclaration of the 0ivil0oe41that ever! inten"ent of la& or fact

leans to&ars the valiit! of "arria#e &illnot salva#e the partiesK "arria#e, ane8tricate the" fro" the effect of a violationof the la&. The "arria#e of ;ose an Felisaa" !$(!r!% '$(o '(ho&( (h! r!&'"'(!)arr'a! #'c!$"! or co)#'a$c! '(h (h!"(r'$!$( r!&'r!)!$(" of a )arr'a!&$%!r !c!('o$a# c'rc&)"(a$c!. Thesole"niBation of a "arria#e &ithout priorlicense is a clear violation of the la& an

&oul lea or coul be use, at least, for theperpetration of frau a#ainst innocent anun&ar! parties, &hich &as one of the evilsthat the la& sou#ht to prevent b! "a:in# aprior license a prereAuisite for a vali"arria#e.4(Th! ro(!c('o$ of )arr'a! a"a "acr!% '$"('(&('o$ r!&'r!" $o( &"( (h!%!f!$"! of a (r&! a$% !$&'$! &$'o$ ;&((h! !o"&r! of a$ '$:a#'% o$! a" !##.45Toper"it a false affiavit to ta:e the place of a"arria#e license is to allo& an abGectcircu"vention of the la&. If this 0ourt is toprotect the fabric of the institution of"arria#e, &e "ust be &ar! of eceptivesche"es that violate the le#al "easures setforth in our la&s.

Si"ilarl!, &e are not i"presse b! theratiocination of the Republic that as a"arria#e uner a license is not invaliateb! the fact that the license &as &ron#full!

obtaine, so "ust a "arria#e not beinvaliate b! a fabricate state"ent that theparties have cohabite for at least five !earsas reAuire b! la&. The contrast is fla#rant6(adj)conspicuously and outrageously bad orreprehensible7. The for"er is &ith reference

20
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt53


21/37

to an irre#ularit! of the "arria#e license,an not to the absence of one.

@ere, there is no "arria#e license at all.Further"ore, the falsit! of the alle#ation in

the s&orn affiavit relatin# to the perio of;ose an FelisaKs cohabitation, &hich &oulhave Aualifie their "arria#e as an e8ceptionto the reAuire"ent for a "arria#e license,cannot be a "ere irre#ularit!, for it refers toa Auintessential fact that the la& precisel!reAuire to be epose an atteste to b! theparties uner oath. If the essential "atter inthe s&orn affiavit is a lie, then it is but a"ere scrap of paper, &ithout force an

effect. @ence, it is as if there &as noaffiavit at all.

In its secon assi#n"ent of error, theRepublic puts forth the ar#u"ent that baseon eAuit!, ;ose shoul be enie reliefbecause he perpetrate the fabrication, ancannot thereb! profit fro" his &ron#oin#.This is a "isplace invocation.

I( )&"( ;! "(a(!% (ha( !&'( f'$%" $oroo) for a#'ca('o$ h!r! (h!r! '" a#a.4There is a la& on the ratification of"arital cohabitation, &hich is set in preciseter"s uner /rticle +) of the 0ivil 0oe.Nonetheless, the authorities are consistentthat the eclaration of nullit! of the partiesK"arria#e is &ithout preGuice to theircri"inal liabilit!.44

The Republic further avers in its thir

assi#n"ent of error that ;ose is ee"eestoppe fro" assailin# the le#alit! of his"arria#e for lac: of a "arria#e license. It isclai"e that ;ose an Felisa ha liveto#ether fro" 1*3) to 1**C, not&ithstanin#;oseKs subseAuent "arria#e to RufinaPascual on 51 /u#ust 1**C, an (ha( '( (oo=

o"! "!:!$ !ar" ;!for! h! "o&h( (h!%!c#ara('o$ of $#'(? h!$c!, !"(o!# ha%"!( '$.

This is erroneous. A$ ac('o$ for $#'( of

)arr'a! '" ')r!"cr'(';#!.4);ose anFelisaKs "arria#e &as celebrate sans6(Preposition)ithout! lac"ing#7 a "arria#elicense. No o(h!r co$c#&"'o$ ca$ ;!r!ach!% !c!( (ha( '( '" :o'% a; '$'('o. Inthis case, the ri#ht to i"pu#n a voi"arria#e oes not prescribe, an "a! beraise an! ti"e.

2astl!, to settle all oubts, Gurispruence has

lai o&n the rule that the five!earco""onla& cohabitation perio uner/rticle +) "eans a five!ear perioco"pute bac: fro" the ate of celebrationof "arria#e, an refers to a perio of le#alunion ha it not been for the absence of a"arria#e.4+It covers the !ears i""eiatel!precein# the a! of the "arria#e,characteriBe b! e8clusivit! "eanin# nothir part! &as involve at an! ti"e &ithinthe five !ears an continuit! that isunbro:en.43

>@-R-FOR-, the Petitions are D-NI-D.The /"ene Decision of the 0ourt of/ppeals, ate + Nove"ber (CC) in 0/.R. 0V No. )3+4*, eclarin# the "arria#eof ;ose Da!ot to Felisa TecsonDa!ot voiab initio, is /FFIRM-D, &ithout preGuiceto their cri"inal liabilit!, if an!. No costs.

SO ORD-R-D.

21
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_175581_2008.html#fnt58


22/37

4


Manila

T@IRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 17@@22 !c!);!r 19,2008

UAN E IOS CARLOS,petitioner,vs.>ELICIA SANO?AL, a#"o =$o$ a">ELICIA S. ?A. E CARLOS or>ELICIA SANO?AL CARLOS or>ELICIA SANO?AL ?A. ECARLOS, a$% TEO>ILO CARLOS II,

responents.

E C I S I O N

RE+ES, R.T.,J.6

ONL+ a "o&"!can initiate an action tosever the "arital bon for "arria#es

sole"niBe %&r'$ (h! !ff!c(':'( of (h!>a)'# Co%!, e8cept cases co""encer'or (o March 1, 2003. The nullit! anannul"ent of a "arria#e cannot be eclarein a Gu#"ent on the pleain#s, su""ar!

Gu#"ent, or confession of Gu#"ent.

>e pronounce these principles as >e revie&on certiorarithe Decision1of the 0ourt of/ppeals 60/7 &hich reverse an set asiethe su""ar! Gu#"ent(of the Re#ionalTrial 0ourt 6RT07 in an action foreclaration of nullit! of "arria#e, status of achil, recover! of propert!, reconve!ance,su" of "one!, an a"a#es.

Th! >ac("

The events that le to the institution of theinstant suitare unveile as follo&s=

Spouses Feli8 '. 0arlos an Felipa -le"iaie intestate 6(adj)ha$ing made no legally$alid %ill before death or not disposed of by a

legal %ill7. The! left si8 parcels of lan totheir co"pulsor! heirs, Teofilo 0arlos an

petitioner ;uan De Dios 0arlos. The lots areparticularl! escribe as follo&s=

Parcel No. 1

2ot No. 1)( of the MNTIN2P/-ST/T- S'DIVISION, 0ase No.)15+ of the 0ourt of 2anRe#istration.

-8e"ption fro" the provisions of/rticle 4)+ of the 0ivil 0oe isspecificall! reserve.

/rea= 1 hectare, C) ares, C+ centares.

Parcel No. (

22
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt2


23/37

/ parcel of lan 62ot No. 14*'7,bein# a portion of 2ot 14*, situatein the 'o. of /laban#, Municipalit!of Muntinlupa, Province of RiBal, 8 88 containin# an area of Thirteen

Thousan Four @unre Fort! One615,17 sAuare "eters.

Parcel No. 5

/ parcel of lan 62ot 14*'( of thesub. plan H2R0 Ps5(4*C5,approve as a nonsub. proGect7,bein# a portion of 2ot 14*' H2R0Ps /laban#, Mun. of Muntinlupa,

Metro Manila, Islan of 2uBon.'oune on the N-, points ( to b!2ot 144, Muntinlupa -state? on theS-, point to 4 b! 2ot 14*'4? onthe S, points 4 to 1 b! 2ot 14*'5?on the >, points 1 to ( b! 2ot 14*'1 6Roa &ienin#7 all of the sub.plan, containin# an area of ON-@NDR-D T@IRTJ 615C7 S.M-T-RS, "ore or less.

P/R0-2 No.

/ parcel of lan 62ot (30 of thesub. plan Ps15CC+C*C, bein# aportion of 2ot (3, Muntinlupa -state,2.R.0. Rec. No. )15+7, situate inthe 'o. of /laban#, Mun. ofMuntinlupa, Metro Manila. 'ouneon the N-, alon# lines 1( b! 2ot (+,Muntinlupa -state? on the -ast

S-, alon# lines ( to ) b! Man#an#ataRiver? an on the >est., alon# line )1, b! 2ot (3' of the sub. plan 8 88 containin# an area of ON-T@S/ND /ND S-V-NTJSIQ61,C+)7 S/R- M-T-RS.

P/R0-2 No. 4

P/R0-2/ D- T-RR-NO No. 4C,ManBana No. 13, e la sub. eSolocan. 2ina por el N>, con la

parcela *? por el N-, con la parcela5)? por el S-, con la parcela 41? !por el S>, con la calle Dos 0astillas.Partieno e un punto "arcao 1 enel plano, el cual se halla a S. #s.C19>, +(.4C "ts. Dese el punto 1 eesta "anBana, Aue es un "oGon econcreto e la 0iua e Manila,situao on el esAuina -. Aue for"anlas 0alles 2aon# 2aan ! Dos.

0astillas, continieno un e8tensionsuperficial e 0I-NTO0IN0-NT/ 614C7 M-TROS0/DR/DOS.

P/R0-2 No. )

P/R0-2/ D- T-RR-NO No. 41,ManBana No. 13, e la sub. DeSolocon. 2ina por el N>, con laparcela 4C? por el N-, con la parcela5+? por el S-, con la parcela 4(? porel S>, con la 0alle Dos 0astillas.Partieno e un punto Marcao 1 enel plano, el cual se halla at S. 5 #s.C19-, 3(.4C "ts. Dese el punto 1 eesta "anBana, Aue es un "oGon econcreto e la 0iua e Manila,situao on el esAuina -. Aue for"anlas 0alles 2aon# 2aan ! Dos.0astillas, continieno una e8tension

superficial e 0I-NTO0IN0-NT/ 614C7 M-TROS0/DR/DOS.5

Durin# the lifeti"e of Feli8 0arlos, hea#ree to transfer his estate to Teofilo. Thea#ree"ent &as "ae in orer to avoi the

23
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt3


24/37

pa!"ent of inheritance ta8es. Teofilo, inturn, unertoo: to eliver an turn over theshare of the other le#al heir, petitioner ;uanDe Dios 0arlos.

-ventuall!, the first three 657 parcels of lan&ere transferre an re#istere in the na"eof Teofilo. These three 657 lots are no&covere b! Transfer 0ertificate of Title6T0T7 No. (53( issue b! the Re#istr! ofDees of Ma:ati 0it!? T0T No. 15*C)1issue b! the Re#istr! of Dees of Ma:ati0it!? an T0T No. 15*C43 issue b! theRe#istr! of Dees of Ma:ati 0it!.

Parcel No. &as re#istere in the na"e ofpetitioner. The lot is no& covere b! T0TNo. 1)CC1 issue b! the Re#istr! of Deesof Ma:ati 0it!.

On Ma! 15, 1**(, Teofilo ie intestate. @e&as survive b! responents Felicia antheir son, Teofilo 0arlos II 6Teofilo II7.pon Teofilo9s eath, Parcel Nos. 4 )&ere re#istere in the na"e of responentFelicia an coresponent, Teofilo II. Thesai t&o 6(7 parcels of lan are covere b!T0T Nos. (1*3++ an (1C3+3, respectivel!,issue b! the Re#istr! of Dees of Manila.

In 1**, petitioner institute a suit a#ainstresponents before the RT0 in Muntinlupa0it!, oc:ete as 0ivil 0ase No. *1*). Inthe sai case, the parties sub"itte ancause the approval of a partial co"pro"isea#ree"ent. ner the co"pro"ise, the

parties ac:no&le#e their respective sharesin the procees fro" the sale of a portion ofthe first parcel of lan. This inclues there"ainin# ),)*1sAuare"eter portion ofsai lan.

On Septe"ber 1+, 1**, the parties e8ecutea ee of e8traGuicial partition, iviin# there"ainin# lan of the first parcel bet&eenthe".

Mean&hile, in a separate case entitleRillov. Carlos,(,551 sAuare "eters of the seconparcel of lan &ere aGuicate in favor ofplaintiffs Rillo. The re"ainin# 1C,CCCsAuare "eter portion &as later iviebet&een petitioner an responents.

The ivision &as incorporate in asupple"ental co"pro"ise a#ree"ente8ecute on /u#ust 1+, 1**, &ith respect

to 0ivil 0ase No. *1*). The partiessub"itte the supple"ental co"pro"isea#ree"ent, &hich &as approveaccorin#l!.

Petitioner an responents entere into t&o"ore contracts in /u#ust 1**. ner thecontracts, the parties eAuall! iviebet&een the" the thir an fourth parcels oflan.

In /u#ust 1**4, petitioner co""ence anaction, oc:ete as 0ivil 0ase No. *4154,a#ainst responents before the court a quo&ith the follo&in# causes of action= 6a7eclaration of nullit! of "arria#e? 6b7 statusof a chil? 6c7 recover! of propert!? 67reconve!ance? an 6e7 su" of "one! ana"a#es. The co"plaint &as raffle to'ranch (4) of the RT0 in Muntinlupa.

In his co"plaint, petitioner asserte that the"arria#e bet&een his late brother Teofiloan responent Felicia &as a nullit! invie& of the absence of the reAuire "arria#elicense. @e li:e&ise "aintaine that hisecease brother &as neither the natural nor

24


25/37

the aoptive father of responent Teofilo0arlos II.

Petitioner li:e&ise sou#ht the avoiance ofthe contracts he entere into &ith responent

Felicia &ith respect to the subGect realproperties. @e also pra!e for thecancellation of the certificates of title issuein the na"e of responents. @e ar#ue thatthe properties covere b! such certificates oftitle, incluin# the su"s receive b!responents as procees, shoul bereconve!e to hi".

Finall!, petitioner clai"e ine"nification

as an b! &a! of "oral an e8e"plar!a"a#es, attorne!9s fees, liti#ation e8penses,an costs of suit.

On October 1), 1**4, responents sub"ittetheir ans&er. The! enie the "aterialaver"ents of petitioner9s co"plaint.Responents contene that the earth ofetails re#arin# the reAuisite "arria#elicense i not invaliate Felicia9s"arria#e to Teofilo. Responents eclarethat Teofilo II &as the ille#iti"ate chil ofthe ecease Teofilo 0arlos &ith another&o"an.

On the #rouns of lac: of cause of actionan lac: of Gurisiction over the subGect"atter, responents pra!e for the is"issalof the case before the trial court. The! alsoas:e that their counterclai"s for "oral ane8e"plar! a"a#es, as &ell as attorne!9s

fees, be #rante.

'ut before the parties coul even procee topretrial, responents "ove for su""ar!Gu#"ent. /ttache to the "otion &as theaffiavit of the Gustice of the peace &hosole"niBe the "arria#e. Responents also

sub"itte the 0ertificate of 2ive 'irth ofresponent Teofilo II. In the certificate, thelate Teofilo 0arlos an responent Felicia&ere esi#nate as parents.

On ;anuar! 4, 1**), petitioner oppose the"otion for su""ar! Gu#"ent on the#roun of irre#ularit! of the contracteviencin# the "arria#e. In the sa"e breath,petitioner lo#e his o&n "otion forsu""ar! Gu#"ent. Petitioner presente acertification fro" the 2ocal 0ivil Re#istrarof 0alu"pit, 'ulacan, certif!in# that there isno recor of birth of responent Teofilo II.

Petitioner also incorporate in the counter"otion for su""ar! Gu#"ent the testi"on!of responent Felicia in another case. Saitesti"on! &as "ae in 0ivil 0ase No. 3*(53, entitle Carlos v. orospe, before theRT0 'ranch (44, 2as Pi%as. In hertesti"on!, responent Felicia narratethat coresponent Teofilo II is her chil&ith Teofilo.4

SubseAuentl!, the Office of the 0it!Prosecutor of Muntinlupa sub"itte to thetrial court its report an "anifestation,iscountin# the possibilit! of collusionbet&een the parties.

RTC a$% CA '"o"'('o$"

On /pril 3, 1**), the RT0 renereGu#"ent, isposin# as follo&s=

DERE>ORE,pre"isesconsiere, efenant9s6responent9s7 Motion for Su""ar!;u#"ent is hereb! enie.Plaintiff9s 6petitioner9s7 0ounterMotion for Su""ar! ;u#"ent ishereb! #rante an su""ar!

25
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt5


26/37

Gu#"ent is hereb! renere in favorof plaintiff as follo&s=

1. Declarin# the "arria#e bet&eenefenant Felicia Sanoval an

Teofilo 0arlos sole"niBe at Silan#,0avite on Ma! 1, 1*)(, evienceb! the Marria#e 0ertificatesub"itte in this case, null an voiab initio for lac: of the reAuisite"arria#e license?

(. Declarin# that the efenant"inor, Teofilo S. 0arlos II, is not thenatural, ille#iti"ate, or le#all!

aopte chil of the late Teofilo -.0arlos?

5. Orerin# efenant Sanoval topa! an restitute to plaintiff the su"of P13,*(,3CC.CC to#ether &ith theinterest thereon at the le#al rate fro"ate of filin# of the instant co"plaintuntil full! pai?

. Declarin# plaintiff as the sole an

e8clusive o&ner of the parcel oflan, less the portion aGuicate toplaintiffs in 0ivil 0ase No. 11*+4,covere b! T0T No. 15*C)1 of theRe#ister of Dees of Ma:ati 0it!,an orerin# sai Re#ister of Deesto cancel sai title an to issueanother title in the sole na"e ofplaintiff herein?

4. Declarin# the 0ontract, /nne8


27/37

e8cess of Gurisiction in renerin# su""ar!Gu#"ent annullin# the "arria#e of Teofilo,Sr. an Felicia an in eclarin# Teofilo IIas not an ille#iti"ate chil of Teofilo, Sr.

On October 14, (CC(, the 0/ reverse anset asie the RT0 rulin#, isposin# asfollo&s=

>@-R-FOR-, the su""ar!Gu#"ent appeale fro" isR-V-RS-D an S-T /SID- an inlieu thereof, a ne& one is entereR-M/NDIN the case to the courtof ori#in for further proceein#s.

SO ORD-R-D.+

The 0/ opine=

>e fin the renition of the hereinappeale su""ar! Gu#"ent b! thecourt a quocontrar! to la& anpublic polic! as ensconce in theaforesai safe#uars. The fact that it&as appellants &ho first sou#ht

su""ar! Gu#"ent fro" the trialcourt, i not Gustif! the #rantthereof in favor of appellee. Notbein# an action here an ans&er

fails to tener an issue, orother&ise a"its the "aterialalle#ations of the aversepart!9s pleain#, the court"a!, on "otion of that part!,irect Gu#"ent on suchpleain#. 'ut in actions for

27


28/37

annul"ent of "arria#e or forle#al separation, the "aterialfacts alle#e in the co"plaintshall al&a!s be prove.e &ere to sustainthe applicabilit! of the rules onsu""ar! Gu#"ent to the case atbench, Our perusal of the recorsho&s that the finin# of the court aquo for appellee &oul still not be&arrante. >hile it "a! be reail!concee that a vali "arria#elicense is a"on# the for"al

reAuisites of "arria#e, the absence of&hich reners the "arria#e voi abinitiopursuant to /rticle 3C657 inrelation to /rticle 43 of the 0ivil0oe the failure to reflect the serialnu"ber of the "arria#e license onthe "arria#e contract eviencin# the"arria#e bet&een Teofilo 0arlos anappellant Felicia Sanoval,althou#h irre#ular, is not as fatal asappellee represents it to be. /siefro" the earth of evience to thecontrar!, appellant FeliciaSanoval9s affir"ation of thee8istence of sai "arria#e license iscorroborate b! the follo&in#state"ent in the affiavit e8ecuteb! oofreo FoGas, then ;ustice ofthe Peace &ho officiate thei"pu#ne "arria#e, to &it=

e are ofthe consiere vie& that the veracit!an creibilit! of the fore#oin#

state"ent as &ell as the "otivationsunerl!in# the sa"e shoul beproperl! threshe out in a trial of thecase on the "erits.

If the nonpresentation of the"arria#e contract the pri"ar!evience of "arria#e is not proofthat a "arria#e i not ta:e place,neither shoul appellants9 nonpresentation of the subGect "arria#elicense be ta:en as proof that thesa"e &as not procure. The burenof proof to sho& the nullit! of the"arria#e, it "ust be e"phasiBe,rests upon the plaintiff an an! oubtshoul be resolve in favor of thevaliit! of the "arria#e.

0onsierin# that the buren of proofalso rests on the part! &ho isputes

the le#iti"ac! of a particular part!,the sa"e "a! be sai of the trialcourt9s reGection of the relationshipbet&een appellant Teofilo 0arlos IIan his putative father on the basis ofthe inconsistencies in appellantFelicia Sanoval9s state"ents.

28


29/37

/lthou#h it ha effectivel!isavo&e appellant9s prior clai"sre#arin# the le#iti"ac! of appellantTeofilo 0arlos II, the aver"ent in theans&er that he is the ille#iti"ate son

of appellee9s brother, to Our "in,i not alto#ether foreclose thepossibilit! of the sai appellant9sille#iti"ate filiation, his ri#ht toprove the sa"e or, for that "atter, hisentitle"ent to inheritance ri#hts assuch.

>ithout trial on the "erits havin#been conucte in the case, >e fin

appellee9s bare alle#ation thatappellant Teofilo 0arlos II &as"erel! purchase fro" an ini#entcouple b! appellant FeliciaSanoval, on the &hole, insufficientto support &hat coul &ell be a"inor9s total forfeiture of the ri#htsarisin# fro" his putative filiation.Inconsistent thou#h it "a! be to herprevious state"ents, appellantFelicia Sanoval9s eclarationre#arin# the ille#iti"ate filiation ofTeofilo 0arlos II is "ore creible&hen consiere in the li#ht of thefact that, urin# the last ei#ht !earsof his life, Teofilo 0arlos allo&esai appellant the use of his na"ean the shelter of his househol. Theleast that the trial court coul haveone in the pre"ises &as to conucta trial on the "erits in orer to be

able to thorou#hl! resolve the issuespertainin# to the filiation of appellantTeofilo 0arlos II.3

On Nove"ber ((, (CC), petitioner "ovefor reconsieration an for the inhibition oftheponente, ;ustice Rebecca De uiaSalvaor. The 0/ enie the t&in "otions.

I""&!"

In this petition uner Rule 4, petitionerhoists the follo&in# issues=

1. That, in reversin# an settin# asiethe Su""ar! ;u#"ent uner theDecision, /nne8 / hereof, an inen!in# petitioner9s Motion forreconsieration uner the Resolution,

/nne8 F hereof, &ith respect to thenullit! of the i"pu#ne "arria#e,petitioner respectfull! sub"its thatthe 0ourt of /ppeals co""itte a#rave reversible error in appl!in#/rticles 33 an 1C1 of the 0ivil0oe, espite the fact that thecircu"stances of this case areifferent fro" that conte"plate anintene b! la&, or has other&iseecie a Auestion of substance nottheretofore ecie b! the Supre"e0ourt, or has ecie it in a "annerprobabl! not in accor &ith la& or&ith the applicable ecisions of this@onorable 0ourt?

(. That in settin# asie an reversin#the Su""ar! ;u#"ent an, in lieuthereof, enterin# another re"anin#the case to the court of ori#in for

further proceein#s, petitioner "ostrespectfull! sub"its that the 0ourt of/ppeals co""itte a seriousreversible error in appl!in# Section1, Rule 1* 6no& Section 1, Rule 57of the Rules of 0ourt proviin# forGu#"ent on the pleain#s, instea of

29


30/37

Rule 54 #overnin# Su""ar!;u#"ents?

5. That in reversin# an settin# asiethe Su""ar! ;u#"ent an, in lieu

thereof, enterin# another re"anin#the case to the court of ori#in forfurther proceein#s, petitioner "ostrespectfull! sub"its that the 0ourt of/ppeals co""itte #rave abuse ofiscretion, isre#are Guiciala"issions, "ae finin#s on #rounof speculations, sur"ises, anconGectures, or other&ise co""itte"isapplications of the la&s an

"isapprehension of the facts.*

6nerscorin# supplie7

-ssentiall!, the 0ourt is tas:e to resolve&hether a "arria#e "a! be eclare voi abinitiothrou#h a Gu#"ent on the pleain#sor a su""ar! Gu#"ent an &ithout thebenefit of a trial. 'ut there are otherproceural issues, incluin# the capacit! ofone &ho is not a spouse in brin#in# theaction for nullit! of "arria#e.

O&r R'$

I. Th! ro&$%" for %!c#ara('o$ of a;"o#&(!$#'( of )arr'a! )&"( ;! ro:!%.N!'(h!r &%)!$( o$ (h! #!a%'$" $or"&))ar &%)!$( '" a##o!%. So '"co$f!""'o$ of &%)!$( %'"a##o!%.

Petitioner faults the 0/ in appl!in# Section

1, Rule 1*1Cof the Revise Rules of 0ourt,&hich provies=

S-0TION 1.!udg"ent on thepleadings. >here an ans&er fails totener an issue, or other&ise a"itsthe "aterial alle#ations of the

averse part!9s pleain#, the court"a!, on "otion of that part!, irectGu#"ent on such pleain#. 'ut inactions for annul"ent of "arria#e orfor le#al separation, the "aterial

facts alle#e in the co"plaint shallal&a!s be prove.

@e ar#ues that the 0/ shoul have applieRule 54 of the Rules of 0ourt #overnin#su""ar! Gu#"ent, instea of the rule onGu#"ent on the pleain#s.

Petitioner is "is#uie. The 0/ i notli"it its finin# solel! &ithin the provisions

of the Rule on Gu#"ent on the pleain#s. Inisa#reein# &ith the trial court, the 0/li:e&ise consiere the provisions onsu""ar! Gu#"ents, to &it=

Moreover, even if >e are to sustainthe applicabilit! of the rules onsu""ar! Gu#"ent to the case atbench, Our perusal of the recorsho&s that the finin# of the court aquofor appellee &oul still not be&arrante. 8 8 811

'ut &hether it is base on Gu#"ent on thepleain#s or su""ar! Gu#"ent, the 0/&as correct in reversin# the su""ar!Gu#"ent renere b! the trial court. 'oththe rules on Gu#"ent on the pleain#s ansu""ar! Gu#"ents have no place in casesof eclaration of absolute nullit! of "arria#ean even in annul"ent of "arria#e.

>ith the avent of /.M. No. C(111CS0,:no&n as


31/37

or annul"ent of "arria#e has been sta"pe&ith clarit!. The si#nificant principle laio&n b! the sai Rule, &hich too: effect onMarch 14, (CC51(is foun in Section 1+,vi(.=

S-0. 1+. )rial. 617 The presiin#Gu#e shall personall! conuct thetrial of the case. No ele#ation ofevience to a co""issioner shall beallo&e e8cept as to "attersinvolvin# propert! relations of thespouses.

6(7 The #rouns for eclaration of

absolute nullit! or annul"ent of"arria#e "ust be prove. NoGu#"ent on the pleain#s, su""ar!Gu#"ent, or confession of Gu#"entshall be allo&e. 6nerscorin#supplie7

2i:e&ise instructive is the 0ourt9spronounce"ent inRepublic v.*andiganbayan.15In that case, >e e8clueactions for nullit! or annul"ent of "arria#efro" the application of su""ar! Gu#"ents.

Prescinin# fro" the fore#oin#iscussion, save for annul"ent of"arria#e or eclaration of its nullit!or for le#al separation, su""ar!Gu#"ent is applicable to all :ins ofactions.16nerscorin# supplie7

'! issuin# sai su""ar! Gu#"ent, the trial

court has iveste the State of its la&fulri#ht an ut! to intervene in the case. Theparticipation of the State is not ter"inateb! the eclaration of the public prosecutorthat no collusion e8ists bet&een the parties.The State shoul have been #iven theopportunit! to present controvertin#

evience before the Gu#"ent &asrenere.14

'oth the 0ivil 0oe an the Fa"il! 0oeorain that the court shoul orer the

prosecutin# attorne! to appear an intervenefor the State. It is at this sta#e &hen thepublic prosecutor sees to it that there is nosuppression of evience. 0onco"itantl!,even if there is no suppression of evience,the public prosecutor has to "a:e sure thatthe evience to be presente or lai o&nbefore the court is not fabricate.

To further bolster its role to&ars the

preservation of "arria#e, the Rule onDeclaration of /bsolute Nullit! of VoiMarria#es reiterates the ut! of the publicprosecutor, vi(.=

S-0. 15.+$$ect o$ $ailure to appearat the pre,trial. , 6a7 8 8 8

6b7 8 8 8 If there is no collusion, thecourt shall reAuire the publicprosecutor to intervene for the State

urin# the trial on the "erits toprevent suppression or fabrication ofevience. 6nerscorin# supplie7

Trul!, onl! the active participation of thepublic prosecutor or the Solicitor eneral&ill ensure that the interest of the State isrepresente an protecte in proceein#s foreclaration of nullit! of "arria#es b!preventin# the fabrication or suppression of

evience.1)

II. A !('('o$ for %!c#ara('o$ of a;"o#&(!$#'( of :o'% )arr'a! )a ;! f'#!%"o#!# ; (h! h&";a$% or 'f!. Ec!('o$"61H N#'( of )arr'a! ca"!" co))!$c!%;!for! (h! !ff!c(':'( of A.M. No. 02/11/

31
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt16


32/37

10/SC a$% 2H Marr'a!" c!#!;ra(!%%&r'$ (h! !ff!c(':'( of (h! C':'# Co%!.

ner the R! o$ !c#ara('o$ of A;"o#&(!N#'( of ?o'% Marr'a!"an /nnul"ent

of Voiable Marria#es, the petition foreclaration of absolute nullit! of "arria#e"a! not be file b! an! part! outsie of the"arria#e. The Rule "ae it e8clusivel! ari#ht of the spouses b! statin#=

S-0. (.-etition $or declaration o$absolute nullity o$ void "arriages.

6a7 ho "ay $ile. / petition for

eclaration of absolute nullit! ofvoi "arria#e "a! be file solel! b!the husban or the &ife.6nerscorin# supplie7

Section (6a7 of the Rule "a:es it the soleri#ht of the husban or the &ife to file apetition for eclaration of absolute nullit! ofvoi "arria#e. The rationale of the Rule isenli#htenin#, vi(.=

Onl! an a##rieve or inGure spouse"a! file a petition for annul"ent ofvoiable "arria#es or eclaration ofabsolute nullit! of voi "arria#es.Such petition cannot be file b!co"pulsor! or intestate heirs of thespouses or b! the State. The0o""ittee is of the belief that the!o not have a le#al ri#ht to file thepetition. 0o"pulsor! or intestate

heirs have onl! inchoate ri#hts priorto the eath of their preecessor, an,hence, can onl! Auestion the valiit!of the "arria#e of the spouses uponthe eath of a spouse in a proceein#for the settle"ent of the estate of theecease spouse file in the re#ular

courts. On the other han, theconcern of the State is to preserve"arria#e an not to see: itsissolution.1+6nerscorin#supplie7

The ne& Rule reco#niBes that the husbanan the &ife are the sole architects of ahealth!, lovin#, peaceful "arria#e. The! arethe onl! ones &ho can ecie &hen an ho&to buil the founations of "arria#e. Thespouses alone are the en#ineers of their"arital life. The! are si"ultaneousl! theirectors an actors of their "atri"onialtruetolife pla!. @ence, the! alone can an

shoul ecie &hen to ta:e a cut, but onl! inaccorance &ith the #rouns allo&e b!la&.

The innovation incorporate in /.M. No.C(111CS0 sets forth a e"arcation linebet&een "arria#es covere b! the Fa"il!0oe an those sole"niBe uner the 0ivil0oe. The Rule e8tens onl! to "arria#esentere into urin# the effectivit! of theFa"il! 0oe &hich too: effect on /u#ust 5,1*33.13

The avent of the Rule on Declaration of/bsolute Nullit! of Voi Marria#es "ar:sthe be#innin# of the en of the ri#ht of theheirs of the ecease spouse to brin# anullit! of "arria#e case a#ainst thesurvivin# spouse. 'ut the Rule neverintene to eprive the co"pulsor! orintestate heirs of their successional ri#hts.

>hile /.M. No. C(111CS0 eclares that apetition for eclaration of absolute nullit! of"arria#e "a! be file solel! b! the husbanor the &ife, it oes not "ean that theco"pulsor! or intestate heirs are &ithoutan! recourse uner the la&. The! can still

32
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt18


33/37

protect their successional ri#ht, for, as statein the Rationale of the Rules on /nnul"entof Voiable Marria#es an Declaration of/bsolute Nullit! of Voi Marria#es,co"pulsor! or intestate heirs can still

Auestion the valiit! of the "arria#e of thespouses, not in a proceein# for eclarationof nullit! but upon the eath of a spouse in aproceein# for the settle"ent of the estate ofthe ecease spouse file in the re#ularcourts.1*

It is e"phasiBe, ho&ever, that the Ruleoes not appl! to cases alrea! co""encebefore March 14, (CC5 althou#h the

"arria#e involve is &ithin the covera#e ofthe Fa"il! 0oe. This is so, as the ne& Rule&hich beca"e effective on March 14, (CC5(C

is prospective in its application. Thus, the0ourt hel in+nrico v. /eirs o$ *ps.'edinaceli,(1vi(.=

/s has been e"phasiBe, /.M. No.C(111CS0 covers "arria#es unerthe Fa"il! 0oe of the Philippines,an is prospective in its application.((

6nerscorin# supplie7

Petitioner co""ence the nullit! of"arria#e case a#ainst responent Feliciain 1**4. The "arria#e in controvers! &ascelebrate on Ma! 1, 1*)(. >hich la&&oul #overn epens upon &hen the"arria#e too: place.(5

The "arria#e havin# been sole"niBe prior

to the effectivit! of the Fa"il! 0oe, theapplicable la& is the 0ivil 0oe &hich &asthe la& in effect at the ti"e of itscelebration.('ut the 0ivil 0oe is silent asto &ho "a! brin# an action to eclare the"arria#e voi. Does this "ean that an!

person can brin# an action for theeclaration of nullit! of "arria#e$

>e respon in the ne#ative. The absence ofa provision in the 0ivil 0oe cannot be

construe as a license for an! person toinstitute a nullit! of "arria#e case. Suchperson "ust appear to be the part! &hostans to be benefite or inGure b! theGu#"ent in the suit, or the part! entitle tothe avails of the suit.(4-lse&ise state,plaintiff "ust be the real part!ininterest.For it is basic in proceural la& that ever!action "ust be prosecute an efene inthe na"e of the real part!ininterest.()

Interest &ithin the "eanin# of the rule"eans "aterial interest or an interest inissue to be affecte b! the ecree orGu#"ent of the case, as istin#uishe fro""ere curiosit! about the Auestion involveor a "ere inciental interest. One havin# no"aterial interest to protect cannot invo:e theGurisiction of the court as plaintiff in anaction. >hen plaintiff is not the real part!ininterest, the case is is"issible on the#roun of lac: of cause of action.(+

Illu"inatin# on this point is%"or,Catalanv. Court o$ %ppeals,(3&here the 0ourt hel=

True, uner the Ne& 0ivil 0oe&hich is the la& in force at the ti"ethe responents &ere "arrie, oreven in the Fa"il! 0oe, there is nospecific provision as to &ho can file

a petition to eclare the nullit! of"arria#e? ho&ever, onl! a part! &hocan e"onstrate 0proper interest0can file the sa"e. / petition toeclare the nullit! of "arria#e, li:ean! other actions, "ust beprosecuted or de$ended in the na"e

33
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt28


34/37

o$ the real party,in,interest an "ustbe based on a cause o$ action. Thus,inNial v. Badayog the 0ourt helthat the chilren have the personalit!to file the petition to eclare the

nullit! of "arria#e of their eceasefather to their step"other as it affectstheir successional ri#hts.

8 8 8 8

In fine, petitioner9s personalit! to filethe petition to eclare the nullit! of"arria#e cannot be ascertainebecause of the absence of the ivorce

ecree an the forei#n la& allo&in#it. @ence, a re"an of the case to thetrial court for reception of aitionalevience is necessar! to eter"ine&hether responent Orlano &as#rante a ivorce ecree an &hetherthe forei#n la& &hich #rante thesa"e allo&s or restricts re"arria#e.If it is prove that a vali ivorceecree &as obtaine an the sa"ei not allo& responent Orlano9sre"arria#e, then the trial courtshoul eclare responent9s "arria#eas bi#a"ous an voi ab initiobutreuce the a"ount of "orala"a#es fro" P5CC,CCC.CC toP4C,CCC.CC an e8e"plar! a"a#esfro"

persons marriage case 3

Documents