persons midterm

8/9/2019 Persons Midterm

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/persons-midterm 1/81

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001]

SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. SUSAN Y CARIÑO, respondent.

D C I S I O N

YNARS!SAN"IAGO, J .#

The issue for resolution in the case at bar hinges on the validity of the two marriages contracted by the deceased

SPO Santiago S! "ari#o$ whose %death benefits& is now the sub'ect of the controversy between the two Susans whom

he married!

(efore this "ourt is a )etition for review on certiorari see*ing to set aside the decision+,- of the "ourt of .))eals in

"./0!R! "V No! 1,234$ which affirmed in toto the decision+2- of the Regional Trial "ourt of 5ue6on "ity$ (ranch 78$ in

"ivil "ase No! 5/94/,7342!

During the lifetime of the late SPO Santiago S! "ari#o$ he contracted two marriages$ the first was on :une 2;$

,939$ with )etitioner Susan Nicdao "ari#o <hereafter referred to as Susan Nicdao=$ with whom he had two offs)rings$

namely$ Sahlee and Sandee "ari#o> and the second was on November ,;$ ,992$ with res)ondent Susan ?ee "ari#o

<hereafter referred to as Susan ?ee=$ with whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way

bac* in ,972!

In ,977$ SPO Santiago S! "ari#o became ill and bedridden due to diabetes com)licated by )ulmonary

tuberculosis! @e )assed away on November 24$ ,992$ under the care of Susan ?ee$ who s)ent for his medical and

burial eA)enses! (oth )etitioner and res)ondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance )ertaining to

the deceased from various government agencies! Petitioner Susan Nicdao was able to collect a total of P,3$;;;!;;from %B(.I$ P""CI$ "ommutation$ N.PO"OB$ +and- Pag/ibig$&+4- while res)ondent Susan ?ee received a tota

of P2,$;;;!;; from %0SIS ife$ (urial <0SIS= and burial <SSS=!&+-

On December ,$ ,994$ res)ondent Susan ?ee filed the instant case for collection of sum of money against

)etitioner Susan Nicdao )raying$ inter alia, that )etitioner be ordered to return to her at least one/half of the one hundred

forty/siA thousand )esos <P,3$;;;!;;= collectively denominated as %death benefits& which she <)etitioner= received from

%B(.I$ P""CI$ "ommutation$ N.PO"OB$ +and- Pag/ibig!& Des)ite service of summons$ )etitioner failed to file her

answer$ )rom)ting the trial court to declare her in default!

Res)ondent Susan ?ee admitted that her marriage to the deceased too* )lace during the subsistence of$ and

without first obtaining a 'udicial declaration of nullity of$ the marriage between )etitioner and the deceased! She

however$ claimed that she had no *nowledge of the )revious marriage and that she became aware of it only at the

funeral of the deceased$ where she met )etitioner who introduced herself as the wife of the deceased! To bolster he

action for collection of sum of money$ res)ondent contended that the marriage of )etitioner and the deceased is void ab

initio because the same was solemni6ed without the reEuired marriage license! In su))ort thereof$ res)onden

)resented ,= the marriage certificate of the deceased and the )etitioner which bears no marriage license number> +1- and

2= a certification dated Barch 9$ ,99$ from the ocal "ivil Registrar of San :uan$ Betro Banila$ which reads G

1 | j o h a nP E R S O N S A N D H U M A N R E L A T I O N S

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/132529.htm#_edn1













This is to certify that this Office has no record of marriage license of the spouses SANTIAGO CARINO (sic and S!SAN

NIC"AO, #ho are married in this municipality on $une %&, ')* +ence, #e cannot issue as reuested a true copy or

transcription of -arriage .icense number from the records of this archi/es*

This certification is issued upon the reuest of -rs* Susan 0ee Cari1o for #hate/er legal purpose it may ser/e* +3-

On .ugust 27$ ,991$ the trial court ruled in favor of res)ondent$ Susan ?ee$ holding as follows

2+3R34OR3, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of 567,&&&*&&, half of the amount #hich #as

paid to her in the form of death benefits arising from the death of S5O8 Santiago S* Cari1o, plus attorney9s fees in the

amount of 5:,&&&*&&, and costs of suit*

IT IS SO OR"3R3"*+8-

On a))eal by )etitioner to the "ourt of .))eals$ the latter affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court! @ence$ the

instant )etition$ contending that

I.

T@H @ONOR.(H "OCRT OF .PPH.S 0R.VH? HRRHD IN .FFIRBIN0 T@H FINDIN0S OF T@H OHR

"OCRT [email protected] VD.! DH "ONSCH0R. VS! 0SIS IS .PPI".(H TO T@H ".SH .T (.R!

II.

T@H @ONOR.(H "OCRT OF .PPH.S 0R.VH? HRRHD IN .PP?IN0 H5CIT? IN T@H INST.NT ".SH

INSTH.D OF T@H "H.R .ND CNH5CIVO". B.ND.TH OF T@H F.BI? "ODH!

III.

T@H @ONOR.(H "OCRT OF .PPH.S 0R.VH? HRRHD IN NOT FINDIN0 T@H ".SH OF VD.! DH

"ONSCH0R. VS 0SIS TO @.VH (HHN BODIFIHD$ .BHNDHD .ND HVHN .(.NDONHD (? T@H HN."TBHNT

OF T@H F.BI? "ODH!+7-

Cnder .rticle ; of the Family "ode$ the absolute nullity of a )revious marriage may be invo*ed for )ur)oses of

remarriage on the basis solely of a final 'udgment declaring such )revious marriage void! Beaning$ where the absolute

nullity of a )revious marriage is sought to be invo*ed for )ur)oses of contracting a second marriage$ the sole basis

acce)table in law$ for said )ro'ected marriage to be free from legal infirmity$ is a final 'udgment declaring the )revious

marriage void!+9- @owever$ for )ur)oses other than remarriage$ no 'udicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an

absolute nullity! For other )ur)oses$ such as but not limited to the determination of heirshi)$ legitimacy or illegitimacy of

a child$ settlement of estate$ dissolution of )ro)erty regime$ or a criminal case for that matter$ the court may )ass u)on

the validity of marriage even after the death of the )arties thereto$ and even in a suit not directly instituted to Euestion the

validity of said marriage$ so long as it is essential to the determination of the case! +,;- In such instances$ evidence must be

adduced$ testimonial or documentary$ to )rove the eAistence of grounds rendering such a )revious marriage an absolute

nullity! These need not be limited solely to an earlier final 'udgment of a court declaring such )revious marriage void! +,,-

It is clear therefore that the "ourt is clothed with sufficient authority to )ass u)on the validity of the two marriages in

this case$ as the same is essential to the determination of who is rightfully entitled to the sub'ect %death benefits& of the

deceased!


















In this )ro)erty regime$ the )ro)erties acEuired by the )arties through their a$%ua& 'o()% $o)%r(bu%(o) shall belong to the

co/ownershi)! ages and salaries earned by each )arty belong to him or her eAclusively! Then too$ contributions in the

form of care of the home$ children and household$ or s)iritual or moral ins)iration$ are eAcluded in this regime! +,7-

"onsidering that the marriage of res)ondent Susan ?ee and the deceased is a bigamous marriage$ having been

solemni6ed during the subsistence of a )revious marriage then )resumed to be valid <between )etitioner and the

deceased=$ the a))lication of .rticle ,7 is therefore in order!

The dis)uted P,3$;;;!;; from B(.I +.FP Butual (enefit .ssociation$ Inc!-$ N.PO"OB$ "ommutation$ Pag/ibig

and P""CI$ are clearly renumerations$ incentives and benefits from governmental agencies earned by the deceased as

a )olice officer! Cnless res)ondent Susan ?ee )resents )roof to the contrary$ it could not be said that she contributed

money$ )ro)erty or industry in the acEuisition of these monetary benefits! @ence$ they are not owned in common by

res)ondent and the deceased$ but belong to the deceased alone and res)ondent has no right whatsoever to claim the

same! (y intestate succession$ the said %death benefits& of the deceased shall )ass to his legal heirs! .nd$ res)ondent

not being the legal wife of the deceased is not one of them!

.s to the )ro)erty regime of )etitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased$ .rticle ,8 of the Family "ode

governs! This article a))lies to unions of )arties who are legally ca)acitated and not barred by any im)ediment tocontract marriage$ but whose marriage is nonetheless void for other reasons$ li*e the absence of a marriage

license! .rticle ,8 of the Family "ode reads /

Art* '86* 2hen a man and a #oman #ho are capacitated to marry each other, li/e e>clusi/ely #ith each other as

husband and #ife #ithout the benefit of marriage or under a /oid marriage, their #ages and salaries shall be o#ned by

them in eual shares and the property acuired by both of them through their #or? or industry shall be go/erned by the

rules on co@o#nership*

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acuired #hile they li/ed together shall be presumed to ha/e been

obtained by their =oint efforts, #or? or industry, and shall be o#ned by them in eual shares* 4or purposes of this Article,

a party #ho did not participate in the acuisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to ha/e contributed

=ointly in the acuisition thereof if the former9s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the

household*

> > > > > > > > >

2hen only one of the parties to a /oid marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co@o#nership

shall be forfeited in fa/or of their common children* In case of default of or #ai/er by any or all of the common children

or their descendants, each /acant share shall belong to the respecti/e sur/i/ing descendants* In the absence of

descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party* In all cases, the forfeiture shall ta?e place upon termination

of the cohabitation*

In contrast to .rticle ,7$ under the foregoing article$ wages and salaries earned by either )arty during thecohabitation shall be owned by the )arties in eEual shares and will be divided eEually between them$ even if only one

)arty earned the wages and the other did not contribute thereto! +,9- "onformably$ even if the dis)uted %death benefits&

were earned by the deceased alone as a government em)loyee$ .rticle ,8 creates a co/ownershi) in res)ect thereto$

entitling the )etitioner to share one/half thereof! .s there is no allegation of bad faith in the )resent case$ both )arties of

the first marriage are )resumed to be in good faith! Thus$ one/half of the sub'ect %death benefits& under scrutiny shall go

to the )etitioner as her share in the )ro)erty regime$ and the other half )ertaining to the deceased shall )ass by$ intestate

succession$ to his legal heirs$ namely$ his children with Susan Nicdao!








In affirming the decision of the trial court$ the "ourt of .))eals relied on the case of da* de Consuegra /

Go/ernment Ser/ice Insurance System,+2;- where the "ourt awarded one/half of the retirement benefits of the deceased

to the first wife and the other half$ to the second wife$ holding that

B*** ;S<ince the defendant9s first marriage has not been dissol/ed or declared /oid the con=ugal partnership established by

that marriage has not ceased* Nor has the first #ife lost or relinuished her status as putati/e heir of her husband under

the ne# Ci/il Code, entitled to share in his estate upon his death should she sur/i/e him* Conseuently, #hether as

con=ugal partner in a still subsisting marriage or as such putati/e heir she has an interest in the husband9s share in the

property here in dispute**** And #ith respect to the right of the second #ife, this Court obser/ed that although the second

marriage can be presumed to be /oid ab initio as it #as celebrated #hile the first marriage #as still subsisting, still there

is need for =udicial declaration of such nullity* And inasmuch as the con=ugal partnership formed by the second marriage

#as dissol/ed before =udicial declaration of its nullity, B;t<he only =ust and euitable solution in this case #ould be to

recogniDe the right of the second #ife to her share of one@half in the property acuired by her and her husband, and

consider the other half as pertaining to the con=ugal partnership of the first marriage* +2,-

It should be stressed$ however$ that the aforecited decision is )remised on the rule which reEuires a )rior and

se)arate 'udicial declaration of nullity of marriage! This is the reason why in the said case$ the "ourt determined the

rights of the )arties in accordance with their eAisting )ro)erty regime!

In "omingo /* Court of Appeals$+22- however$ the "ourt$ construing .rticle ; of the Family "ode$ clarified that a )rio

and se)arate declaration of nullity of a marriage is an all im)ortant condition )recedent only for )ur)oses of

remarriage! That is$ if a )arty who is )reviously married wishes to contract a second marriage$ he or she has to obtain

first a 'udicial decree declaring the first marriage void$ before he or she could contract said second marriage$ otherwise

the second marriage would be void! The same rule a))lies even if the first marriage is )atently void because the )arties

are not free to determine for themselves the validity or invalidity or their marriage! @owever$ for )ur)oses other than to

remarry$ li*e for filing a case for collection of sum of money anchored on a marriage claimed to be valid$ no )rior and

se)arate 'udicial declaration of nullity is necessary! .ll that a )arty has to do is to )resent evidence$ testimonial o

documentary$ that would )rove that the marriage from which his or her rights flow is in fact valid! Thereu)on$ the court$ i

material to the determination of the issues before it$ will rule on the status of the marriage involved and )roceed to

determine the rights of the )arties in accordance with the a))licable laws and 'uris)rudence! Thus$ in Ni1al /* Eayadog+24- the "ourt eA)lained

;T<he court may pass upon the /alidity of marriage e/en in a suit not directly instituted to uestion the same so long as it

is essential to the determination of the case* This is #ithout pre=udice to any issue that may arise in the case* 2hen

such need arises, a final =udgment of declaration of nullity is necessary e/en if the purpose is other than to remarry* The

clause Bon the basis of a final =udgment declaring such pre/ious marriage /oid in Article 8& of the 4amily Code connoted

that such final =udgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage*

*+RFOR$ the )etition is 0R.NTHD$ and the decision of the "ourt of .))eals in "./0!R! "V No! 1,234 which

affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial "ourt of 5ue6on "ity ordering )etitioner to )ay res)ondent the sum of

P84$;;;!;; )lus attorneyJs fees in the amount of P1$;;;!;;$ is RHVHRSHD and SHT .SIDH! The com)laint in "ivi"ase No! 5/94/,7342$ is hereby DISBISSHD! No )ronouncement as to costs!

Re)ublic of the Phili))ines

SUR- COUR"Banila

SH"OND DIVISION












G.R. No. 1030/ Se%eber 2, 199

RUIC OF "+ +IIINS, )etitioner$

vs!

COUR" OF AAS AND ANGINA -. CAS"RO, res)ondents!

5arungao, Abesamis, 3leaDar F 5ulgar .a# Offices for pri/ate respondent*

UNO, J.:

The case at bench originated from a )etition filed by )rivate res)ondent .ngelina B! "astro in the Regional Trial "ourt of

5ue6on "ity see*ing a 'udicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to Hdwin F! "ardenas! 1 .s ground therefor$ "astro

claims that no marriage license was ever issued to them )rior to the solemni6ation of their marriage!

Des)ite notice$ defendant Hdwin F! "ardenas failed to file his answer! "onseEuently$ he was declared in default! Trial

)roceeded in his absence!

The controlling facts are undis)uted

On :une 2$ ,98;$ .ngelina B! "astro and Hdwin F! "ardenas were married in a civil ceremony )erformed by :udge

Pablo B! Balvar$ "ity "ourt :udge of Pasay "ity! The marriage was celebrated without the *nowledge of "astroKs

)arents! Defendant "ardenas )ersonally attended to the )rocessing of the documents reEuired for the celebration of the

marriage$ including the )rocurement of the marriage$ license! In fact$ the marriage contract itself states that marriage

license no! 4,93,72 was issued in the name of the contracting )arties on :une 2$ ,98; in Pasig$ Betro Banila!

The cou)le did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was un*nown to "astroKs )arents!

Thus$ it was only in Barch ,98,$ when "astro discovered she was )regnant$ that the cou)le decided to live together!

@owever$ their cohabitation lasted only for four <= months! Thereafter$ the cou)le )arted ways! On October ,9$ ,98,$

"astro gave birth! The baby was ado)ted by "astroKs brother$ with the consent of "ardenas!

The baby is now in the Cnited States! Desiring to follow her daughter$ "astro wanted to )ut in order her marital status

before leaving for the States! She thus consulted a lawyer$ .tty! Frumencio H! Pulgar$ regarding the )ossible annulment

of her marriage! Through her lawyerKs efforts$ they discovered that there was no marriage license issued to "ardenas

)rior to the celebration of their marriage!

.s )roof$ .ngelina "astro offered in evidence a certification from the "ivil Register of Pasig$ Betro Banila! It reads

February 2;$ ,978

TO @OB IT B.? "ON"HRN

This is to certify that the names HDIN F! ".RDHN.S and .N0HIN. B! ".STRO who were allegedly

married in the Pasay "ity "ourt on :une 2,$ ,98; under an alleged <s=u))ortive marriage license




no! 7')'% allegedly issued in the municipality on $une %&, '6& cannot be located as said license

no! 7')'% does not appear from our records!

Issued u)on reEuest of Br! Hd .tanacio!

<Sgd=

"HNO

N. D!

5CINT

OS

Senior

"ivil

Regist

ry

Officer

"astro testified that she did not go to the civil registrar of Pasig on or before :une 2$ ,98; in order to a))ly for a license!

Neither did she sign any a))lication therefor! She affiAed her signature only on the marriage contract on :une 2$ ,98; inPasay "ity!

The trial court denied the )etition! 2 It held that the above certification was inadeEuate to establish the alleged non/

issuance of a marriage license )rior to the celebration of the marriage between the )arties! It ruled that the Linability of

the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued!L

Cnsatisfied with the decision$ "astro a))ealed to res)ondent a))ellate court! She insisted that the certification from the

local civil registrar sufficiently established the absence of a marriage license!

.s stated earlier$ res)ondent a))ellate court reversed the Decision of the trial court! 3 It declared the marriage between

the contracting )arties null and void and directed the "ivil Registrar of Pasig to cancel the sub'ect marriage contract!

@ence this )etition for review on certiorari !

Petitioner Re)ublic of the Phili))ines urges that res)ondent a))ellate court erred when it ruled that the certification

issued by the civil registrar that marriage license no! 4,93,72 was not in their record adeEuately )roved that no such

license was ever issued! Petitioner also faults the res)ondent court for relying on the self/serving and uncorroborated

testimony of )rivate res)ondent "astro that she had no )art in the )rocurement of the sub'ect marriage license!

Petitioner thus insists that the certification and the uncorroborated testimony of )rivate res)ondent are insufficient to

overthrow the legal )resum)tion regarding the validity of a marriage!

Petitioner also )oints that in declaring the marriage between the )arties as null and void$ res)ondent a))ellate court

disregarded the )resum)tion that the solemni6ing officer$ :udge Pablo B! Balvar$ regularly )erformed his duties when heattested in the marriage contract that marriage license no! 4,93,72 was duly )resented to him before the solemni6ation

of the sub'ect marriage!

The issues$ being interrelated$ shall be discussed 'ointly!




The core issue )resented by the case at bench is whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence )resented by

)rivate res)ondent are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued by the "ivil Registrar of Pasig )rior to

the celebration of the marriage of )rivate res)ondent to Hdwin F! "ardenas!

e affirm the im)ugned Decision!

.t the time the sub'ect marriage was solemni6ed on :une 2$ ,98;$ the law governing marital relations was the New "ivil

"ode! The law )rovides that no marriage shall be solemni6ed without a marriage license first issued by a local civil

registrar! (eing one of the essential reEuisites of a valid marriage$ absence of a license would render the marriage

void ab initio! 5

Petitioner )osits that the certification of the local civil registrar of due search and inability to find a record or entry to the

effect that marriage license no! 4,93,72 was issued to the )arties is not adeEuate to )rove its non/issuance!

e hold otherwise! The )resentation of such certification in court is sanctioned by Section 29$ Rule ,42 of the Rules of

"ourt$ /iD !

Sec! 29! 5roof of lac? of record ! M . written statement signed by an officer having custody of an officialrecord or by his de)uty$ that after diligent search$ no record or entry of a s)ecified tenor is found to eAist

in the records of his office$ accom)anied by a certificate as above )rovided$ is admissible as evidence

that the records of his office contain no such record or entry!

The above Rule authori6ed the custodian of documents to certify that des)ite diligent search$ a )articular document does

not eAist in his office or that a )articular entry of a s)ecified tenor was not to be found in a register! .s custodians of

)ublic documents$ civil registrars are )ublic officers charged with the duty$ inter alia$ of maintaining a register boo* where

they are reEuired to enter all a))lications for marriage licenses$ including the names of the a))licants$ the date the

marriage license was issued and such other relevant data! 4

The certification of Ldue search and inability to findL issued by the civil registrar of Pasig en'oys )robative value$ he beingthe officer charged under the law to *ee) a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license!

Cnaccom)anied by any circumstance of sus)icion and )ursuant to Section 29$ Rule ,42 of the Rules of "ourt$ a

certificate of Ldue search and inability to findL sufficiently )roved that his office did not issue marriage license no!

4,93,72 to the contracting )arties!

The fact that )rivate res)ondent "astro offered only her testimony in su))ort of her )etition is$ in itself$ not a ground to

deny her )etition! The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her testimony is mainly due to the )eculiar

circumstances of the case! It will be remembered that the sub'ect marriage was a civil ceremony )erformed by a 'udge of

a city court! The sub'ect marriage is one of those commonly *nown as a Lsecret marriageL M a legally non/eAistent

)hrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the *nowledge of the relatives andor friends of

either or both of the contracting )arties! The records show that the marriage between "astro and "ardenas was initially

un*nown to the )arents of the former!

Surely$ the fact that only )rivate res)ondent "astro testified during the trial cannot be held against her! @er husband$

Hdwin F! "ardenas$ was duly served with notice of the )roceedings and a co)y of the )etition! Des)ite recei)t thereof$ he

chose to ignore the same! For failure to answer$ he was )ro)erly declared in default! Private res)ondent cannot be

faulted for her husbandKs lac* of interest to )artici)ate in the )roceedings! There was absolutely no evidence on record to

show that there was collusion between )rivate res)ondent and her husband "ardenas!




It is noteworthy to mention that the finding of the a))ellate court that the marriage between the contracting )arties is null

and void for lac* of a marriage license does not discount the fact that indeed$ a s)urious marriage license$ )ur)orting to

be issued by the civil registrar of Pasig$ may have been )resented by "ardenas to the solemni6ing officer!

In fine$ we hold that$ under the circumstances of the case$ the documentary and testimonial evidence )resented by

)rivate res)ondent "astro sufficiently established the absence of the sub'ect marriage license!

IN VIH @HRHOF$ the )etition is DHNIHD there being no showing of any reversible error committed by res)ondent

a))ellate court!


SUR- COUR"Banila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 133// -ar$6 1, 2000

NGRAC NIÑA 7or +er8e&7 a) a8 Guar(a) ad Litem o7 %6e ()or8 AYIN NIÑA, INGRID NIÑA, ARC+INIÑA : I"O NIÑA, ;R., )etitioners$

vs!

NOR-A AYADOG, res)ondent!

YNARS!SAN"IAGO, J.:

Bay the heirs of a deceased )erson file a )etition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death

Pe)ito Ni#al was married to Teodulfa (ellones on Se)tember 23$ ,98! Out of their marriage were born herein

)etitioners! Teodulfa was shot by Pe)ito resulting in her death on .)ril 2$ ,971! One year and 7 months thereafter or onDecember ,,$ ,973$ Pe)ito and res)ondent Norma (adayog got married without any marriage license! In lieu thereof$

Pe)ito and Norma eAecuted an affidavit dated December ,,$ ,973 stating that they had lived together as husband and

wife for at least five years and were thus eAem)t from securing a marriage license! On February ,9$ ,998$ Pe)ito died in

a car accident! .fter their fatherKs death$ )etitioners filed a )etition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pe)ito to

Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lac* of a marriage license! The case was filed under the assum)tion

that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect )etitionerKs successional rights! Norma filed a motion to

dismiss on the ground that )etitioners have no cause of action since they are not among the )ersons who could file an

action for Lannulment of marriageL under .rticle 8 of the Family "ode!

:udge Ferdinand :! Barcos of the Regional Trial "ourt of Toledo "ity$ "ebu$ (ranch 19$ dismissed the )etition after

finding that the Family "ode is Lrather silent$ obscure$ insufficientL to resolve the following issues

<,= hether or not )laintiffs have a cause of action against defendant in as*ing for the declaration of the nullity of

marriage of their deceased father$ Pe)ito 0! Ni#al$ with her s)ecially so when at the time of the filing of this

instant suit$ their father Pe)ito 0! Ni#al is already dead>

<2= hether or not the second marriage of )laintiffsK deceased father with defendant is null and void ab initio>




<4= hether or not )laintiffs are esto))ed from assailing the validity of the second marriage after it was dissolved

due to their fatherKs death! ,

Thus$ the lower court ruled that )etitioners should have filed the action to declare null and void their fatherKs marriage to

res)ondent before his death$ a))lying by analogy .rticle 8 of the Family "ode which enumerates the time and the

)ersons who could initiate an action for annulment of marriage! 2 @ence$ this )etition for review with this "ourt grounded

on a )ure Euestion of law!

This )etition was originally dismissed for non/com)liance with Section ,,$ Rule ,4 of the ,998 Rules of "ivil Procedure$

and because Lthe verification failed to state the basis of )etitionerKs averment that the allegations in the )etition are Ltrue

and correctL!L It was thus treated as an unsigned )leading which )roduces no legal effect under Section 4$ Rule 8$ of the

,998 Rules! 4 @owever$ u)on motion of )etitioners$ this "ourt reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the )etition for

review!

The two marriages involved herein having been solemni6ed )rior to the effectivity of the Family "ode <F"=$ the a))licable

law to determine their validity is the "ivil "ode which was the law in effect at the time of their celebration!1 . valid

marriage license is a reEuisite of marriage under .rticle 14 of the "ivil "ode$ 3 the absence of which renders the

marriage /oid ab initio )ursuant to .rticle 7;<4=8

in relation to .rticle 17!7

The reEuirement and issuance of marriagelicense is the StateKs demonstration of its involvement and )artici)ation in every marriage$ in the maintenance of which

the general )ublic is interested! 9 This interest )roceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State recogni6es the

sanctity of family life and of affording )rotection to the family as a basic Lautonomous social institution!L ,; S)ecifically$ the

"onstitution considers marriage as an Linviolable social institution$L and is the foundation of family life which shall be

)rotected by the State! ,, This is why the Family "ode considers marriage as La s)ecial contract of )ermanent

unionL ,2 and case law considers it Lnot 'ust an adventure but a lifetime commitment!L ,4

@owever$ there are several instances recogni6ed by the "ivil "ode wherein a marriage license is dis)ensed with$ one of

which is that )rovided in .rticle 83$ , referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together and

eAclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbro*en )eriod of at least five years before the

marriage! The rationale why no license is reEuired in such case is to avoid eA)osing the )arties to humiliation$ shame

and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of )ersons outside a valid marriage due to the

)ublication of every a))licantKs name for a marriage license! The )ublicity attending the marriage license may discourage

such )ersons from legitimi6ing their status! ,1 To )reserve )eace in the family$ avoid the )ee)ing and sus)icious eye of

)ublic eA)osure and contain the source of gossi) arising from the )ublication of their names$ the law deemed it wise to

)reserve their )rivacy and eAem)t them from that reEuirement!

There is no dis)ute that the marriage of )etitionersK father to res)ondent Norma was celebrated without any marriage

license! In lieu thereof$ they eAecuted an affidavit stating that Lthey have attained the age of ma'ority$ and$ being

unmarried$ have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years$ and that we now desire to marry each

other!L ,3 The only issue that needs to be resolved )ertains to what nature of cohabitation is contem)lated under .rticle

83 of the "ivil "ode to warrant the counting of the five year )eriod in order to eAem)t the future s)ouses from securing a

marriage license! Should it be a cohabitation wherein both )arties are ca)acitated to marry each other during the entirefive/year continuous )eriod or should it be a cohabitation wherein both )arties have lived together and eAclusively with

each other as husband and wife during the entire five/year continuous )eriod regardless of whether there is a legal

im)ediment to their being lawfully married$ which im)ediment may have either disa))eared or intervened sometime

during the cohabitation )eriod

or*ing on the assum)tion that Pe)ito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years without the

benefit of marriage$ that five/year )eriod should be com)uted on the basis of a cohabitation as Lhusband and wifeL where


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








































the only missing factor is the s)ecial contract of marriage to validate the union! In other words$ the five/year common/law

cohabitation )eriod$ which is counted bac* from the date of celebration of marriage$ should be a )eriod of legal union had

it not been for the absence of the marriage! This 1/year )eriod should be the years immediately before the day of the

marriage and it should be a )eriod of cohabitation characteri6ed by eAclusivity M meaning no third )arty was involved at

anytime within the 1 years and continuity M that is unbro*en! Otherwise$ if that continuous 1/year cohabitation is

com)uted without any distinction as to whether the )arties were ca)acitated to marry each other during the entire five

years$ then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging )arties to have common law relationshi)s and

)lacing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their s)ouse! Barriage being a s)ecial relationshi)

must be res)ected as such and its reEuirements must be strictly observed! The )resum)tion that a man and a woman

de)orting themselves as husband and wife is based on the a))roAimation of the reEuirements of the law! The )arties

should not be afforded any eAcuse to not com)ly with every single reEuirement and later use the same missing element

as a )re/conceived esca)e ground to nullify their marriage! There should be no eAem)tion from securing a marriage

license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of the eAce)tion! It should be noted that a license is reEuired

in order to notify the )ublic that two )ersons are about to be united in matrimony and that anyone who is aware or has

*nowledge of any im)ediment to the union of the two shall ma*e it *nown to the local civil registrar! ,8 The "ivil "ode

)rovides

.rt! 34 ! ! ! This notice shall reEuest all )ersons having *nowledge of any im)ediment to the marriage to advicethe local civil registrar thereof! ! ! !

.rt! 3 C)on being advised of any alleged im)ediment to the marriage$ the local civil registrar shall forthwith

ma*e an investigation$ eAamining )ersons under oath! ! ! !

This is reiterated in the Family "ode thus

.rt! ,8 )rovides in )art ! ! ! This notice shall reEuest all )ersons having *nowledge of any im)ediment to the

marriage to advise the local civil registrar thereof! ! ! !

.rt! ,7 reads in )art ! ! ! In case of any im)ediment *nown to the local civil registrar or brought to his attention$

he shall note down the )articulars thereof and his findings thereon in the a))lication for a marriage license! ! ! !

This is the same reason why our civil laws$ )ast or )resent$ absolutely )rohibited the concurrence of multi)le marriages

by the same )erson during the same )eriod! Thus$ any marriage subseEuently contracted during the lifetime of the first

s)ouse shall be illegal and void$ ,7 sub'ect only to the eAce)tion in cases of absence or where the )rior marriage was

dissolved or annulled! The Revised Penal "ode com)lements the civil law in that the contracting of two or more

marriages and the having of eAtramarital affairs are considered felonies$ i*e!$ bigamy and concubinage and

adultery! ,9 The law sanctions monogamy!

In this case$ at the time of Pe)ito and res)ondentKs marriage$ it cannot be said that they have lived with each other as

husband and wife for at least five years )rior to their wedding day! From the time Pe)itoKs first marriage was dissolved to

the time of his marriage with res)ondent$ only about twenty months had ela)sed! Hven assuming that Pe)ito and his firstwife had se)arated in fact$ and thereafter both Pe)ito and res)ondent had started living with each other that has already

lasted for five years$ the fact remains that their five/year )eriod cohabitation was not the cohabitation contem)lated by

law! It should be in the nature of a )erfect union that is valid under the law but rendered im)erfect only by the absence of

the marriage contract! Pe)ito had a subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with res)ondent! It is

immaterial that when they lived with each other$ Pe)ito had already been se)arated in fact from his lawful s)ouse! The

subsistence of the marriage even where there was actual severance of the filial com)anionshi) between the s)ouses

cannot ma*e any cohabitation by either s)ouse with any third )arty as being one as Lhusband and wifeL!













@aving determined that the second marriage involved in this case is not covered by the eAce)tion to the reEuirement of a

marriage license$ it is void ab initio because of the absence of such element!

The neAt issue to be resolved is do )etitioners have the )ersonality to file a )etition to declare their fatherKs marriage

void after his death

"ontrary to res)ondent 'udgeKs ruling$ .rticle 8 of the Family "ode 2; cannot be a))lied even by analogy to )etitions for

declaration of nullity of marriage! The second ground for annulment of marriage relied u)on by the trial court$ which

allows Lthe sane s)ouseL to file an annulment suit Lat anytime before the death of either )artyL is ina))licable! .rticle 8

)ertains to the grounds$ )eriods and )ersons who can file an annulment suit$ not a suit for declaration of nullity of

marriage! The "ode is silent as to who can file a )etition to declare the nullity of a marriage! Voidable and void marriages

are not identical! . marriage that is annulable is valid until otherwise declared by the court> whereas a marriage that is

void ab initio is considered as having never to have ta*en )lace 2, and cannot be the source of rights! The first can be

generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or )rescri)tion while the other can never be ratified! . voidable

marriage cannot be assailed collaterally eAce)t in a direct )roceeding while a void marriage can be attac*ed collaterally!

"onseEuently$ void marriages can be Euestioned even after the death of either )arty but voidable marriages can be

assailed only during the lifetime of the )arties and not after death of either$ in which case the )arties and their offs)ring

will be left as if the marriage had been )erfectly valid! 22

That is why the action or defense for nullity is im)rescri)tible$unli*e voidable marriages where the action )rescribes! Only the )arties to a voidable marriage can assail it but any

)ro)er interested )arty may attac* a void marriage! Void marriages have no legal effects eAce)t those declared by law

concerning the )ro)erties of the alleged s)ouses$ regarding co/ownershi) or ownershi) through actual 'oint

contribution$ 24 and its effect on the children born to such void marriages as )rovided in .rticle 1; in relation to .rticle 4

and as well as .rticle 1,$ 14 and 1 of the Family "ode! On the contrary$ the )ro)erty regime governing voidable

marriages is generally con'ugal )artnershi) and the children conceived before its annulment are legitimate!

"ontrary to the trial courtKs ruling$ the death of )etitionerKs father eAtinguished the alleged marital bond between him and

res)ondent! The conclusion is erroneous and )roceeds from a wrong )remise that there was a marriage bond that was

dissolved between the two! It should be noted that their marriage was void hence it is deemed as if it never eAisted at all

and the death of either eAtinguished nothing!

:uris)rudence under the "ivil "ode states that no 'udicial decree is necessary in order to establish the nullity of a

marriage! 2 L. void marriage does not reEuire a 'udicial decree to restore the )arties to their original rights or to ma*e the

marriage void but though no sentence of avoidance be absolutely necessary$ yet as well for the sa*e of good order of

society as for the )eace of mind of all concerned$ it is eA)edient that the nullity of the marriage should be ascertained

and declared by the decree of a court of com)etent 'urisdiction!L 21 LCnder ordinary circumstances$ the effect of a void

marriage$ so far as concerns the conferring of legal rights u)on the )arties$ is as though no marriage had ever ta*en

)lace! .nd therefore$ being good for no legal )ur)ose$ its invalidity can be maintained in any )roceeding in which the fact

of marriage may be material$ either direct or collateral$ in any civil court between any )arties at any time$ whether before

or after the death of either or both the husband and the wife$ and u)on mere )roof of the facts rendering such marriage

void$ it will be disregarded or treated as non/eAistent by the courts!L It is not li*e a voidable marriage which cannot be

collaterally attac*ed eAce)t in direct )roceeding instituted during the lifetime of the )arties so that on the death of either$the marriage cannot be im)eached$ and is made good ab initio!23 (ut .rticle ; of the Family "ode eA)ressly )rovides

that there must be a 'udicial declaration of the nullity of a )revious marriage$ though void$ before a )arty can enter into a

second marriage 28 and such absolute nullity can be based only on a final 'udgment to that effect! 27 For the same reason

the law ma*es either the action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage im)rescri)tible! 29 "orollarily$

if the death of either )arty would eAtinguish the cause of action or the ground for defense$ then the same cannot be

considered im)rescri)tible!































@owever$ other than for )ur)oses of remarriage$ no 'udicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute

nullity!'H#phi' For other )ur)oses$ such as but not limited to determination of heirshi)$ legitimacy or illegitimacy of a

child$ settlement of estate$ dissolution of )ro)erty regime$ or a criminal case for that matter$ the court may )ass u)on the

validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to Euestion the same so long as it is essential to the determination

of the case! This is without )re'udice to any issue that may arise in the case! hen such need arises$ a final 'udgment of

declaration of nullity is necessary even if the )ur)ose is other than to remarry! The clause Lon the basis of a final

'udgment declaring such )revious marriage voidL in .rticle ; of the Family "ode connotes that such final 'udgment need

not be obtained only for )ur)ose of remarriage!

@HRHFORH$ the )etition is 0R.NTHD! The assailed Order of the Regional Trial "ourt$ Toledo "ity$ "ebu$ (ranch 19$

dismissing "ivil "ase No! T/349$ is RHVHRSHD and SHT .SIDH! The said case is ordered RHINST.THD! 'H#phi'*nt

SO ORDHRHD!

"a/ide, $r*, C*$*, 5uno and Japunan, $$*, concur*

5ardo, $*, on official business abroad*

Re)ublic of the Phili))inesSUR- COUR"

Banila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. !4/0 O$%ober , 195

AIC RYS <AN DORN, )etitioner$

vs!

+ON. -ANU <. RO-IO, ;R., a8 re8(()= ;u=e o7 ra)$6 C>, Re=(o)a& "r(a& Cour% o7 %6e Na%(o)a& Ca(%a&

Re=(o) a8ay C(%y a) RIC+ARD U"ON res)ondents!

-NCIO!+RRRA, J.:\

In this Petition for certiorari and Prohibition$ )etitioner .lice Reyes Van Dorn see*s to set aside the Orders$ dated

Se)tember ,1$ ,974 and .ugust 4$ ,97$ in "ivil "ase No! ,;81/P$ issued by res)ondent :udge$ which denied her

Botion to Dismiss said case$ and her Botion for Reconsideration of the Dismissal Order$ res)ectively!

The basic bac*ground facts are that )etitioner is a citi6en of the Phili))ines while )rivate res)ondent is a citi6en of the

Cnited States> that they were married in @ong*ong in ,982> that$ after the marriage$ they established their residence in

the Phili))ines> that they begot two children born on .)ril $ ,984 and December ,7$ ,981$ res)ectively> that the )arties

were divorced in Nevada$ Cnited States$ in ,972> and that )etitioner has re/married also in Nevada$ this time to Theodore

Van Dorn!

Dated :une 7$ ,974$ )rivate res)ondent filed suit against )etitioner in "ivil "ase No! ,;81/P of the Regional Trial "ourt$

(ranch "V$ in Pasay "ity$ stating that )etitionerKs business in Hrmita$ Banila$ <the 0alleon Sho)$ for short=$ is con'ugal

)ro)erty of the )arties$ and as*ing that )etitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business$ and that )rivate

res)ondent be declared with right to manage the con'ugal )ro)erty! Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground




that the cause of action is barred by )revious 'udgment in the divorce )roceedings before the Nevada "ourt wherein

res)ondent had ac*nowledged that he and )etitioner had Lno community )ro)ertyL as of :une ,,$ ,972! The "ourt below

denied the Botion to Dismiss in the mentioned case on the ground that the )ro)erty involved is located in the Phili))ines

so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case! The denial is now the sub'ect of this certiorari )roceeding!

0enerally$ the denial of a Botion to Dismiss in a civil case is interlocutory and is not sub'ect to a))eal! certiorari and

Prohibition are neither the remedies to Euestion the )ro)riety of an interlocutory order of the trial "ourt! @owever$ when a

grave abuse of discretion was )atently committed$ or the lower "ourt acted ca)riciously and whimsically$ then it devolves

u)on this "ourt in a certiorari )roceeding to eAercise its su)ervisory authority and to correct the error committed which$ in

such a case$ is eEuivalent to lac* of 'urisdiction! 1 Prohibition would then lie since it would be useless and a waste of time

to go ahead with the )roceedings! 2 econsider the )etition filed in this case within the eAce)tion$ and we have given it

due course!

For resolution is the effect of the foreign divorce on the )arties and their alleged con'ugal )ro)erty in the Phili))ines!

Petitioner contends that res)ondent is esto))ed from laying claim on the alleged con'ugal )ro)erty because of the

re)resentation he made in the divorce )roceedings before the .merican "ourt that they had no community of )ro)erty>

that the 0alleon Sho) was not established through con'ugal funds$ and that res)ondentKs claim is barred by )rior 'udgment!

For his )art$ res)ondent avers that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada "ourt cannot )revail over the )rohibitive

laws of the Phili))ines and its declared national )olicy> that the acts and declaration of a foreign "ourt cannot$ es)ecially

if the same is contrary to )ublic )olicy$ divest Phili))ine "ourts of 'urisdiction to entertain matters within its 'urisdiction!

For the resolution of this case$ it is not necessary to determine whether the )ro)erty relations between )etitioner and

)rivate res)ondent$ after their marriage$ were u)on absolute or relative community )ro)erty$ u)on com)lete se)aration of

)ro)erty$ or u)on any other regime! The )ivotal fact in this case is the Nevada di/orce of the )arties!

The Nevada District "ourt$ which decreed the divorce$ had obtained 'urisdiction over )etitioner who a))eared in )erson

before the "ourt during the trial of the case! It also obtained 'urisdiction over )rivate res)ondent who$ giving his address

as No! 47, (ush Street$ San Francisco$ "alifornia$ authori6ed his attorneys in the divorce case$ Qar) 0radt td!$ to

agree to the divorce on the ground of incom)atibility in the understanding that there were neither community )ro)erty nor

community obligations! 3 .s eA)licitly stated in the Power of .ttorney he eAecuted in favor of the law firm of Q.RP

0R.D TD!$ 443 ! iberty$ Reno$ Nevada$ to re)resent him in the divorce )roceedings

AAA AAA AAA

?ou are hereby authori6ed to acce)t service of Summons$ to file an .nswer$ a))ear on my behalf and do

an things necessary and )ro)er to re)resent me$ without further contesting$ sub'ect to the following

,! That my s)ouse see*s a divorce on the ground of incom)atibility!

2! That there is no community of )ro)erty to be ad'udicated by the "ourt!

4! KIKhat there are no community obligations to be ad'udicated by the court!

AAA AAA AAA




There can be no Euestion as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the Cnited States! The decree is

binding on )rivate res)ondent as an .merican citi6en! For instance$ )rivate res)ondent cannot sue )etitioner$ as her

husband $ in any State of the Cnion! hat he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this

'urisdiction$ the same being contrary to local law and )ublic )olicy!

It is true that owing to the nationality )rinci)le embodied in .rticle ,1 of the "ivil "ode$ 5 only Phili))ine nationals are

covered by the )olicy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our conce)t of )ublic )olice and

morality! @owever$ aliens may obtain divorces abroad$ which may be recogni6ed in the Phili))ines$ )rovided they are

valid according to their national law! 4 In this case$ the divorce in Nevada released )rivate res)ondent from the marriage

from the standards of .merican law$ under which di/orce dissol/es the marriage! .s stated by the 4ederal Supreme

Court of the !nited States in Atherton /s* Atherton$ 1 ! Hd! 89$ 899

The )ur)ose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of com)etent

'urisdiction are to change the eAisting status or domestic relation of husband and wife$ and to free them

both from the bond! The marriage tie when thus severed as to one )arty$ ceases to bind either! .

husband without a wife$ or a wife without a husband$ is un*nown to the law! hen the law )rovides$ in

the nature of a )enalty! that the guilty )arty shall not marry again$ that )arty$ as well as the other$ is still

absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage!

Thus$ )ursuant to his national law$ )rivate res)ondent is no longer the husband of )etitioner! @e would have no standing

to sue in the case below as )etitionerKs husband entitled to eAercise control over con'ugal assets! .s he is bound by the

Decision of his own countryKs "ourt$ which validly eAercised 'urisdiction over him$ and whose decision he does not

re)udiate$ he is esto))ed by his own re)resentation before said "ourt from asserting his right over the alleged con'ugal

)ro)erty!

To maintain$ as )rivate res)ondent does$ that$ under our laws$ )etitioner has to be considered still married to )rivate

res)ondent and still sub'ect to a wifeKs obligations under .rticle ,;9$ et* se! of the "ivil "ode cannot be 'ust! Petitioner

should not be obliged to live together with$ observe res)ect and fidelity$ and render su))ort to )rivate res)ondent! The

latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with )ossible rights to con'ugal )ro)erty! She should not be discriminated

against in her own country if the ends of 'ustice are to be served!

@HRHFORH$ the Petition is granted$ and res)ondent :udge is hereby ordered to dismiss the "om)laint filed in "ivil

"ase No! ,;81/P of his "ourt!

ithout costs!

SO ORDHRHD!

Teehan?ee (Chairman, 5lana, Relo/a, GutierreD, $r*, "e la 4uente and 5ata=o, $$*, concur*


SUR- COUR"Banila

SH"OND DIVISION




G.R. No. 0114 ;u)e 30, 199

I-DA -ANAAYSAY IAI, )etitioner$

vs!

+ON. CORONA IAY!SO-RA, () 6er $aa$(%y a8 re8(()= ;u=e o7 %6e Re=(o)a& "r(a& Cour% o7 -a)(&a, ra)$6>><I? +ON. UIS C. <IC"OR, () 6(8 $aa$(%y a8 %6e C(%y F(8$a& o7 -a)(&a? a) RIC+ @@+ARDGIING, res)ondents!

RGAADO, J.:

.n ill/starred marriage of a Fili)ina and a foreigner which ended in a foreign absolute divorce$ only to be followed by a

criminal infidelity suit of the latter against the former$ )rovides Cs the o))ortunity to lay down a decisional rule on what

hitherto a))ears to be an unresolved 'urisdictional Euestion!

On Se)tember 8$ ,989$ )etitioner Imelda Banalaysay Pila)il$ a Fili)ino citi6en$ and )rivate res)ondent Hrich H**ehard

0eiling$ a 0erman national$ were married before the Registrar of (irths$ Barriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler in theFederal Re)ublic of 0ermany! The marriage started aus)iciously enough$ and the cou)le lived together for some time in

Balate$ Banila where their only child$ Isabella Pila)il 0eiling$ was born on .)ril 2;$ ,97;! 1

Thereafter$ marital discord set in$ with mutual recriminations between the s)ouses$ followed by a se)aration de facto

between them!

.fter about three and a half years of marriage$ such connubial disharmony eventuated in )rivate res)ondent initiating a

divorce )roceeding against )etitioner in 0ermany before the Schoneberg ocal "ourt in :anuary$ ,974! @e claimed that

there was failure of their marriage and that they had been living a)art since .)ril$ ,972! 2

Petitioner$ on the other hand$ filed an action for legal se)aration$ su))ort and se)aration of )ro)erty before the RegionalTrial "ourt of Banila$ (ranch II$ on :anuary 24$ ,974 where the same is still )ending as "ivil "ase No! 74/,1733! 3

On :anuary ,1$ ,973$ Division 2; of the Schoneberg ocal "ourt$ Federal Re)ublic of 0ermany$ )romulgated a decree of

divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the s)ouses! The custody of the child was granted to )etitioner! The

records show that under 0erman law said court was locally and internationally com)etent for the divorce )roceeding and

that the dissolution of said marriage was legally founded on and authori6ed by the a))licable law of that foreign

'urisdiction!

On :une 28$ ,973$ or more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree$ )rivate res)ondent filed two

com)laints for adultery before the "ity Fiscal of Banila alleging that$ while still married to said res)ondent$ )etitioner Lhad

an affair with a certain illiam "hia as early as ,972 and with yet another man named :esus "hua sometime in ,974L!

.ssistant Fiscal :acinto .! de los Reyes$ :r!$ after the corres)onding investigation$ recommended the dismissal of the

cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence! 5 @owever$ u)on review$ the res)ondent city fiscal a))roved a

resolution$ dated :anuary 7$ ,973$ directing the filing of two com)laints for adultery against the )etitioner! 4 The

com)laints were accordingly filed and were eventually raffled to two branches of the Regional Trial "ourt of Banila! The

case entitled K5eople of the 5hilippines /s* Imelda 5ilapil and 2illiam ChiaK, doc*eted as "riminal "ase No! 78/1241$

was assigned to (ranch VI )resided by the res)ondent 'udge> while the other case$ K5eople of the 5hilippines /s*

Imelda 5ilapil and $ames ChuaK $ doc*eted as "riminal "ase No! 78/124 went to the sala of :udge eonardo "ru6$

(ranch V$ of the same court! /




On Barch ,$ ,978$ )etitioner filed a )etition with the Secretary of :ustice as*ing that the aforesaid resolution of

res)ondent fiscal be set aside and the cases against her be dismissed! . similar )etition was filed by :ames "hua$ her

co/accused in "riminal "ase No! 78/124! The Secretary of :ustice$ through the "hief State Prosecutor$ gave due

course to both )etitions and directed the res)ondent city fiscal to inform the De)artment of :ustice Lif the accused have

already been arraigned and if not yet arraigned$ to move to defer further )roceedingsL and to elevate the entire records of

both cases to his office for review! 9

Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment and to sus)end further )roceedings

thereon! 10 .s a conseEuence$ :udge eonardo "ru6 sus)ended )roceedings in "riminal "ase No! 78/124! On the

other hand$ res)ondent 'udge merely reset the date of the arraignment in "riminal "ase No! 78/1241 to .)ril 3$ ,978!

(efore such scheduled date$ )etitioner moved for the cancellation of the arraignment and for the sus)ension of

)roceedings in said "riminal "ase No! 78/1241 until after the resolution of the )etition for review then )ending before

the Secretary of :ustice! 11 . motion to Euash was also filed in the same case on the ground of lac* of

'urisdiction$ 12 which motion was denied by the res)ondent 'udge in an order dated Se)tember 7$ ,978! The same order

also directed the arraignment of both accused therein$ that is$ )etitioner and illiam "hia! The latter entered a )lea of not

guilty while the )etitioner refused to be arraigned! Such refusal of the )etitioner being considered by res)ondent 'udge as

direct contem)t$ she and her counsel were fined and the former was ordered detained until she submitted herself for

arraignment!13

ater$ )rivate res)ondent entered a )lea of not guilty!1

On October 28$ ,978$ )etitioner filed this s)ecial civil action for certiorari and )rohibition$ with a )rayer for a tem)orary

restraining order$ see*ing the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to Euash! The )etition is

anchored on the main ground that the court is without 'urisdiction Lto try and decide the charge of adultery$ which is a

)rivate offense that cannot be )rosecuted de officio <sic=$ since the )ur)orted com)lainant$ a foreigner$ does not Eualify

as an offended s)ouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his national law )rior to his filing the criminal

com)laint!L 15

On October 2,$ ,978$ this "ourt issued a tem)orary restraining order en'oining the res)ondents from im)lementing the

aforesaid order of Se)tember 7$ ,978 and from further )roceeding with "riminal "ase No! 78/1241! SubseEuently$ on

Barch 24$ ,977 Secretary of :ustice Sedfrey .! Ordo#e6 acted on the aforesaid )etitions for review and$ u)holding

)etitionerKs ratiocinations$ issued a resolution directing the res)ondent city fiscal to move for the dismissal of the

com)laints against the )etitioner! 14

e find this )etition meritorious! The writs )rayed for shall accordingly issue!

Cnder .rticle 4 of the Revised Penal "ode$ 1/ the crime of adultery$ as well as four other crimes against chastity$

cannot be )rosecuted eAce)t u)on a sworn written com)laint filed by the offended spouse! It has long since been

established$ with unwavering consistency$ that com)liance with this rule is a 'urisdictional$ and not merely a formal$

reEuirement! 1 hile in )oint of strict law the 'urisdiction of the court over the offense is vested in it by the :udiciary aw$

the reEuirement for a sworn written com)laint is 'ust as 'urisdictional a mandate since it is that com)laint which starts the

)rosecutory )roceeding 19 and without which the court cannot eAercise its 'urisdiction to try the case!

Now$ the law s)ecifically )rovides that in )rosecutions for adultery and concubinage the )erson who can legally file the

com)laint should be the offended s)ouse$ and nobody else! Cnli*e the offenses of seduction$ abduction$ ra)e and acts of

lasciviousness$ no )rovision is made for the )rosecution of the crimes of adultery and concubinage by the )arents$

grand)arents or guardian of the offended )arty! The so/called eAclusive and successive rule in the )rosecution of the first

four offenses above mentioned do not a))ly to adultery and concubinage! It is significant that while the State$ as parens

patriae$ was added and vested by the ,971 Rules of "riminal Procedure with the )ower to initiate the criminal action for a

deceased or inca)acitated victim in the aforesaid offenses of seduction$ abduction$ ra)e and acts of lasciviousness$ in




default of her )arents$ grand)arents or guardian$ such amendment did not include the crimes of adultery and

concubinage! In other words$ only the offended s)ouse$ and no other$ is authori6ed by law to initiate the action therefor!

"orollary to such eAclusive grant of )ower to the offended s)ouse to institute the action$ it necessarily follows that such

initiator must have the status$ ca)acity or legal re)resentation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action! This

is a familiar and eA)ress rule in civil actions> in fact$ lac* of legal ca)acity to sue$ as a ground for a motion to dismiss in

civil cases$ is determined as of the filing of the com)laint or )etition!

The absence of an eEuivalent eA)licit rule in the )rosecution of criminal cases does not mean that the same reEuirement

and rationale would not a))ly! Cnderstandably$ it may not have been found necessary since criminal actions are

generally and fundamentally commenced by the State$ through the Peo)le of the Phili))ines$ the offended )arty being

merely the com)laining witness therein! @owever$ in the so/called L)rivate crimesL or those which cannot be

)rosecuted de oficio$ and the )resent )rosecution for adultery is of such genre$ the offended s)ouse assumes a more

)redominant role since the right to commence the action$ or to refrain therefrom$ is a matter eAclusively within his )ower

and o)tion!

This )olicy was ado)ted out of consideration for the aggrieved )arty who might )refer to suffer the outrage in silence

rather than go through the scandal of a )ublic trial!20

@ence$ as cogently argued by )etitioner$ .rticle 4 of the RevisedPenal "ode thus )resu))oses that the marital relationshi) is still subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal

action for$ adultery! This is a logical conseEuence since the raison dLetre of said )rovision of law would be absent where

the su))osed offended )arty had ceased to be the s)ouse of the alleged offender at the time of the filing of the criminal

case! 21

In these cases$ therefore$ it is indis)ensable that the status and ca)acity of the com)lainant to commence the action be

definitely established and$ as already demonstrated$ such status or ca)acity must indubitably eAist as of the time he

initiates the action! It would be absurd if his ca)acity to bring the action would be determined by his

status beforeor subseuent to the commencement thereof$ where such ca)acity or status eAisted )rior to but ceased

before$ or was acEuired subseEuent to but did not eAist at the time of$ the institution of the case! e would thereby have

the anomalous s)ectacle of a )arty bringing suit at the very time when he is without the legal ca)acity to do so!

To re)eat$ there does not a))ear to be any local )recedential 'uris)rudence on the s)ecific issue as to when )recisely the

status of a com)lainant as an offended s)ouse must eAist where a criminal )rosecution can be commenced only by one

who in law can be categori6ed as )ossessed of such status! Stated differently and with reference to the )resent case$ the

inEuiry >would be whether it is necessary in the commencement of a criminal action for adultery that the marital bonds

between the com)lainant and the accused be unsevered and eAisting at the time of the institution of the action by the

former against the latter!

.merican 'uris)rudence$ on cases involving statutes in that 'urisdiction which are in pari materia with ours$ yields the rule

that after a di/orce has been decreed, the innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute proceedings against the

offenders where the statute )rovides that the innocent s)ouse shall have the eAclusive right to institute a )rosecution for

adultery! here$ however$ )roceedings have been )ro)erly commenced$ a divorce subseEuently granted can have nolegal effect on the )rosecution of the criminal )roceedings to a conclusion! 22

In the cited .oftus case$ the Su)reme "ourt of Iowa held that M

KNo )rosecution for adultery can be commenced eAce)t on the com)laint of the husband or wife!K Section

942$ "ode! Though .oftus #as husband of defendant #hen the offense is said to ha/e been

committed, he had ceased to be such #hen the prosecution #as begun> and a))ellant insists that his




status was not such as to entitle him to ma*e the com)laint! e have re)eatedly said that the offense is

against the unoffending s)ouse$ as well as the state$ in eA)laining the reason for this )rovision in the

statute> and we are of the o)inion that the unoffending spouse must be such #hen the prosecution is

commenced ! <Hm)hasis su))lied!=

e see no reason why the same doctrinal rule should not a))ly in this case and in our 'urisdiction$ considering our

statutory law and 'ural )olicy on the matter! e are convinced that in cases of such nature$ the status of the com)lainant

vis/a/vis the accused must be determined as of the time the com)laint was filed! Thus$ the )erson who initiates the

adultery case must be an offended s)ouse$ and by this is meant that he is still married to the accused s)ouse$ at the time

of the filing of the com)laint!

In the )resent case$ the fact that )rivate res)ondent obtained a valid divorce in his country$ the Federal Re)ublic of

0ermany$ is admitted! Said divorce and its legal effects may be recogni6ed in the Phili))ines insofar as )rivate

res)ondent is concerned 23 in view of the nationality )rinci)le in our civil law on the matter of status of )ersons!

Thus$ in the recent case of an "orn /s* Romillo, $r*, et al*, 2 after a divorce was granted by a Cnited States court

between .lice Van Dorn'a Fili)ina$ and her .merican husband$ the latter filed a civil case in a trial court here alleging that

her business concern was con'ugal )ro)erty and )raying that she be ordered to render an accounting and that the)laintiff be granted the right to manage the business! Re'ecting his )retensions$ this "ourt )ers)icuously demonstrated

the error of such stance$ thus

There can be no Euestion as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the Cnited

States! The decree is binding on )rivate res)ondent as an .merican citi6en! For instance$ )rivate

res)ondent cannot sue )etitioner$ as her husband$ in any State of the Cnion! !!!

It is true that owing to the nationality )rinci)le embodied in .rticle ,1 of the "ivil "ode$ only Phili))ine

nationals are covered by the )olicy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our

conce)t of )ublic )olicy and morality! @owever$ aliens may obtain divorces abroad$ which may be

recogni6ed in the Phili))ines$ )rovided they are valid according to their national law! !!!

Thus$ )ursuant to his national law$ )rivate res)ondent is no longer the husband of )etitioner! @e would

have no standing to sue in the case below as )etitionerKs husband entitled to eAercise control over

con'ugal assets! !!! 25

Cnder the same considerations and rationale$ )rivate res)ondent$ being no longer the husband of )etitioner$ had no legal

standing to commence the adultery case under the im)osture that he was the offended s)ouse at the time he filed suit!

The allegation of )rivate res)ondent that he could not have brought this case before the decree of divorce for lac* of

*nowledge$ even if true$ is of no legal significance or conseEuence in this case! hen said res)ondent initiated the

divorce )roceeding$ he obviously *new that there would no longer be a family nor marriage vows to )rotect once a

dissolution of the marriage is decreed! Neither would there be a danger of introducing s)urious heirs into the family$which is said to be one of the reasons for the )articular formulation of our law on adultery$ 24 since there would

thenceforth be no s)ousal relationshi) to s)ea* of! The severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating the

former s)ouses from each other$ hence the actuations of one would not affect or cast obloEuy on the other!

The aforecited case of !nited States /s* -ata cannot be successfully relied u)on by )rivate res)ondent! In a))lying

.rticle 44 of the old Penal "ode$ substantially the same as .rticle 444 of the Revised Penal "ode$ which )unished

adultery Lalthough the marriage be afterwards declared voidL$ the "ourt merely stated that Lthe lawma*ers intended to




declare adulterous the infidelity of a married woman to her marital vows$ even though it should be made to a))ear that

she is entitled to have her marriage contract declared null and void$ until and unless she actually secures a formal 'udicia

declaration to that effectL! Definitely$ it cannot be logically inferred therefrom that the com)laint can still be filed after the

declaration of nullity because such declaration that the marriage is void ab initio is eEuivalent to stating that it never

eAisted! There being no marriage from the beginning$ any com)laint for adultery filed after said declaration of nullity

would no longer have a leg to stand on! Boreover$ what was conseEuently contem)lated and within the )urview of the

decision in said case is the situation where the criminal action for adultery was filed beforethe termination of the marriage

by a 'udicial declaration of its nullity ab initio! The same rule and reEuisite would necessarily a))ly where the termination

of the marriage was effected$ as in this case$ by a valid foreign divorce!

Private res)ondentKs invocation of "onio@Te/es, et al* /s* amenta, hereinbefore cited$ 2/ must suffer the same fate of

ina))licability! . cursory reading of said case reveals that the offended s)ouse therein had duly and seasonably filed a

com)laint for adultery$ although an issue was raised as to its sufficiency but which was resolved in favor of the

com)lainant! Said case did not involve a factual situation a*in to the one at bar or any issue determinative of the

controversy herein!

@HRHFORH$ the Euestioned order denying )etitionerKs motion to Euash is S3T ASI"3 and another one

entered"IS-ISSING the com)laint in "riminal "ase No! 78/1241 for lac* of 'urisdiction! The tem)orary restrainingorder issued in this case on October 2,$ ,978 is hereby made )ermanent!

SO ORDHRHD!

-elencio@+errera, 5adilla and Sarmiento, $$*, concur !

FIRS" DI<ISION RUIC OF "+ +IIINS, Petitioner$

G.R. No. 1530

/ versus /

Present

Davide$ :r!$ C*$*, <"hairman=$ 5uisumbing$ ?nares/Santiago$ "ar)io$ and .6cuna$ $$ !

CIRIANO ORCIDO III, Res)ondent!

Promulgated

October 1$ 2;;1

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

DCISION

QUISUMBING, J.:




0iven a valid marriage between two Fili)ino citi6ens$ where one )arty is later naturali6ed as a foreign citi6en andobtains a valid divorce decree ca)acitating him or her to remarry$ can the Fili)ino s)ouse li*ewise remarry underPhili))ine law

(efore us is a case of first im)ression that behooves the "ourt to ma*e a definite ruling on this a))arently novelEuestion$ )resented as a )ure Euestion of law!

In this )etition for review$ the Solicitor 0eneral assails the De$(8(o)[1] dated Bay ,1$ 2;;2$ of the Regional Tria"ourt of Bolave$ amboanga del Sur$ (ranch 24 and itsRe8o&u%(o)[2] dated :uly $ 2;;2 denying the motion forreconsideration! The court a uo had declared that herein res)ondent "i)riano Orbecido III is ca)acitated to remarry!The fallo of the im)ugned Decision reads

@HRHFORH$ by virtue of the )rovision of the second )aragra)h of .rt! 23 of the Family "odeand by reason of the divorce decree obtained against him by his .merican wife$ the )etitioner is giventhe ca)acity to remarry under the Phili))ine aw!

IT IS SO ORDHRHD![3]

The factual antecedents$ as narrated by the trial court$ are as follows!

On Bay 2$ ,97,$ "i)riano Orbecido III married ady Byros B! Villanueva at the Cnited "hurch of "hrist in thePhili))ines in am/an$ O6amis "ity! Their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter$ Qristoffer Simbortri6 VOrbecido and ady Qimberly V! Orbecido!

In ,973$ "i)rianoJs wife left for the Cnited States bringing along their son Qristoffer! . few years later$ "i)rianodiscovered that his wife had been naturali6ed as an .merican citi6en!

Sometime in 2;;;$ "i)riano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married acertain Innocent Stanley! She$ Stanley and her child by him currently live at 1133 .! alnut 0rove .venue$ San 0abriel"alifornia!

"i)riano thereafter filed with the trial court a )etition for authority to remarry invo*ing Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 ofthe Family "ode! No o))osition was filed! Finding merit in the )etition$ the court granted the same! The Re)ublic$ herein)etitioner$ through the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral <OS0=$ sought reconsideration but it was denied!

In this )etition$ the OS0 raises a )ure Euestion of law@HT@HR OR NOT RHSPONDHNT ".N RHB.RR? CNDHR .RTI"H 23 OF T@H F.BI? "ODH []

The OS0 contends that Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 of the Family "ode is not a))licable to the instant casebecause it only a))lies to a valid miAed marriage> that is$ a marriage celebrated between a Fili)ino citi6en and an alien!The )ro)er remedy$ according to the OS0$ is to file a )etition for annulment or for legal se)aration! [5] Furthermore$ theOS0 argues there is no law that governs res)ondentJs situation! The OS0 )osits that this is a matter of legislation andnot of 'udicial determination![4]

For his )art$ res)ondent admits that .rticle 23 is not directly a))licable to his case but insists that when his

naturali6ed alien wife obtained a divorce decree which ca)acitated her to remarry$ he is li*ewise ca)acitated by o)erationof law )ursuant to Section ,2$ .rticle II of the "onstitution![/]

.t the outset$ we note that the )etition for authority to remarry filed before the trial court actually constituted a)etition for declaratory relief! In this connection$ Section ,$ Rule 34 of the Rules of "ourt )rovides

RCH 34DH".R.TOR? RHIHF .ND SIBI.R RHBHDIHS


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn1

















Section ,! 2ho may file petitionM .ny )erson interested under a deed$ will$ contract or other written instrument$ or whose rights are affected by a statute$ eAecutive order or regulation$ ordinance$ or other governmental regulation may$ before breach or violation thereof$ bring an action in the a))ro)riateRegional Trial "ourt to determine any Euestion of construction or validity arising$ and for a declaration of his rights or duties$ thereunder!

! ! !

The reEuisites of a )etition for declaratory relief are <,= there must be a 'usticiable controversy> <2= the controversymust be between )ersons whose interests are adverse> <4= that the )arty see*ing the relief has a legal interest in thecontroversy> and <= that the issue is ri)e for 'udicial determination![]

This case concerns the a))licability of Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 to a marriage between two Fili)ino citi6enswhere one later acEuired alien citi6enshi)$ obtained a divorce decree$ and remarried while in the C!S!.! The interests othe )arties are also adverse$ as )etitioner re)resenting the State asserts its duty to )rotect the institution of marriagewhile res)ondent$ a )rivate citi6en$ insists on a declaration of his ca)acity to remarry! Res)ondent$ )raying for relief$ haslegal interest in the controversy! The issue raised is also ri)e for 'udicial determination inasmuch as when res)ondenremarries$ litigation ensues and )uts into Euestion the validity of his second marriage!

"oming now to the substantive issue$ does Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 of the Family "ode a))ly to the case ofres)ondent Necessarily$ we must dwell on how this )rovision had come about in the first )lace$ and what was the intentof the legislators in its enactment

r(e7 +(8%or($a& a$B=rou)On :uly 3$ ,978$ then President "ora6on .Euino signed into law HAecutive Order No! 2;9$ otherwise *nown as

the %Family "ode$& which too* effect on .ugust 4$ ,977! .rticle 23 thereof states .ll marriages solemni6ed outside the Phili))ines in accordance with the laws in force in the

country where they were solemni6ed$ and valid there as such$ shall also be valid in this country$ eAce)tthose )rohibited under .rticles 41$ 48$ and 47!

On :uly ,8$ ,978$ shortly after the signing of the original Family "ode$ HAecutive Order No! 228 was li*ewisesigned into law$ amending .rticles 23$ 43$ and 49 of the Family "ode! . second )aragra)h was added to .rticle 23! .sso amended$ it now )rovides

.RT! 23! .ll marriages solemni6ed outside the Phili))ines in accordance with the laws in forcein the country where they were solemni6ed$ and valid there as such$ shall also be valid in this country$eAce)t those )rohibited under .rticles 41<,=$ <=$ <1= and <3=$ 43$ 48 and 47!

2here a marriage bet#een a 4ilipino citiDen and a foreigner is /alidly celebrated and a di/orceis thereafter /alidly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the 4ilipinospouse shall ha/e capacity to remarry under 5hilippine la# ! <Hm)hasis su))lied=

On its face$ the foregoing )rovision does not a))ear to govern the situation )resented by the case at hand! I

seems to a))ly only to cases where at the time of the celebration of the marriage$ the )arties are a Fili)ino citi6en and aforeigner! The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemni6ed$ the )arties were two Fili)ino citi6ensbut later on$ the wife was naturali6ed as an .merican citi6en and subseEuently obtained a divorce granting her ca)acityto remarry$ and indeed she remarried an .merican citi6en while residing in the C!S!.!

Noteworthy$ in the Re)ort of the Public @earings [9] on the Family "ode$ the "atholic (isho)sJ "onference of thePhili))ines <"("P= registered the following ob'ections to Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23








,! The rule is discriminatory* It discriminates against those #hose spouses are 4ilipinos #hodi/orce them abroad* These spouses #ho are di/orced #ill not be able to re@marry, #hile thespouses of foreigners #ho /alidly di/orce them abroad can*

2! This is the beginning of the recognition of the validity of divorce even for Fili)ino citi6ens!For those whose foreign s)ouses validly divorce them abroad will also be considered to bevalidly divorced here and can re/marry! e )ro)ose that this be deleted and made into law only

after more wides)read consultation! <Hm)hasis su))lied!=

e=(8&a%(e I)%e)%Records of the )roceedings of the Family "ode deliberations showed that the intent of Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23

according to :udge .licia Sem)io/Diy$ a member of the"ivil "ode Revision "ommittee$ is to avoid the absurd situationwhere the Fili)ino s)ouse remains married to the alien s)ouse who$ after obtaining a divorce$ is no longer married to theFili)ino s)ouse!

Interestingly$ Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 traces its origin to the ,971 case of an "orn /* Romillo$ $r ![10] The an"orn case involved a marriage between a Fili)ino citi6en and a foreigner! The "ourt held therein that a divorce decreevalidly obtained by the alien s)ouse is valid in the Phili))ines$ and conseEuently$ the Fili)ino s)ouse is ca)acitated toremarry under Phili))ine law!

Does the same )rinci)le a))ly to a case where at the time of the celebration of the marriage$ the )arties wereFili)ino citi6ens$ but later on$ one of them obtains a foreign citi6enshi) by naturali6ation

The 'uris)rudential answer lies latent in the ,997 case of uita /* Court of Appeals*[11] In uita$ the )arties wereas in this case$ Fili)ino citi6ens when they got married! The wife became a naturali6ed .merican citi6en in ,91 andobtained a divorce in the same year! The "ourt therein hinted$ by way of obiter dictum$ that a Fili)ino divorced by hisnaturali6ed foreign s)ouse is no longer married under Phili))ine law and can thus remarry!

Thus$ ta*ing into consideration the legislative intent and a))lying the rule of reason$ we hold that Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 should be inter)reted to include cases involving )arties who$ at the time of the celebration of the marriage wereFili)ino citi6ens$ but later on$ one of them becomes naturali6ed as a foreign citi6en and obtains a divorce decree! TheFili)ino s)ouse should li*ewise be allowed to remarry as if the other )arty were a foreigner at the time of the

solemni6ation of the marriage! To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and in'ustice! here the inter)retationof a statute according to its eAact and literal im)ort would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear )ur)ose ofthe legislature$ it should be construed according to its s)irit and reason$ disregarding as far as necessary the letter of thelaw! . statute may therefore be eAtended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms$ so long as they come withinits s)irit or intent![12]

If we are to give meaning to the legislative intent to avoid the absurd situation where the Fili)ino s)ouse remainsmarried to the alien s)ouse who$ after obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the Fili)ino s)ouse$ then the instantcase must be deemed as coming within the contem)lation of Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23!

In view of the foregoing$ we state the twin elements for the a))lication of Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 as follows

,! There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Fili)ino citi6en and a

foreigner> and

2! . valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien s)ouse ca)acitating him or her to remarry!

The rec*oning )oint is not the citi6enshi) of the )arties at the time of the celebration of the marriage$ but theirciti6enshi) at the time a /alid di/orce is obtained abroad by the alien s)ouse ca)acitating the latter to remarry!











In this case$ when "i)rianoJs wife was naturali6ed as an .merican citi6en$ there was still a valid marriage thathas been celebrated between her and "i)riano! .s fate would have it$ the naturali6ed alien wife subseEuently obtained avalid divorce ca)acitating her to remarry! "learly$ the twin reEuisites for the a))lication of Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 areboth )resent in this case! Thus "i)riano$ the %divorced& Fili)ino s)ouse$ should be allowed to remarry!

e are also unable to sustain the OS0Js theory that the )ro)er remedy of the Fili)ino s)ouse is to file either a

)etition for annulment or a )etition for legal se)aration! .nnulment would be a long and tedious )rocess$ and in this)articular case$ not even feasible$ considering that the marriage of the )arties a))ears to have all the badges of validity!On the other hand$ legal se)aration would not be a sufficient remedy for it would not sever the marriage tie> hence$ thelegally se)arated Fili)ino s)ouse would still remain married to the naturali6ed alien s)ouse!

@owever$ we note that the records are bereft of com)etent evidence duly submitted by res)ondent concerning thedivorce decree and the naturali6ation of res)ondentJs wife! It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of)roving it and mere allegation is not evidence![13]

.ccordingly$ for his )lea to )ros)er$ res)ondent herein must )rove his allegation that his wife was naturali6ed as an .merican citi6en! i*ewise$ before a foreign divorce decree can be recogni6ed by our own courts$ the )arty )leading itmust )rove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it! [1] Such foreign law musalso be )roved as our courts cannot ta*e 'udicial notice of foreign laws! i*e any other fact$ such laws must be allegedand )roved![15] Furthermore$ res)ondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry ass)ecifically reEuired in .rticle 23! Otherwise$ there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is ca)acitated toenter into another marriage!

Nevertheless$ we are unanimous in our holding that Paragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 of the Family "ode <H!O! No! 2;9$ asamended by H!O! No! 228=$ should be inter)reted to allow a Fili)ino citi6en$ who has been divorced by a s)ouse who hadacEuired foreign citi6enshi) and remarried$ also to remarry! @owever$ considering that in the )resent )etition there is nosufficient evidence submitted and on record$ we are unable to declare$ based on res)ondentJs bare allegations that hiswife$ who was naturali6ed as an .merican citi6en$ had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an .merican$ thatres)ondent is now ca)acitated to remarry! Such declaration could only be made )ro)erly u)on res)ondentJs submissionof the aforecited evidence in his favor!

ACCORDINGY, the )etition by the Re)ublic of the Phili))ines is GRAN"D! The assailed Decision dated Bay,1$ 2;;2$ and Resolution dated :uly $ 2;;2$ of the Regional Trial "ourt of Bolave$ amboanga del Sur$ (ranch 24$ are

hereby S" ASID!

No )ronouncement as to costs!

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 123/1. Noeber 23, 2000]

AUA ". ORN", petitioner, vs. COUR" OF AAS a) AICIA F. ORN", respondents.

D C I S I O N

ARDO, J .#

"6e Ca8e

The case raises a conflict of laws issue!











hat is before us is an a))eal from the decision of the "ourt of .))eals +,- modifying that of the Regional Trial "ourt

"amarines Sur$ (ranch 41$ Iriga "ity +2- declaring res)ondent .licia F! lorente <herinafter referred to as %.licia&=$ as co/

owners of whatever )ro)erty she and the deceased oren6o N! lorente <hereinafter referred to as %oren6o&= may have

acEuired during the twenty/five <21= years that they lived together as husband and wife!

"6e Fa$%8

The deceased oren6o N! lorente was an enlisted serviceman of the Cnited States Navy from Barch ,;$ ,928 to

Se)tember 4;$ ,918!+4-

On February 22$ ,948$ oren6o and )etitioner Paula lorente <hereinafter referred to as %Paula&= were married

before a )arish )riest$ Roman "atholic "hurch$ in Nabua$ "amarines Sur!+-

(efore the outbrea* of the Pacific ar$ oren6o de)arted for the Cnited States and Paula stayed in the con'uga

home in barrio .nti)olo$ Nabua$ "amarines Sur!+1-

On November 4;$ ,94$ oren6o was admitted to Cnited States citi6enshi) and "ertificate of Naturali6ation No

11897,3 was issued in his favor by the Cnited States District "ourt$ Southern District of New ?or*!+3-

C)on the liberation of the Phili))ines by the .merican Forces in ,91$ oren6o was granted an accrued leave by

the C! S! Navy$ to visit his wife and he visited the Phili))ines! +8- @e discovered that his wife Paula was )regnant and was

%living in& and having an adulterous relationshi) with his brother$ "eferino lorente!+7-

On December $ ,91$ Paula gave birth to a boy registered in the Office of the Registrar of Nabua as %"risologo

lorente$& with the certificate stating that the child was not legitimate and the line for the fatherJs name was left blan*! +9-

oren6o refused to forgive Paula and live with her! In fact$ on February 2$ ,93$ the cou)le drew a written

agreement to the effect that <,= all the family allowances allotted by the Cnited States Navy as )art of oren6oJs salary

and all other obligations for PaulaJs daily maintenance and su))ort would be sus)ended> <2= they would dissolve theirmarital union in accordance with 'udicial )roceedings> <4= they would ma*e a se)arate agreement regarding their

con'ugal )ro)erty acEuired during their marital life> and <= oren6o would not )rosecute Paula for her adulterous act

since she voluntarily admitted her fault and agreed to se)arate from oren6o )eacefully! The agreement was signed by

both oren6o and Paula and was witnessed by PaulaJs father and ste)mother! The agreement was notari6ed by Notary

Public Pedro Osabel!+,;-

oren6o returned to the Cnited States and on November ,3$ ,91, filed for divorce with the Su)erior "ourt of the

State of "alifornia in and for the "ounty of San Diego! Paula was re)resented by counsel$ :ohn Riley$ and actively

)artici)ated in the )roceedings! On November 28$ ,91,$ the Su)erior "ourt of the State of "alifornia$ for the "ounty of

San Diego found all factual allegations to be true and issued an interlocutory 'udgment of divorce! +,,-

On December $ ,912$ the divorce decree became final!+,2-

In the meantime$ oren6o returned to the Phili))ines!

On :anuary ,3$ ,917$ oren6o married .licia F! lorente in Banila! +,4- .))arently$ .licia had no *nowledge of the firs

marriage even if they resided in the same town as Paula$ who did not o))ose the marriage or cohabitation! +,-


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/nov2000/124371.htm#_edn1































On Se)tember $ ,971$ Paula filed with the same court a )etition +22- for letters of administration over oren6oJs

estate in her favor! Paula contended <,= that she was oren6oJs surviving s)ouse$ <2= that the various )ro)erty were

acEuired during their marriage$ <4= that oren6oJs will dis)osed of all his )ro)erty in favor of .licia and her children$

encroaching on her legitime and ,2 share in the con'ugal )ro)erty!+24-

On December ,4$ ,971$ .licia filed in the testate )roceeding <S)! Proc! No! IR/811=$ a )etition for the issuance of

letters testamentary!+2-

On October ,$ ,971$ without terminating the testate )roceedings$ the trial court gave due course to PaulaJs )etition

in S)! Proc! No! IR/777!+21-

On November 3$ ,4 and 2;$ ,971$ the order was )ublished in the news)a)er %(icol Star&! +23-

On Bay ,7$ ,978$ the Regional Trial "ourt issued a 'oint decision$ thus

%herefore$ considering that this court has so found that the divorce decree granted to the late oren6o lorente is void

and ina))licable in the Phili))ines$ therefore the marriage he contracted with .licia Fortunato on :anuary ,3$ ,917 at

Banila is li*ewise void! This being so the )etition of .licia F! lorente for the issuance of letters testamentary isdenied! i*ewise$ she is not entitled to receive any share from the estate even if the will es)ecially said so her

relationshi) with oren6o having gained the status of )aramour which is under .rt! 849 <,=!

%On the other hand$ the court finds the )etition of Paula Titular lorente$ meritorious$ and so declares the intrinsic

dis)osition of the will of oren6o lorente dated Barch ,4$ ,97, as void and declares her entitled as con'ugal )artner and

entitled to one/half of their con'ugal )ro)erties$ and as )rimary com)ulsory heir$ Paula T! lorente is also entitled to one/

third of the estate and then one/third should go to the illegitimate children$ Raul$ u6 and (everly$ all surname <sic =

lorente$ for them to )artition in eEual shares and also entitled to the remaining free )ortion in eEual shares!

%Petitioner$ Paula lorente is a))ointed legal administrator of the estate of the deceased$ oren6o lorente! .s such let

the corres)onding letters of administration issue in her favor u)on her filing a bond in the amount <sic = of P,;;$;;;!;;conditioned for her to ma*e a return to the court within three <4= months a true and com)lete inventory of all goods$

chattels$ rights$ and credits$ and estate which shall at any time come to her )ossession or to the )ossession of any other

)erson for her$ and from the )roceeds to )ay and discharge all debts$ legacies and charges on the same$ or such

dividends thereon as shall be decreed or reEuired by this court> to render a true and 'ust account of her administration to

the court within one <,= year$ and at any other time when reEuired by the court and to )erform all orders of this court by

her to be )erformed!

%On the other matters )rayed for in res)ective )etitions for want of evidence could not be granted!

%SO ORDHRHD!&+28-

In time$ .licia filed with the trial court a motion for reconsideration of the aforeEuoted decision!+27-

On Se)tember ,$ ,978$ the trial court denied .liciaJs motion for reconsideration but modified its earlier decision$

stating that Raul and u6 lorente are not children %legitimate or otherwise& of oren6o since they were not legally

ado)ted by him!+29- .mending its decision of Bay ,7$ ,978$ the trial court declared (everly lorente as the only

illegitimate child of oren6o$ entitling her to one/third <,4= of the estate and one/third <,4= of the free )ortion of the

estate!+4;-

























On Se)tember 27$ ,978$ res)ondent a))ealed to the "ourt of .))eals!+4,-

On :uly 4,$ ,991$ the "ourt of .))eals )romulgated its decision$ affirming with modification the decision of the trial

court in this wise

%@HRHFORH$ the decision a))ealed from is hereby .FFIRBHD with the BODIFI".TION that .licia is declared as co/

owner of whatever )ro)erties she and the deceased may have acEuired during the twenty/five <21= years of cohabitation!

%SO ORDHRHD!&+42-

On .ugust 21$ ,991$ )etitioner filed with the "ourt of .))eals a motion for reconsideration of the decision!+44-

On Barch 2,$ ,993$ the "ourt of .))eals$+4- denied the motion for lac* of merit!

@ence$ this )etition!+41-

"6e I88ue

Stri))ing the )etition of its legalese and sorting through the various arguments raised$ +43- the issue is sim)le! ho

are entitled to inherit from the late oren6o N! lorente

e do not agree with the decision of the "ourt of .))eals! e remand the case to the trial court for ruling on the

intrinsic validity of the will of the deceased!

"6e A&($ab&e a

The fact that the late oren6o N! lorente became an .merican citi6en long before and at the time of <,= his divorce

from Paula> <2= marriage to .licia> <4= eAecution of his will> and <= death$ is duly established$ admitted and undis)uted!

Thus$ as a rule$ issues arising from these incidents are necessarily governed by foreign law!

The "ivil "ode clearly )rovides

%.rt! ,1! aws relating to family rights and duties$ or to the status$ condition and legal ca)acity of )ersons are binding

upon citiens o! t"e #"i$ippines$ even though living abroad!

%.rt! ,3! Real )ro)erty as well as )ersonal )ro)erty is sub'ect to the law of the country where it is situated!

%@owever$ intestate and testamentary succession$ both with res)ect to the order of succession and to the amount of

successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary )rovisions$ s"a$$ be regu$ated b% t"e nationa$ $a& o! t"e

person &"ose succession is under consideration$ whatever may be the nature of the )ro)erty and regardless of the

country wherein said )ro)erty may be found!& <emphasis ours=

True$ foreign laws do not )rove themselves in our 'urisdiction and our courts are not authori6ed to ta*e 'udicial

notice of them! i*e any other fact$ they must be alleged and )roved!+48-




















hile the substance of the foreign law was )leaded$ the "ourt of .))eals did not admit the foreign law! The "our

of .))eals and the trial court called to the fore the ren/oi doctrine$ where the case was %referred bac*& to the law of the

decedentJs domicile$ in this case$ Phili))ine law!

e note that while the trial court stated that the law of New ?or* was not sufficiently )roven$ in the same breath it

made the categorical$ albeit eEually un)roven statement that %.merican law follows the domiciliary theoryJ hence$

Phili))ine law a))lies when determining the validity of oren6oJs will!+47-

F(r8%$ there is no such thing as one .merican law! The Lnational lawL indicated in .rticle ,3 of the "ivil "ode canno

)ossibly a))ly to general .merican law! There is no such law governing the validity of testamentary )rovisions in the

Cnited States! Hach State of the union has its own law a))licable to its citi6ens and in force only within the State! It can

therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the decedent was a resident! +49- Se$o)$ there is no showing

that the a))lication of the ren/oi doctrine is called for or reEuired by New ?or* State law!

The trial court held that the will was intrinsically invalid since it contained dis)ositions in favor of .lice$ who in the

trial courtJs o)inion was a mere paramour ! The trial court threw the will out$ leaving .lice$ and her two children$ Raul and

u6$ with nothing!

The "ourt of .))eals also disregarded the will! It declared .lice entitled to one half <,2= of whatever )ro)erty she

and oren6o acEuired during their cohabitation$ a))lying .rticle , of the "ivil "ode of the Phili))ines!

The hasty a))lication of Phili))ine law and the com)lete disregard of the will$ already )robated as duly eAecuted in

accordance with the formalities of Phili))ine law$ is fatal$ especia$$% in $ig"t o! t"e !actua$ and $ega$ circumstances

"ere obtaining !

<a&((%y o7 %6e Fore(=) D(or$e

In an "orn /* Romillo, $r !+;- we held that owing to the nationality )rinci)le embodied in .rticle ,1 of the "ivil "ode

only Phili))ine nationals are covered by the )olicy against absolute divorces$ the same being considered contrary to ourconce)t of )ublic )olicy and morality! In the same case$ the "ourt ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad$ )rovided

they are valid according to their national law!

"iting this landmar* case$ the "ourt held in uita /* Court of Appeals$+,- that once )roven that res)ondent was no

longer a Fili)ino citi6en when he obtained the divorce from )etitioner$ the ruling in an "orn would become a))licable

and )etitioner could %very well lose her right to inherit& from him!

In 5ilapil /* Ibay@Somera$+2- we recogni6ed the divorce obtained by the res)ondent in his country$ the Federal

Re)ublic of 0ermany! There$ we stated that divorce and its legal effects may be recogni6ed in the Phili))ines insofar as

res)ondent is concerned in view of the nationality )rinci)le in our civil law on the status of )ersons!

For failing to a))ly these doctrines$ the decision of the "ourt of .))eals must be reversed! +4- e hold that the

divorce obtained by oren6o @! lorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recogni6ed in this 'urisdiction as a matter

of comity! Now$ the effects of this divorce <as to the succession to the estate of the decedent= are matters best left to the

determination of the trial court!

<a&((%y o7 %6e *(&&

The "ivil "ode )rovides



















%.rt! ,8! The !orms and so$emnities of contracts$ wills$ and other )ublic instruments shall be governed by the laws

of t"e countr% in &"ic" t"e% are e'ecuted *

%hen the acts referred to are eAecuted before the di)lomatic or consular officials of the Re)ublic of the Phili))ines in a

foreign country$ the solemnities established by Phili))ine laws shall be observed in their eAecution!& <underscoring ours=

The clear intent of oren6o to beEueath his )ro)erty to his second wife and children by her is glaringly shown in the

will he eAecuted! e do not wish to frustrate his wishes$ since he was a foreigner$ not covered by our laws on %family

rights and duties$ status$ condition and legal ca)acity!&+-

hether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from oren6o are issues best )roved by foreign law which

must be )leaded and )roved! hether the will was eAecuted in accordance with the formalities reEuired is answered by

referring to Phili))ine law! In fact$ the will was duly )robated!

.s a guide however$ the trial court should note that whatever )ublic )olicy or good customs may be involved in our

system of legitimes$ "ongress did not intend to eAtend the same to the succession of foreign nationals! "ongress

s)ecifically left the amount of successional rights to the decedentKs national law!+1-

@aving thus ruled$ we find it unnecessary to )ass u)on the other issues raised!

"6e Fa&&o

*+RFOR$ the )etition is 0R.NTHD! The decision of the "ourt of .))eals in "./0! R! SP No! ,83

)romulgated on :uly 4,$ ,991 is SHT .SIDH!

In lieu thereof$ the "ourt RHVHRSHS the decision of the Regional Trial "ourt and RH"O0NIHS as V.ID the

decree of divorce granted in favor of the deceased oren6o N! lorente by the Su)erior "ourt of the State of "alifornia in

and for the "ounty of San Diego$ made final on December $ ,912!

Further$ the "ourt RHB.NDS the cases to the court of origin for determination of the intrinsic validity of oren6o N!

lorenteJs will and determination of the )artiesJ successional rights allowing )roof of foreign law with instructions that the

trial court shall )roceed with all deliberate dis)atch to settle the estate of the deceased within the framewor* of the Rules

of "ourt!

No costs!

SCOND DI<ISION

RHPC(I" OF T@H P@IIPPINHS$ P e t i t i o n e r $

0!R! No! ,12188

Present

PCNO$








/ /ersus/

"R.SCS ! I?O?$

R e s ) o n d e n t!

"hairman$

.CSTRI./B.RTINH$

".H:O$ SR!$

TIN0.$ and

"@I"O/N..RIO$ $$ !

Promulgated

Se)tember 2,$ 2;;1

A/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /A

" 3 C I S I O N

C+ICO!NAEARIO, J .#

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 1 of the Rules of "ourt$ )etitioner Re)ublic of thePhili))ines$ re)resented by the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral$ )rays for the reversal of the Decision of the "ourt of

.))eals in "./0!R! "V No! 32149$ dated 4; :uly 2;;,$+,- affirming the :udgment of the Regional Trial "ourt <RT"= of"ebu "ity$ (ranch 22$ in "ivil "ase No! "H(/2;;88$ dated 4; October ,997$+2- declaring the marriage betweenres)ondent "rasus ! Iyoy and Fely .da Rosal/Iyoy null and void on the basis of .rticle 43 of the Family "ode of thePhili))ines!

The )roceedings before the RT" commenced with the filing of a "om)laint +4- for declaration of nullity of marriageby res)ondent "rasus on 21 Barch ,998! .ccording to the said "om)laint$ res)ondent "rasus married Fely on ,3December ,93, at (radford Bemorial "hurch$ :ones .venue$ "ebu "ity! .s a result of their union$ they had five children

G "rasus$ :r!$ Da)hne$ Debbie$ "alvert$ and "arlos G who are now all of legal ages! .fter the celebration of theimarriage$ res)ondent "rasus discovered that Fely was %hot/tem)ered$ a nagger and eAtravagant!& In ,97$ Fely left thePhili))ines for the Cnited States of .merica <C!S!.!=$ leaving all of their five children$ the youngest then being only siA

years old$ to the care of res)ondent "rasus! (arely a year after Fely left for the C!S!.!$ res)ondent "rasus received aletter from her reEuesting that he sign the enclosed divorce )a)ers> he disregarded the said reEuest! Sometime in ,971res)ondent "rasus learned$ through the letters sent by Fely to their children$ that Fely got married to an .merican$ withwhom she eventually had a child! In ,978$ Fely came bac* to the Phili))ines with her .merican family$ staying at "ebuPla6a @otel in "ebu "ity! Res)ondent "rasus did not bother to tal* to Fely because he was afraid he might not be ableto bear the sorrow and the )ain she had caused him! Fely returned to the Phili))ines several times more in ,99;$ fothe wedding of their eldest child$ "rasus$ :r!> in ,992$ for the brain o)eration of their fourth child$ "alvert> and in ,991$ forun*nown reasons! Fely continued to live with her .merican family in New :ersey$ C!S!.! She had been o)enly using thesurname of her .merican husband in the Phili))ines and in the C!S!.! For the wedding of "rasus$ :r!$ Fely herself had


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn1









invitations made in which she was named as %Brs! Fely .da Bic*lus!& .t the time the "om)laint was filed$ it had been ,4years since Fely left and abandoned res)ondent "rasus$ and there was no more )ossibility of reconciliation betweenthem! Res)ondent "rasus finally alleged in his "om)laint that FelyJs acts brought danger and dishonor to the family$ andclearly demonstrated her )sychological inca)acity to )erform the essential obligations of marriage! Such inca)acitybeing incurable and continuing$ constitutes a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under .rticle 43$ in relation to

.rticles 37$ 8;$ and 82$ of the Family "ode of the Phili))ines!

Fely filed her .nswer and "ounterclaim+- with the RT" on ;1 :une ,998! She asserted therein that she wasalready an .merican citi6en since ,977 and was now married to Ste)hen Bic*lus! hile she admitted being)reviously married to res)ondent "rasus and having five children with him$ Fely refuted the other allegations madeby res)ondent "rasus in his "om)laint! She eA)lained that she was no more hot/tem)ered than any normal )ersonand she may had been indignant at res)ondent "rasus on certain occasions but it was because of the latterJsdrun*enness$ womani6ing$ and lac* of sincere effort to find em)loyment and to contribute to the maintenance of theirhousehold! She could not have been eAtravagant since the family hardly had enough money for basic needs!Indeed$ Fely left for abroad for financial reasons as res)ondent "rasus had no 'ob and what she was then earning asthe sole breadwinner in the Phili))ines was insufficient to su))ort their family! .lthough she left all of her childrenwith res)ondent "rasus$ she continued to )rovide financial su))ort to them$ as well as$ to res)ondent "rasus!SubseEuently$ Fely was able to bring her children to the C!S!.!$ eAce)t for one$ "alvert$ who had to stay behind for

medical reasons! hile she did file for divorce from res)ondent "rasus$ she denied having herself sent a letter tores)ondent "rasus reEuesting him to sign the enclosed divorce )a)ers! .fter securing a divorce from res)onden"rasus$ Fely married her .merican husband and acEuired .merican citi6enshi)! She argued that her marriage to he

.merican husband was legal because now being an .merican citi6en$ her status shall be governed by the law of her)resent nationality! Fely also )ointed out that res)ondent "rasus himself was )resently living with another womanwho bore him a child! She also accused res)ondent "rasus of misusing the amount of P9;$;;;!;; which sheadvanced to him to finance the brain o)eration of their son$ "alvert! On the basis of the foregoing$ Fely also )rayedthat the RT" declare her marriage to res)ondent "rasus null and void> and that res)ondent "rasus be ordered to)ay to Fely the P9;$;;;!;; she advanced to him$ with interest$ )lus$ moral and eAem)lary damages$ attorneyJs feesand litigation eA)enses!

.fter res)ondent "rasus and Fely had filed their res)ective Pre/Trial (riefs$+1- the RT" afforded both )arties the

o))ortunity to )resent their evidence! Petitioner Re)ublic )artici)ated in the trial through the Provincial Prosecutor of

"ebu!+3-

Res)ondent "rasus submitted the following )ieces of evidence in su))ort of his "om)laint <,= his own testimonyon ;7 Se)tember ,998$ in which he essentially reiterated the allegations in his "om)laint>+8- <2= the "ertification$ dated ,4

.)ril ,979$ by the @ealth De)artment of "ebu "ity$ on the recording of the Barriage "ontract between res)onden"rasus and Fely in the Register of Deeds$ such marriage celebration ta*ing )lace on ,3 December ,93,> +7- and <4= theinvitation to the wedding of "rasus$ :r!$ their eldest son$ wherein Fely o)enly used her .merican husbandJs surname$Bic*lus!+9-

FelyJs counsel filed a Notice$+,;- and$ later on$ a Botion$+,,- to ta*e the de)osition of witnesses$ namely$ Fely and her

children$ "rasus$ :r! and Da)hne$ u)on written interrogatories$ before the consular officers of the Phili))ines in New ?or*and "alifornia$ C!S!.$ where the said witnesses reside! Des)ite the Orders+,2- and "ommissions+,4-issued by the RT" tothe Phili))ine "onsuls of New ?or* and "alifornia$ C!S!.!$ to ta*e the de)ositions of the witnesses u)on writteninterrogatories$ not a single de)osition was ever submitted to the RT"! Ta*ing into account that it had been over a yeasince res)ondent "rasus had )resented his evidence and that Fely failed to eAert effort to have the case )rogress$ theRT" issued an Order$ dated ;1 October ,997$+,- considering Fely to have waived her right to )resent her evidence! Thecase was thus deemed submitted for decision!

































Not long after$ on 4; October ,997$ the RT" )romulgated its :udgment declaring the marriage of res)onden"rasus and Fely null and void ab initio$ on the basis of the following findings G

The ground bearing defendantJs )sychological inca)acity deserves a reasonable consideration! .s observed$ )laintiffJs testimony is decidedly credible! The "ourt finds that defendant had indeed

eAhibited unmista*able signs of )sychological inca)acity to com)ly with her marital duties such asstriving for family unity$ observing fidelity$ mutual love$ res)ect$ hel) and su))ort! From the evidence)resented$ )laintiff adeEuately established that the defendant )ractically abandoned him! She obtaineda divorce decree in the Cnited States of .merica and married another man and has establish + sic -another family of her own! Plaintiff is in an anomalous situation$ wherein he is married to a wife who isalready married to another man in another country!

DefendantJs intolerable traits may not have been a))arent or manifest before the marriage$ theF.BI? "ODH nonetheless allows the annulment of the marriage )rovided that these were eventuallymanifested after the wedding! It a))ears to be the case in this instance!

"ertainly defendantJs )osture being an irres)onsible wife erringly reveals her very low regard for that sacred and inviolable institution of marriage which is the foundation of human society throughout thecivili6ed world! It is Euite evident that the defendant is bereft of the mind$ will and heart to com)ly withher marital obligations$ such inca)acity was already there at the time of the marriage in Euestion isshown by defendantJs own attitude towards her marriage to )laintiff!

In sum$ the ground invo*ed by )laintiff which is defendantJs )sychological inca)acity to com)lywith the essential marital obligations which already eAisted at the time of the marriage in Euestion hasbeen satisfactorily )roven! The evidence in herein case establishes the irres)onsibility of defendant Fely

.da Rosal Iyoy$ firmly!

0oing over )laintiffJs testimony which is decidedly credible$ the "ourt finds that the defendanthad indeed eAhibited unmista*able signs of such )sychological inca)acity to com)ly with her maritalobligations! These are her eAcessive dis)osition to material things over and above the marital stability!That such inca)acity was already there at the time of the marriage in Euestion is shown by defendantJsown attitude towards her marriage to )laintiff! .nd for these reasons there is a legal ground to declarethe marriage of )laintiff "rasus ! Iyoy and defendant Fely .da Rosal Iyoy null and void ab initio!+,1-

Petitioner Re)ublic$ believing that the afore/Euoted :udgment of the RT" was contrary to law and evidence$ filedan a))eal with the "ourt of .))eals! The a))ellate court$ though$ in its Decision$ dated 4; :uly 2;;,$ affirmed thea))ealed :udgment of the RT"$ finding no reversible error therein! It even offered additional ratiocination for declaringthe marriage between res)ondent "rasus and Fely null and void$ to wit G







II! The "ourt of .))eals has decided Euestions of substance not in accord with law and 'uris)rudence considering that the "ourt of .))eals committed serious errors of law in ruling that .rticle23$ )aragra)h 2 of the Family "ode is ina))licable to the case at bar !+,7-

In his "omment+,9- to the Petition$ res)ondent "rasus maintained that FelyJs )sychological inca)acity wasclearly established after a full/blown trial$ and that )aragra)h 2 of .rticle 23 of the Family "ode of the Phili))ines wasindeed a))licable to the marriage of res)ondent "rasus and Fely$ because the latter had already become an

.merican citi6en! @e further Euestioned the )ersonality of )etitioner Re)ublic$ re)resented by the Office of theSolicitor 0eneral$ to institute the instant Petition$ because .rticle 7 of the Family "ode of the Phili))ines authori6esthe )rosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the trial court$ not the Solicitor 0eneral$ to intervene on behalf of theState$ in )roceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages!

.fter having reviewed the records of this case and the a))licable laws and 'uris)rudence$ this "ourt finds theinstant Petition to be meritorious!

I

The totality of e/idence presented during trial is insufficient to support the finding of psychological incapacity of 4ely*

.rticle 43$ concededly one of the more controversial )rovisions of the Family "ode of the Phili))ines$ reads G

.RT! 43! . marriage contracted by any )arty who$ at the time of the celebration$ was

)sychologically inca)acitated to com)ly with the essential marital obligations of marriage$ shall li*ewisebe void even if such inca)acity becomes manifest only after its solemni6ation!

Issues most commonly arise as to what constitutes )sychological inca)acity! In a series of cases$ this "ourt laid downguidelines for determining its eAistence!

In Santos /* Court of Appeals$+2;- the term )sychological inca)acity was defined$ thus G

%! ! ! +P-sychological inca)acity& should refer to no less than a mental <not )hysical= inca)acitythat causes a )arty to be truly cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must beassumed and discharged by the )arties to the marriage which$ as so eA)ressed by .rticle 37 of theFamily "ode$ include their mutual obligations to live together$ observe love$ res)ect and fidelity and

render hel) and su))ort! There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confinethe meaning of %)sychological inca)acity& to the most serious cases of )ersonality disorders clearlydemonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage! This)sychological condition must eAist at the time the marriage is celebratedU+2,-













The )sychological inca)acity must be characteri6ed by G

<a= 0ravity G It must be grave or serious such that the )arty would be inca)able of carrying out the

ordinary duties reEuired in a marriage>

<b= :uridical .ntecedence G It must be rooted in the history of the )arty antedating the marriage$ althoughthe overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage> and

<c= Incurability G It must be incurable or$ even if it were otherwise$ the cure would be beyond the meansof the )arty involved!+22-

Bore definitive guidelines in the inter)retation and a))lication of .rticle 43 of the Family "ode of the Phili))ineswere handed down by this "ourt in Republic /* Court of Appeals and -olina$+24- which$ although Euite lengthy$ by itssignificance$ deserves to be re)roduced below G

<,= The burden of )roof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the )laintiff! .ny doubtshould be resolved in favor of the eAistence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolutionand nullity! This is rooted in the fact that both our "onstitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family! Thus$ our "onstitution devotes an entire .rticle on the Family$recogni6ing it %as the foundation of the nation!& It decrees marriage as legally %inviolable$& thereby)rotecting it from dissolution at the whim of the )arties! (oth the family and marriage are to be%)rotected& by the state!

The Family "ode echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and em)hasi6estheir )ermanence$ inviolability and solidarity!

<2= The root cause of the )sychological inca)acity must be <a= medically or clinically identified$<b= alleged in the com)laint$ <c= sufficiently )roven by eA)erts and <d= clearly eA)lained in the decision!

.rticle 43 of the Family "ode reEuires that the inca)acity must be )sychological / not )hysical$ althoughits manifestations andor sym)toms may be )hysical! The evidence must convince the court that the)arties$ or one of them$ was mentally or )sychically ill to such an eAtent that the )erson could not have*nown the obligations he was assuming$ or *nowing them$ could not have given valid assum)tionthereof! .lthough no eAam)le of such inca)acity need be given here so as not to limit the a))lication of the )rovision under the )rinci)le of e=usdem generis$ nevertheless such root cause must be identified asa )sychological illness and its inca)acitating nature fully eA)lained! HA)ert evidence may be given byEualified )sychiatrists and clinical )sychologists!

<4= The inca)acity must be )roven to be eAisting at %the time of the celebration& of the marriage!The evidence must show that the illness was eAisting when the )arties eAchanged their %I doKs!& Themanifestation of the illness need not be )erceivable at such time$ but the illness itself must haveattached at such moment$ or )rior thereto!

<= Such inca)acity must also be shown to be medically or clinically )ermanent or incurable!Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other s)ouse$ not necessarily








absolutely against everyone of the same seA! Furthermore$ such inca)acity must be relevant to theassum)tion of marriage obligations$ not necessarily to those not related to marriage$ li*e the eAercise of a )rofession or em)loyment in a 'obU

<1= Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the )arty to assume the

essential obligations of marriage! Thus$ %mild characteriological )eculiarities$ mood changes$ occasionalemotional outbursts& cannot be acce)ted as root causes! The illness must be shown as downrightinca)acity or inability$ not a refusal$ neglect or difficulty$ much less ill will! In other words$ there is a natalor su)ervening disabling factor in the )erson$ an adverse integral element in the )ersonality structurethat effectively inca)acitates the )erson from really acce)ting and thereby com)lying with the obligationsessential to marriage!

<3= The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by .rticles 37 u) to 8, of theFamily "ode as regards the husband and wife as well as .rticles 22;$ 22, and 221 of the same "ode inregard to )arents and their children! Such non/com)lied marital obligation<s= must also be stated in the)etition$ )roven by evidence and included in the teAt of the decision!

<8= Inter)retations given by the National .))ellate Batrimonial Tribunal of the "atholic "hurch inthe Phili))ines$ while not controlling or decisive$ should be given great res)ect by our courtsU

<7= The trial court must order the )rosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor 0eneral toa))ear as counsel for the state! No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor 0eneral issues acertification$ which will be Euoted in the decision$ briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or o))osition$ as the case may be$ to the )etition! The Solicitor 0eneral$ along with the )rosecutingattorney$ shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen <,1= days from the date the case isdeemed submitted for resolution of the court! The Solicitor 0eneral shall discharge the eEuivalent

function of the defensor /inculi contem)lated under "anon ,;91!+2-

. later case$ -arcos /* -arcos$+21- further clarified that there is no reEuirement that the defendantres)ondens)ouse should be )ersonally eAamined by a )hysician or )sychologist as a condition sine ua non for the declaration onullity of marriage based on )sychological inca)acity! Such )sychological inca)acity$ however$ must be established bythe totality of the evidence )resented during the trial!

Csing the guidelines established by the afore/mentioned 'uris)rudence$ this "ourt finds that the totality ofevidence )resented by res)ondent "rasus failed miserably to establish the alleged )sychological inca)acity of hiswife Fely> therefore$ there is no basis for declaring their marriage null and void under .rticle 43 of the Family "ode ofthe Phili))ines!

The only substantial evidence )resented by res)ondent "rasus before the RT" was his testimony$ which canbe easily )ut into Euestion for being self/serving$ in the absence of any other corroborating evidence! @e submittedonly two other )ieces of evidence <,= the "ertification on the recording with the Register of Deeds of the Barriage"ontract between res)ondent "rasus and Fely$ such marriage being celebrated on ,3 December ,93,> and <2= theinvitation to the wedding of "rasus$ :r!$ their eldest son$ in which Fely used her .merican husbandJs surname! Hvenconsidering the admissions made by Fely herself in her .nswer to res)ondent "rasusJs "om)laint filed with the RT"the evidence is not enough to convince this "ourt that Fely had such a grave mental illness that )revented her fromassuming the essential obligations of marriage!









It is worthy to em)hasi6e that .rticle 43 of the Family "ode of the Phili))ines contem)lates downrightinca)acity or inability to ta*e cogni6ance of and to assume the basic marital obligations> not a mere refusal$ neglector difficulty$ much less$ ill will$ on the )art of the errant s)ouse! +23- Irreconcilable differences$ conflicting )ersonalitiesemotional immaturity and irres)onsibility$ )hysical abuse$ habitual alcoholism$ seAual infidelity or )erversion$ andabandonment$ by themselves$ also do not warrant a finding of )sychological inca)acity under the said .rticle! +28-

.s has already been stressed by this "ourt in )revious cases$ .rticle 43 %is not to be confused with a divorcelaw that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves! It refers to a serious)sychological illness afflicting a )arty even before the celebration of marriage! It is a malady so grave and so)ermanent as to de)rive one of awareness of the duties and res)onsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about toassume!&+27-

The evidence may have )roven that Fely committed acts that hurt and embarrassed res)ondent "rasus and

the rest of the family! @er hot/tem)er$ nagging$ and eAtravagance> her abandonment of res)ondent "rasus> hermarriage to an .merican> and even her flaunting of her .merican family and her .merican surname$ may indeed bemanifestations of her alleged inca)acity to com)ly with her marital obligations> nonetheless$ the root cause for suchwas not identified! If the root cause of the inca)acity was not identified$ then it cannot be satisfactorily established asa )sychological or mental defect that is serious or grave> neither could it be )roven to be in eAistence at the time of celebration of the marriage> nor that it is incurable! hile the )ersonal eAamination of Fely by a )sychiatrist or)sychologist is no longer mandatory for the declaration of nullity of their marriage under .rticle 43 of the Family "ode

of the Phili))ines$ by virtue of this "ourtJs ruling in -arcos /* -arcos$+29- res)ondent "rasus must still have com)liedwith the reEuirement laid down in Republic /* Court of Appeals and -olina+4;- that the root cause of the inca)acity beidentified as a )sychological illness and that its inca)acitating nature be fully eA)lained!

In any case$ any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage! +4,- No less than the"onstitution of ,978 sets the )olicy to )rotect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution and marriageas the foundation of the family!+42-

II Article %), paragraph % of the 4amily Code of the 5hilippines is not applicable to the case at bar*

.ccording to .rticle 23$ )aragra)h 2 of the Family "ode of the Phili))ines G

here a marriage between a Fili)ino citi6en and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce isthereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien s)ouse ca)acitating him or her to remarry$ the Fili)inos)ouse shall li*ewise have ca)acity to remarry under Phili))ine law!

.s it is worded$ .rticle 23$ )aragra)h 2$ refers to a s)ecial situation wherein one of the cou)le getting

married is a Fili)ino citi6en and the other a foreigner at the time the marriage was celebrated! y (%8 &a() a)&(%era& ()%erre%a%(o), %6e 8a( ro(8(o) $a))o% be a&(e %o %6e $a8e o7 re8o)e)% Cra8u8 a) 6(8 (7e Fe&ybe$au8e a% %6e %(e Fe&y ob%a()e 6er (or$e, 86e a8 8%(&& a F(&(()o $(%(e) ! .lthough the eAact date was noestablished$ Fely herself admitted in her .nswer filed before the RT" that she obtained a divorce from res)ondent"rasus sometime after she left for the Cnited States () 19$ after which she married her .merican husband in,971! In the same .nswer$ she alleged that she had been an .merican citi6en 8()$e 19! .t the time she filed fodivorce$ Fely was 8%(&& a F(&(()o $(%(e)$ and )ursuant to the nationality )rinci)le embodied in .rticle ,1 of the "ivi"ode of the Phili))ines$ she was still bound by Phili))ine laws on family rights and duties$ status$ condition$ andlegal ca)acity$ even when she was already living abroad! Phili))ine laws$ then and even until now$ do not allow andrecogni6e divorce between Fili)ino s)ouses! Thus$ Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from res)onden"rasus!




















III

The Solicitor General is authoriDed to inter/ene, on behalf of the Republic, in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages*

Invo*ing .rticle 7 of the Family "ode of the Phili))ines$ res)ondent "rasus argued that only the)rosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to the RT" may intervene on behalf of the State in )roceedings for annulmentor declaration of nullity of marriages> hence$ the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral had no )ersonality to file the instantPetition on behalf of the State! .rticle 7 )rovides G

.RT! 7! In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage$ the "ourt shall

order the )rosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to a))ear on behalf of the State to ta*e ste)s to)revent collusion between the )arties and to ta*e care that the evidence is not fabricated or su))ressed!

That .rticle 7 does not eA)ressly mention the Solicitor 0eneral does not bar him or his Office from interveningin )roceedings for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages! HAecutive Order No! 292$ otherwise *nown as the

.dministrative "ode of ,978$ a))oints the Solicitor 0eneral as the )rinci)al law officer and legal defender of the0overnment!+44- @is Office is tas*ed to re)resent the 0overnment of the Phili))ines$ its agencies andinstrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation$ )roceeding$ investigation or matter reEuiring theservices of lawyers! The Office of the Solicitor 0eneral shall constitute the law office of the 0overnment and$ assuch$ shall discharge duties reEuiring the services of lawyers!+4-

The intent of .rticle 7 of the Family "ode of the Phili))ines is to ensure that the interest of the State isre)resented and )rotected in )roceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages by )reventingcollusion between the )arties$ or the fabrication or su))ression of evidence> and$ bearing in mind that the Solicitor0eneral is the )rinci)al law officer and legal defender of the land$ then his intervention in such )roceedings could

only serve and contribute to the reali6ation of such intent$ rather than thwart it!

Furthermore$ the general rule is that only the Solicitor 0eneral is authori6ed to bring or defend actions onbehalf of the Peo)le or the Re)ublic of the Phili))ines once the case is brought before this "ourt or the "ourt of

.))eals!+41- hile it is the )rosecuting attorney or fiscal who actively )artici)ates$ on behalf of the State$ in a)roceeding for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage before the RT"$ the Office of the Solicitor 0enerata*es over when the case is elevated to the "ourt of .))eals or this "ourt! Since it shall be eventually res)onsiblefor ta*ing the case to the a))ellate courts when circumstances demand$ then it is only reasonable and )ractical thateven while the )roceeding is still being held before the RT"$ the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral can already eAercisesu)ervision and control over the conduct of the )rosecuting attorney or fiscal therein to better guarantee the)rotection of the interests of the State!

In fact$ this "ourt had already recogni6ed and affirmed the role of the Solicitor 0eneral in several cases for

annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages that were a))ealed before it$ summari6ed as follows in the caseof Ancheta /* Ancheta+43- G

In the case of Republic /* Court of Appeals +237 S"R. ,97 <,998=-$ this "ourt laid down theguidelines in the inter)retation and a))lication of .rt! 7 of the Family "ode$ one of which concerns therole of the )rosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor 0eneral to a))ear as counsel for the State

<7= The trial court must order the )rosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor 0eneral to a))ear as counsel for the state! No decision shall be handed down unless














the Solicitor 0eneral issues a certification$ which will be Euoted in the decision$ brieflystating therein his reasons for his agreement or o))osition$ as the case may be$ to the)etition! The Solicitor 0eneral$ along with the )rosecuting attorney$ shall submit to thecourt such certification within fifteen <,1= days from the date the case is deemedsubmitted for resolution of the court! The Solicitor 0eneral shall discharge theeEuivalent function of the defensor /inculi contem)lated under "anon ,;91! +Id*$ at 2,4- This "ourt in the case of -alcampo@Sin /* Sin +411 S"R. 271 <2;;,=- reiterated its

)ronouncement in Republic /* Court of Appeals +Supra*- regarding the role of the )rosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor 0eneral to a))ear as counsel for the StateU+48-

Finally$ the issuance of this "ourt of the Rule on Declaration of .bsolute Nullity of Void Barriages and .nnulment of Voidable Barriages$+47- which became effective on ,1 Barch 2;;4$ should dis)el any other doubts ofres)ondent "rasus as to the authority of the Solicitor 0eneral to file the instant Petition on behalf of the State! TheRule recogni6es the authority of the Solicitor 0eneral to intervene and ta*e )art in the )roceedings for annulmentand declaration of nullity of marriages before the RT" and on a))eal to higher courts! The )ertinent )rovisions othe said Rule are re)roduced below G

Sec! 1! Contents and form of petition* G U <= It shall be filed in siA co)ies! The )etitioner shall serve a co)y of the )etition on the Office of

the Solicitor 0eneral and the Office of the "ity or Provincial Prosecutor$ within five days from the date of its filing and submit to the court )roof of such service within the same )eriod!

U Sec! ,7! -emoranda* G The court may reEuire the )arties and the )ublic )rosecutor$ in

consultation with the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral$ to file their res)ective memoranda in su))ort of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated! It may reEuire the Office of the Solicitor 0eneral to file its own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to the State! No other )leadings

or )a)ers may be submitted without leave of court! .fter the la)se of the )eriod herein )rovided$ thecase will be considered submitted for decision$ with or without the memoranda!

Sec! ,9! "ecision* G U <2= The )arties$ including the Solicitor 0eneral and the )ublic )rosecutor$ shall be served with

co)ies of the decision )ersonally or by registered mail! If the res)ondent summoned by )ublicationfailed to a))ear in the action$ the dis)ositive )art of the decision shall be )ublished once in a news)a)er of general circulation!

<4= The decision becomes final u)on the eA)iration of fifteen days from notice to the )arties!Hntry of 'udgment shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial$ or a))eal is filed by any of the )arties$ the )ublic )rosecutor$ or the Solicitor 0eneral!

U

Sec! 2;! Appeal* G U









<2= Notice of Appeal* G .n aggrieved )arty or the Solicitor 0eneral may a))eal from the decisionby filing a Notice of .))eal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial! The a))ellant shall serve a co)y of the notice of a))eal on the adverse )arties!

0iven the foregoing$ this "ourt arrives at a conclusion contrary to those of the RT" and the "ourt of .))eals$ andsustains the validity and eAistence of the marriage between res)ondent "rasus and Fely! .t most$ FelyJs abandonmentseAual infidelity$ and bigamy$ give res)ondent "rasus grounds to file for legal se)aration under .rticle 11 of the Family"ode of the Phili))ines$ but not for declaration of nullity of marriage under .rticle 43 of the same "ode! hile this "ourcommiserates with res)ondent "rasus for being continuously shac*led to what is now a ho)eless and loveless marriagethis is one of those situations where neither law nor society can )rovide the s)ecific answer to every individual )roblem!+49-

@HRHFORH$ the Petition is 0R.NTHD and the assailed Decision of the "ourt of .))eals in "./0!R! "V No32149$ dated 4; :uly 2;;,$ affirming the :udgment of the RT" of "ebu "ity$ (ranch 22$ in "ivil "ase No! "H(/2;;88$dated 4; October ,997$ is RHVHRSHD and SHT .SIDH!The marriage of res)ondent "rasus ! Iyoy and Fely .da Rosal/Iyoy remains valid and subsisting!

Reub&($ o7 %6e 6(&(()e8

Suree Cour%

-a)(&a

"+IRD DI<ISION

-ANU G. A-OR, G.R. No. 1/9420

Petitioner$

Present

?N.RHS/S.NTI.0O$ $*,

@ /ersus @ Chairperson,

.CSTRI./B.RTINH$

"@I"O/N..RIO$

N."@CR.$ and

"+ +ON. RGIONA "RIA RH?HS$ $$ !






COUR" OF AS IÑAS CI"Y,

RANC+ 25, a) Promulgated

ONIDA ". A-OR,

Res)ondent! .ugust 23$ 2;;7

A / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / A

D C I S I O N

RYS, R."., J .#

B.RRI.0H$ in its totality$ involves the s)ousesJ right to the community of their whole lives! It li*ewise involves a

true intertwining of )ersonalities!+,-

This is a )etition for review on certiorari of the Decision+2- of the "ourt of .))eals <".= denying the )etition forannulment of 'udgment and affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial "ourt <RT"=$ as Pi#as$ (ranch 21! The". dismissed outright the Rule 8 )etition for being the wrong remedy!

"6e Fa$%8

Petitioner Banuel 0! .lmelor <Banuel= and res)ondent eonida Trinidad <eonida= were married on :anuary 29,979 at the Banila "athedral!+4- Their union bore threechildren <,= Baria Paulina "orinne$ born on October 2;$ ,979> <2Na)oleon Banuel$ born on .ugust 9$ ,99,> and <4= Banuel @omer$ born on :uly $ ,99! +- Banuel and eonida areboth medical )ractitioners$ an anesthesiologist and a )ediatrician$ res)ectively!+1-


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/august2008/179620.htm#_ftn1













.fter eleven <,,= years of marriage$ eonida filed a )etition with the RT" in as Pi#as "ity to annul theimarriage on the ground that Banuel was )sychologically inca)acitated to )erform his marital obligations! The casedoc*eted as P/;;/;,42 was raffled off to (ranch 21!

During the trial$ eonida testified that she first met Banuel in ,97, at the San a6aro @os)ital where they wor*ed

as medical student cler*s! .t that time$ she regarded Banuel as a very thoughtful )erson who got along well with othe)eo)le! They soon became sweethearts! Three years after$ they got married!+3-

eonida averred that BanuelJs *ind and gentle demeanor did not last long! In the )ublic eye$ Banuel was the)icture of a )erfect husband and father! This was not the case in his )rivate life! .t home$ eonida described Banueas a harsh disci)linarian$ unreasonably meticulous$ easily angered! BanuelJs unreasonable way of im)osing disci)lineon their children was the cause of their freEuent fights as a cou)le!+8- eonida com)lained that this was in star* contrasto the alleged lavish affection Banuel has for his mother! BanuelJs dee) attachment to his mother and his de)endenceon her decision/ma*ing were incom)rehensible to eonida! +7-

Further adding to her woes was his concealment to her of his homoseAuality! @er sus)icions were firsaroused when she noticed BanuelJs )eculiar closeness to his male com)anions! For instance$ she caught him in anindiscreet tele)hone conversation manifesting his affection for a male caller!+9- She also found several )ornogra)hichomoseAual materials in his )ossession! +,;- @er worse fears were confirmed when she saw Banuel *issed another manon the li)s! The man was a certain Dr! Nogales!+,,- hen she confronted Banuel$ he denied everything! .t this )ointeonida too* her children and left their con'ugal abode! Since then$ Banuel sto))ed giving su))ort to their children!+,2-

Dr! Valentina del Fonso 0arcia$ a clinical )sychologist$ was )resented to )rove eonidaJs claim! Dr! del Fonso0arcia testified that she conducted evaluative interviews and a battery of )sychiatric tests on eonida! She also had aone/time interview with Banuel and face/to/face interviews with Ba! Paulina "orrinne <the eldest child=! +,4- Sheconcludedthat Banuel is )sychologically inca)acitated!+,- Such inca)acity is mar*ed by antecedence> it eAisted even before the

marriage and a))eared to be incurable!

Banuel$ for his )art$ admitted that he and eonida had some )etty arguments here and there! @e$ howevermaintained that their marital relationshi) was generally harmonious! The )etition for annulment filed by eonida came asa sur)rise to him!

Banuel countered that the true cause of eonidaJs hostility against him was their )rofessional rivalry! It beganwhen he refused to heed the memorandum+,1- released by "hrist the Qing @os)ital! The memorandum ordered him todesist from converting his own lying/in clinic to a )rimary or secondary hos)ital!+,3- eonidaJs family owns "hristhe Qing @os)ital which is situated in the same subdivision as BanuelJs clinic and residence! +,8- In other words$ he and

her family have com)eting or rival hos)itals in the same vicinity!

Banuel belied her allegation that he was a cruel father to their children! @e denied maltreating them! .t mosthe only im)osed the necessary disci)line on the children!

































@e also defended his show of affection for his mother! @e said there was nothing wrong for him to return thelove and affection of the )erson who reared and loo*ed after him and his siblings! This is es)ecially a)t now that hismother is in her twilight years!+,7- Banuel )ointed out that eonida found fault in this otherwise healthy relationshi)because of her very 'ealous and )ossessive nature!+,9-

This same overly 'ealous behavior of eonida drove Banuel to avoid the com)any of female friends! @ewanted to avoid any further misunderstanding with his wife! (ut$ eonida instead con'ured u) stories about his seAua)reference! She also fabricated tales about )ornogra)hic materials found in his )ossession to cast doubt on hismasculinity!+2;-

To corroborate his version$ he )resented his brother$ :esus 0! .lmelor! :esus narrated that he usually stayed aBanuelJs house during his wee*ly tri)s to Banila from Iriga"ity! @e was a witness to the generally harmoniousrelationshi) between his brother Banuel and sister/in/law$ eonida! True$ they had some Euarrels ty)ical of a husbandand wife relationshi)! (ut there was nothing similar to what eonida described in her testimony!+2,-

:esus further testified that he was with his brother on the day eonida allegedly saw Banuel *issed anotherman! @e denied that such an incident occurred! On that )articular date$+22- he and Banuel went straight home from a tri)to (icol! There was no other )erson with them at that time$ eAce)t their driver!+24-

Banuel eA)ressed his intention to refute Dr! del Fonso 0arciaJs findings by )resenting his own eA)erwitness! @owever$ no )sychiatrist was )resented!

R"C D(8o8(%(o)

(y decision dated November 21$ 2;;1$ the RT" granted the )etition for annulment$ with the following dis)osition

@HRHFORH$ )remised on the foregoing$ 'udgment is hereby rendered

,! Declaring the marriage contracted by herein )arties on 29 :anuary ,979 and all itseffects under the law )u&& a) o( 7ro %6e be=())()=?



















2! Dissolving the regime of community )ro)erty between the same )arties withforfeiture of defendantJs share thereon in favor of the same )artiesJ childrenwhose legal custody is awarded to )laintiff with visitorial right afforded todefendant>

4! Ordering the defendant to give monthly financial su))ort to all the children> and

! Pursuant to the )rovisions of .!B! No! ;2/,,/,;/S"

a! Directing the (ranch "ler* of this "ourt to enter this :udgment u)on itsfinality in the (oo* of Hntry of :udgment and to issue an Hntry of :udgment in accordance thereto> and

b! Directing the ocal "ivil Registrars of as Pi#as "ity and Banila "ity tocause the registration of the said Hntry of :udgment in their res)ective(oo*s of Barriages!

C)on com)liance$ a decree of nullity of marriage shall be issued!

SO ORDHRHD!+2-

<Hm)hasis su))lied=

The trial court nullified the marriage$ not on the ground of .rticle 43$ but .rticle 1 of the Family"ode! It ratiocinated

A A A a careful evaluation and in/de)th analysis of the surrounding circumstances of theallegations in the com)laint and of the evidence )resented in su))ort thereof <sic = reveals that in thiscase <sic = there is more than meets the eyes <sic =!

(oth legally and biologically$ homoseAuality A A A is$ indeed$ generally incom)atible with heteroseAual marriage! This is reason enough that in this 'urisdiction <sic = the law recogni6es marriage as as)ecial contract eAclusively only between a man and a woman A A A and thus when homoseAuality hastres)assed into marriage$ the same law )rovides am)le remedies to correct the situation +.rticle 1<4= inrelation to .rticle 3<= or .rticle 11$ )ar! 3$ Family "ode-! This is of course in recognition of thebiological fact that no matter how a man cheats himself that he is not a homoseAual and forces himself tolive a normal heteroseAual life$ there will surely come a time when his true seAual )reference as a







homoseAual shall )revail in haunting him and thus 'eo)ardi6ing the solidity$ honor$ and welfare of his ownfamily!+21-

Banuel filed a notice of a))eal which was$ however$ denied due course! Cndaunted$ he filed a )etition foannulment of 'udgment with the ".!+23-

Banuel contended that the assailed decision was issued in eAcess of the lower courtJs 'urisdiction> that it had no 'urisdiction to dissolve the absolute community of )ro)erty and forfeit his con'ugal share in favor of his children!

CA D(8o8(%(o)

On :uly 4,$ 2;;8$ the ". denied the )etition$ dis)osing as follows

@HRHFORH$ the )resent Petition for .nnulment of :udgment is hereby DHNIHD! The "ourt .FFIRBS in toto the Decision <dated November 21$ 2;;1= of the Regional Trial "ourt <(ranch 21=$ inas Pi#as "ity$ in "ivil "ase No! P/;;/;,42! No costs!+28-

The ". stated that )etitioner )ursued the wrong remedy by filing the eAtraordinary remedy of )etitionfor annulment of 'udgment! Said the a))ellate court

It is obvious that the )etitioner is Euestioning the )ro)riety of the decision rendered by the lower

"ourt! (ut the remedy assuming there was a mista*e is not a Petition for .nnulment of :udgment but anordinary a))eal! .n error of 'udgment may be reversed or corrected only by a))eal!

hat )etitioner is ascribing is an error of 'udgment$ not of 'urisdiction$ which is )ro)erly thesub'ect of an ordinary a))eal!

In short$ )etitioner admits the 'urisdiction of the lower court but he claims eAcess in the eAercisethereof! %3>cess& assuming there was is not covered by Rule 8 of the ,998 Rules of "ivilProcedure! The Rule refers the lac* of 'urisdiction and not the eAercise thereof!+27-

I88ue8

Petitioner Banuel ta*es the )resent recourse via Rule 1$ assigning to the ". the following errors












I

T@H @ONOR.(H "OCRT OF .PPH.S HRRHD IN NOT TRH.TIN0 T@H PHTITION FOR .NNCBHNT OF :CD0BHNT .S . PHTITION FOR RHVIH IN VIH OF T@H IBPORT.N"H OFT@H ISSCHS INVOVHD .ND IN T@H INTHRHST OF :CSTI"H>

II

T@H @ONOR.(H "OCRT OF .PPH.S HRRHD IN CP@ODIN0 T@H DH"ISION OF T@H TRI."OCRT .S RH0.RDS T@H ORDHR DH".RIN0 T@H B.RRI.0H .S NC.ND VOID ON T@H0ROCND OF PHTITIONHRJS PS?"@OO0I". IN".P."IT?>

III

T@H @ONOR.(H "OCRT OF .PPH.S HRRHD IN CP@ODIN0 T@H DH"ISION OF T@H TRI.

"OCRT .S RH0.RDS T@H ORDHR TO FORFHIT T@H [email protected] OF PHTITIONHR IN @IS [email protected] OFT@H "ON:C0. .SSHTS!+29-

Our Ru&()=

I. ("e stringent ru$es o! procedures ma% be re$a'ed to serve t"e demands o! substantia$ )ustice and int"e *ourt+s e'ercise o! euit% )urisdiction.

0enerally$ an a))eal ta*en either to the Su)reme "ourt or the ". by the wrong or ina))ro)riate mode shall bedismissed!+4;- This is to )revent the )arty from benefiting from oneJs neglect and mista*es! +oeer, &(Be o8% ru&e8, (%$arr(e8 $er%a() e$e%(o)8! .fter all$ the ultimate )ur)ose of all rules of )rocedures is to achieve substantial 'ustice aseA)editiously as )ossible!+4,-

.nnulment of 'udgment under Rule 8 is a last remedy! It can not be resorted to if the ordinary remedies areavailable or no longer available through no fault of )etitioner! +42- @owever$ in Euenaflor /* Court of Appeals$+44- this "ourclarified the )ro)er a))reciation for technical rules of )rocedure$ in this wise

Ru&e8 o7 ro$eure8 are ()%e)e %o roo%e, )o% %o e7ea%, 8ub8%a)%(a& 'u8%($e a),%6ere7ore, %6ey 86ou& )o% be a&(e () a ery r(=( a) %e$6)($a& 8e)8e. "6e e$e%(o) (8 %6a%6(&e %6e Ru&e8 are &(bera&&y $o)8%rue, %6e ro(8(o)8 (%6 re8e$% %o %6e ru&e8 o) %6e a))er a) er(o8 7or er7e$%()= aea&8 are 8%r($%&y a&(e. A8 a) e$e%(o) %o %6e e$e%(o), %6e8eru&e8 6ae 8oe%(e8 bee) re&ae o) eu(%ab&e $o)8(era%(o)8. .lso$ in some cases the Su)reme"ourt has given due course to an a))eal )erfected out of time where a stringent a))lication of the ruleswould have denied it$ but only when to do so would serve the demands of substantial 'ustice and in theeAercise of eEuity 'urisdiction of the Su)reme "ourt!+4-<Hm)hasis and underscoring su))lied=



















Similarly$ in the more recent case of Tan /* "umarpa$+2- )etitioner :oy 0! Tan availed of a wrong remedy by filing a)etition for review on certiorari instead of a motion for new trial or an ordinary a))eal! In the interest of 'ustice$ this "ourconsidered the )etition$ pro hac /ice$ as a )etition for certiorari under Rule 31!

This "ourt found that based on TanJs allegations$ the trial court prima facie committed grave abuse of discretion

in rendering a 'udgment by default! If uncorrected$ it will cause )etitioner great in'ustice! The "ourt elucidated in thiswise

Indeed$ where as here$ there is a strong showing that grave miscarriage of 'ustice would resultfrom the strict a))lication of the Rules$ we will not hesitate to relaA the same in the interest of substantial

'ustice!+4- <Cnderscoring su))lied=

Beasured by the foregoing yardstic*$ 'ustice will be better served by giving due course to the )resent )etition andtreating )etitionerJs ". )etition as one for certiorari under Rule 31$ considering that what is at sta*e is the validity or non/validity of a marriage!

In SalaDar /* Court of Appeals$+- citing .abad /* !ni/ersity of Southeastern 5hilippines$ this "ourt reiterated

A A A The dismissal of a))eals on )urely technical grounds is frowned u)on! hile the right toa))eal is a statutory$ not a natural right$ nonetheless it is an essential )art of our 'udicial system andcourts should )roceed with caution so as not to de)rive a )arty of the right to a))eal$ but rather$ ensurethat every )arty/litigant has the am)lest o))ortunity for the )ro)er and 'ust dis)osition of his cause$ freefrom the constraints of technicalities!+1-

Indeed$ it is far better and more )rudent for a court to eAcuse a technical la)se and afford the )arties a review ofthe case on the merits to attain the ends of 'ustice! +3-

Furthermore$ it was the negligence and incom)etence of BanuelJs counsel that )re'udiced his right toa))eal! @is counsel$ .tty! "hristine Dugenio$ re)eatedly availed of ina))ro)riate remedies! .fter the denial of her noticeof a))eal$ she failed to move for reconsideration or new trial at the first instance! She also erroneously filed a )etition foannulment of 'udgment rather than )ursue an ordinary a))eal!

These manifest errors were clearly indicative of counselJs incom)etence! These gravely wor*ed to the detrimenof BanuelJs a))eal! True it is that the negligence of counsel binds the client! Still$ this "ourt has recogni6ed certaineAce)tions <,= where rec*less or gross negligence of counsel de)rives the client of due )rocess of law> <2= when itsa))lication will result in outright de)rivation of the clientJs liberty and )ro)erty> or <4= where the interest of 'ustice soreEuire!+8-



















The negligence of BanuelJs counsel falls under the eAce)tions! Cltimately$ the rec*less or gross negligence o)etitionerJs former counsel led to the loss of his right to a))eal! @e should not be made to suffer for hiscounselJs grave mista*es! @igher interests of 'ustice and eEuity demand that he be allowed to ventilate his case in ahigher court!

In Ape> -ining, Inc* /* Court of Appeals$+7- this "ourt eA)lained thus

It is settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client! This is based on the rule that any act)erformed by a counsel within the sco)e of his general or im)lied authority is regarded as an act of hisclient! @owever$ where counsel is guilty of gross ignorance$ negligence and dereliction of duty$ whichresulted in the clientJs being held liable for damages in a damage suit$ the client is de)rived of his day incourt and the 'udgment may be set aside on such ground! In the instant case$ higher interests of 'usticeand eEuity demand that )etitioners be allowed to )resent evidence on their defense! Petitioners may notbe made to suffer for the lawyerJs mista*es! "6(8 Cour% (&& a&ay8 be (8o8e %o =ra)% re&(e7 %oar%(e8 a==r(ee by er7(y, 7rau, re$B&e88 ()a%%e)%(o) a) o)r(=6% ()$oe%e)$e o7 &ayer8,6($6 6a8 %6e $o)8eue)$e o7 er(()= %6e(r $&(e)%8, o7 %6e(r ay () $our% !+9- <Hm)hasis su))lied=

"learly$ this "ourt has the )ower to eAce)t a )articular case from the o)eration of the rule whenever thedemands of 'ustice reEuire it! ith more conviction should itwield such )ower in a case involving the sacrosancinstitution of marriage! This "ourt is guided with the thrust of giving a )arty the fullest o))ortunity to establish the meritsof oneJs action!+1;-

The client was li*ewise s)ared from counselJs negligence in Go/ernment Ser/ice Insurance System /* EengsonCommercial Euildings, Inc*+1,- and Ancheta /* Guersey@"alaygon!+12- Said the "ourt in Eengson

(ut if under the circumstances of the case$ the rule deserts its )ro)er office as an aid to 'usticeand becomes a great hindrance and chief enemy$ its rigors must be relaAed to admit eAce)tions theretoand to )revent a miscarriage of 'ustice! In other words$ the court has the )ower to eAce)t a )articular casefrom the o)eration of the rule whenever the )ur)oses of 'ustice reEuire it!+14-

II. *oncea$ment o! "omose'ua$it% is t"e proper ground to annu$ a marriage, not "omose'ua$it% per se.

Banuel is a des)erate man determined to salvage what remains of his marriage! Persistent in his Euest$ he foughbac* all the heavy accusations of inca)acity$ cruelty$ and doubted masculinity thrown at him!

The trial court declared that eonidaJs )etition for nullity had %no basis at all because the su))orting grounds reliedu)on $a) )o% &e=a&&y aBe a $a8e u)er Ar%($&e 34 o7 %6e Fa(&y Coe!& It went further by citing Republic /* -olina+1





















Indeed$ mere allegations of conflicting )ersonalities$ irreconcilable differences$ incessant Euarrelsandor beatings$ un)redictable mood swings$ infidelities$ vices$ abandonment$ and difficulty$ neglect$ or failure in the )erformance of some marital obligations do not suffice to establish )sychological inca)acity!+11-

If so$ the lower court should have dismissed outright the )etition for not meeting the guidelines sein -olina! hat eonida attem)ted to demonstrate were BanuelJshomoseAual tendencies by citing overt acts generally)redominant among homoseAual individuals!+13- She wanted to )rove that the )erceivedhomoseAuality rendered Banuelinca)able of fulfilling the essential marital obligations!

(ut instead of dismissing the )etition$ the trial court )u&&(7(e the marriage between Banuel and eonida on theground of vitiated consent by virtue of fraud! In su))ort of its conclusion$ the lower court reasoned out

.s insinuated by the State <)! 81$ TSN$ ,1 December 2;;4=$ when there is smo*e surely there isfire! .lthough vehemently denied by defendant$ there is )re)onderant evidence enough to establish withcertainty that defendant is really a homoseAual! This is the fact that can be eu$e from the totality of the marriage life scenario of herein )arties!

(efore his marriage$ defendant *new very well that )eo)le around him even including his ownclose friends oub%e his true seAual )reference <TSN$ ))! 41/43$ ,4 December 2;;;> ))!84/81$ ,1December 2;;4=! .fter receiving many forewarnings$ )laintiff told defendant about the rumor she heardbut defendant did not do anything to )rove to the whole world once and for all the truth of all hisdenials! Defendant threatened to sue those )eo)le but nothing ha))ened after that! There may havebeen more im)ortant matters to attend to than to waste time and effort filing cases against and beeffected by these )eo)le and so$ )utting more )remiums on defendantJs denials$ )laintiff 'ust the samemarried him! Reasons u)on reasons may be advanced to either eAcul)ate or nail to the cross defendant

for his act of initially concealing his homoseAuality to )laintiff$ but in the end$ only one thing iscertain G even during his marriage with )laintiff$ the smo*e of doubt about his real )reference continuedand even got thic*er$ reason why obviously defendant failed to establish a ha))y and solid family> and inso failing$ )laintiff and their children became his innocent and unwilling victims!

?es$ there is nothing untoward of a man if$ li*e herein defendant$ he is meticulous over even

small details in the house <sic = li*e wrongly folded bed sheets$ etc! or if a man is more authoritative in*nowing what clothes or 'ewelry shall fit his wife <))! 88/7,$ TSN$ ,1 December 2;;4=> but theseadmissions of defendant ta*en in the light of evidence )resented a))arently showing that he had eAtrafondness of his male friends <sic = to the eAtent that twice on se)arate occasions <))! /8$ TSN$ ,February 2;;,= he was allegedly seen by )laintiff *issing another man li)s/to/li)s )lus the homoseAualmaga6ines and ta)es li*ewise allegedly discovered underneath his bed <HAhibits %& and %B&=$ the doubtas to his real seA identity becomes stronger! The accusation of )laintiff versus thereof of defendant maybe the name of the game in this case> but the sim)le reason of )rofessional rivalry advanced by the









defendant is certainly not enough to 'ustify and obscure the Euestion why )laintiff should accuse him of such a very untoward infidelity at the eA)ense and humiliation of their children and family as a whole!+18-

Hvidently$ no sufficient )roof was )resented to substantiate the allegations that Banuel is a homoseAual and thahe concealed this to eonida at the time of their marriage! The lower court considered the )ublic )erce)tion of BanuelJs

seAual )reference without the corroboration of witnesses! .lso$ it too* cogni6ance of BanuelJs )eculiarities andinter)reted it against his seAuality!

Hven assuming$ e> gratia argumenti $ that Banuel is a homoseAual$ the lower court cannot a))reciate it as aground to annul his marriage with eonida! The law is clear G amarriage may be annulled when the consent of either)arty was obtained by fraud$ +17- such as concealment of homoseAuality!+19- Nowhere in the said decision was it )roven by)re)onderance of evidence that Banuel was a homoseAual at the onset of his marriage and that he deliberately hid suchfact to his wife!+3;- It is the concealment of homoseAuality$ and not homoseAuality per se$ that vitiates the consent of theinnocent )arty! Such concealment )resu))oses bad faith and intent to defraud the other )arty in giving consent to themarriage!

"onsent is an essential reEuisite of a valid marriage! To be valid$ it must be freely given by both )arties! .nallegation of vitiated consent must be )roven by )re)onderance of evidence! The Family "ode has enumerated aneAclusive list of circumstances+3,- constituting fraud! @omoseAuality per se is not among those cited$ but its concealment!

This distinction becomes more a))arent when we go over the deliberations +32- of the "ommittees on the "ivil "odeand Family aw$ to wit

:ustice "aguioa remar*ed that this ground should be eliminated in the )rovision on the grounds for legal se)aration! Dean 0u)it$ however$ )ointed out that in .rticle 3$ they are tal*ing only of %concealment$& while in the article on legal se)aration$ there is actuality! :udge Diy added that in legalse)aration$ the ground eAisted after the marriage$ while in .rticle 3$ the ground eAisted at the time of themarriage! :ustice Reyes suggested that$ for clarity$ they add the )hrase %eAisting at the time of themarriage& at the end of sub)aragra)h <=! The "ommittee a))roved the suggestion!+34-

To reiterate$ homoseAuality per se is only a ground for legal se)aration! It is its concealment that serves as avalid ground to annul a marriage!+3- "oncealment in this case is not sim)ly a blan*et denial$ but one that is constitutive

of fraud! It is this fundamental element that res)ondent failed to )rove!

In the Cnited States$ homoseAuality has been considered as a basis for divorce! It indicates that Euestions oseAual identity stri*e so dee)ly at one of the basic elements of marriage$ which is the eAclusive seAual bond between thes)ouses!+31- In Crutcher /* Crutcher $+33- the "ourt held




























Cnnatural )ractices of the *ind charged here are an infamous indignity to the wife$ and whichwould ma*e the marriage relation so revolting to her that it would become im)ossible for her to dischargethe duties of a wife$ and would defeat the whole )ur)ose of the relation! In the natural course of things$they would cause mental suffering to the eAtent of affecting her health!+38-

@owever$ although there may be similar sentiments here in the Phili))ines$ the legal overtones are significantlydifferent! Divorce is not recogni6ed in the country! @omoseAuality and its alleged incom)atibility to a healthyheteroseAual life are not sanctioned as grounds to sever the marriage bond in our 'urisdiction! .t most$ it is only aground to se)arate from bed and board!

hat was )roven in the hearings a uo was a relatively blissful marital union for more than eleven <,,= yearswhich )roduced three <4= children! The burden of )roof to show the nullity of the marriage rests on eonida! Sadly$ shefailed to discharge this onus!

The same failure to )rove fraud which )ur)ortedly resulted to a vitiated marital consent was found in illanue/a /Court of Appeals!+37- In illanue/a$ instead of )roving vitiation of consent$ a))ellant resorted to baseless )ortrayals of hiswife as a )er)etrator of fraudulent schemes! Said the "ourt

Factual findings of the "ourt of .))eals$ es)ecially if they coincide with those of the trial court$as in the instant case$ are generally binding on this "ourt! e affirm the findings of the "ourt of .))ealsthat )etitioner freely and voluntarily married )rivate res)ondent and that no threats or intimidation$duress or violence com)elled him to do so$ thus G

.))ellant anchored his )rayer for the annulment of his marriage on the ground that he did not

freely consent to be married to the a))ellee! @e cited several incidents that created on his mind areasonable and well/grounded fear of an imminent and grave danger to his life and safety! A A A

The "ourt is not convinced that a))ellantJs a))rehension of danger to his )erson is sooverwhelming as to de)rive him of the will to enter voluntarily to a contract of marriage! It is not dis)utedthat at the time he was allegedly being harassed$ a))ellant wor*ed as a security guard in a ban*! 0iventhe rudiments of self/defense$ or$ at the very least$ the )ro)er way to *ee) himself out of harmJs way! A AA

.))ellant also invo*ed fraud to annul his marriage$ as he was made to believe by a))ellee that

the latter was )regnant with his child when they were married! .))ellantJs eAcuse that he could not haveim)regnated the a))ellee because he did not have an erection during their tryst is flimsy at best$ and anoutright lie at worst! The com)laint is bereft of any reference to his inability to co)ulate with the a))ellee!A A A

A A A A








A A A The failure to cohabit becomes relevant only if it arises as a result of the )er)etration of any of the grounds for annulling the marriage$ such as lac* of )arental consent$ insanity$ fraud$intimidation$ or undue influence A A A! Since the a))ellant failed to 'ustify his failure to cohabit with thea))ellee on any of these grounds$ the validity of his marriage must be u)held! +39-

Verily$ the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion$ not only by solely ta*ing into account )etitionerJshomoseAuality )er se and not its concealment$ but by declaring the marriage void from its eAistence!

This "ourt is mindful of the constitutional )olicy to )rotect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomoussocial institution and marriage as the foundation of the family! +8;- The State and the )ublic have vital interest in themaintenance and )reservation of these social institutions against desecration by fabricated evidence! +8,- Thus$ any doubshould be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage!

III. In a va$id marriage, t"e "usband and &i!e )oint$% administer and en)o% t"eir communit% or con)uga$ propert% !

.rticle 93 of the Family "ode$ on regimes of absolute community )ro)erty$ )rovides

.rt! 93! The administration and en'oyment of the community )ro)erty shall belong to boths)ouses 'ointly! In case of disagreement$ the husbandJs decision shall )revail$ sub'ect to recourse to thecourt by the wife for a )ro)er remedy$ which must be availed of within five years from the date of thecontract im)lementing such decision!

In the event that one s)ouse is inca)acitated or otherwise unable to )artici)ate in theadministration of the common )ro)erties$ the other s)ouse may assume sole )owers of administration! These )owers do not include the )owers of dis)osition or encumbrance without theauthority of the court or the written consent of the other s)ouse! In the absence of such authority or consent$ the dis)osition or encumbrance shall be void! @owever$ the transaction shall be construed as acontinuing offer on the )art of the consenting s)ouse and the third )erson$ and may be )erfected as abinding contract u)on the acce)tance by the other s)ouse or authori6ation by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors!

. similar )rovision$ .rticle ,2+82- )rescribes 'oint administration and en'oyment in a regime of con'uga)artnershi)! In a valid marriage$ both s)ouses eAerciseadministration and en'oyment of the )ro)erty regime$ 'ointly!

In the case under review$ the RT" decreed a dissolution of the community )ro)erty of Banuel and eonida! Inthe same breath$ the trial court forfeited BanuelJs share in favor of the children! "onsidering that the marriage is u)held















valid and subsisting$ the dissolution and forfeiture of BanuelJs share in the )ro)erty regime is unwarranted! They remainthe 'oint administrators of the community )ro)erty!

*+RFOR$ the )etition is GRAN"D! The a))ealed Decision is R<RSD and S" ASID and the)etition in the trial court to annul the marriage isDIS-ISSD!


SUR- COUR"Banila

SH"OND DIVISION

G.R. No. !53/03 Au=u8% 19, 194

IIA OI<A *IG, )etitioner$vs!

"+ +ONORA AICIA <. S-IO!DIY Ha8 re8(()= 'u=e o7 %6e ;ue)(&e a) Doe8%($ Re&a%(o)8 Cour% o7Ca&oo$a) C(%y a) @AR +INE *IG, res)ondents!

"apucanta, "ulay F Associates for petitioner*

Siguion Reyna, -ontecillo and Ongsia?o .a# Office for pri/ate respondent*

ARAS, J.:

In an action <Family "ase No! 74= filed before the erstwhile :uvenile and Domestic Relations "ourt of "aloocan "ity$

herein res)ondent Qarl @ein6 iegel <)laintiff therein= as*ed for the declaration of Nullity of his marriage <celebrated on

:uly$ ,987 at the @oly "atholic .)ostolic "hristian "hurch (ranch in Ba*ati$ Betro Banila= with herein )etitioner ilia

Oliva iegel <ilia$ for short$ and defendant therein= on the ground of iliaKs )revious eAisting marriage to one Hduardo .!

BaAion$ the ceremony having been )erformed on :une 21$ ,982 at our ady of ourdes "hurch in 5ue6on "ity! ilia$

while admitting the eAistence of said )rior subsisting marriage claimed that said marriage was null and void$ she and the

first husband Hduardo .! BaAion having been allegedly forced to enter said marital union! In the )re/trial that ensued$ the

issue agreed u)on by both )arties was the status of the first marriage <assuming the )resence of force eAerted against

both )arties= was said )rior marriage void or was it merely voidable "ontesting the validity of the )re/trial order$ ilia

as*ed the res)ondent court for an o))ortunity to )resent evidence/

<,= that the first marriage was vitiated by force eAercised u)on both her and the first husband> and

<2= that the first husband was at the time of the marriage in ,982 already married to someone else!

Res)ondent 'udge ruled against the )resentation of evidence because the eAistence of force eAerted on both )arties of

the first marriage had already been agreed u)on! @ence$ the )resent )etition for certiorari assailing the following Orders

of theres)ondent :udge/




<,= the Order dated Barch ,8$ ,97; in which the )arties were com)elled to submit the case for resolution based on

Lagreed facts>L and

<2= the Order dated .)ril ,$ ,97;$ denying )etitionerKs motion to allow her to )resent evidence in her favor!

e find the )etition de/oid of merit!

There is no need for )etitioner to )rove that her first marriage was vitiated by force committed against both )arties

because assuming this to be so$ the marriage will not be void but merely viodable <.rt! 71$ "ivil "ode=$ and therefore

valid until annulled! Since no annulment has yet been made$ it is clear that when she married res)ondent she was still

validly married to her first husband$ conseEuently$ her marriage to res)ondent is VOID <.rt! 7;$ "ivil "ode=!

There is li*ewise no need of introducing evidence about the eAisting )rior marriage of her first husband at the time they

married each other$ for then such a marriage though void still needs according to this "ourt a 'udicial declaration 1 of

such fact and for all legal intents and )ur)oses she would still be regarded as a married woman at the time she

contracted her marriage with res)ondent Qarl @ein6 iegel=> accordingly$ the marriage of )etitioner and res)ondent

would be regarded VOID under the law!

@HRHFORH$ this )etition is hereby DISBISSHD$ for lac* of merit$ and the Orders com)lained of are hereby

.FFIRBHD! "osts against )etitioner!


SUR- COUR"Banila

HN (.N"

A.-. No. 5 ;u)e 2, 19//

DRO ODAYA", com)lainant$

vs!

D-"RIO A-AN", res)ondent!

AN"ONIO, J.:

In a verified amended letter/com)laint dated Barch ,;$ ,984$ 1 Pedro Odayat charged .tty! Demetrio ! .mante$ "ler* of

"ourt$ "ourt of First Instance$ (ranch I$ (asey$ Samar$ with o))ression$ immorality and falsification of a )ublic

document!2

(riefly stated$ com)lainantKs basic allegations are <,= that res)ondent grabbed a )ortion of com)lainantKs land$ and$

when this latter resented$ the former arrogantly challenged the com)lainant to bring the matter to court> <2= that

res)ondent is cohabiting with one (eatri6 :ornada$ with whom he begot many children$ even while his s)ouse Filomena

.bella is still alive> and <4= that res)ondent$ although married$ falsely re)resented his status as single in the information

sheet be submitted in connection with his a))ointment to his )resent )osition as "ler* of "ourt!




.fter res)ondent Demetrio .mante had submitted his letter/comment dated .)ril 2$ ,984$ 3 which was considered as his

answer to the amended com)laint$ this "ourt$ in its minute resolution of :uly ,3$ ,98$ referred this .dministrative

Batter No! P/17 to the HAecutive :udge of the "ourt of First Instance$ (ranch I$ "atbalogan$ Samar$ for investigation$

re)ort and recommendation$ and the matter was doc*eted therein as .dministrative "ase No! 23! The charges were

investigated by District :udge Segundo B! osa of said "ourt! .fter a))ro)riate )roceedings$ :udge osa submitted to

this "ourt his Re)ort and Recommendation dated December 4$,98! 5

,! Oppression! M In the course of formal investigation on .ugust 23$ ,98 before :udge osa$ com)lainant acEuiesced

to the dro))ing of this charge of o))ression against res)ondent$ inasmuch as the issue involved therein refers to a

boundary dis)ute between the com)lainant and the res)ondent and admittedly being more )ro)erly a cause for a civil

action! 4 @ence$ the sco)e of the investigation by :udge osa is limited to the other two charges!

2! Immorality ! M To )rove this charge of immorality against res)ondent$ com)lainant Pedro Odayat testified and

)resented HAhibits L.L to LHL$ to the effect that res)ondent and Filomena .bella were married in Tacloban "ity on

October ,3$ ,97 before :udge Hugenio (rillo <then :ustice of the Peace of Tacloban$ eyte> / = that they had one son$

who was born on .ugust 24$ ,99 and ba)ti6ed on October ,$ ,99 by the name of Romeo .mante$ in the Sto! Nino

"hurch$ Tacloban "ity$ by Rev! Fr! Bagdaleno .gnes> that he came to *now Filomena .bella$ who is a native of Sta!

Rita$ Samar$ only after her marriage to the res)ondent when they too* u) their residence for five years in (asey$ Samar>that he did not *now if Filomena .bella was still single when she married the res)ondent> that long before he filed his

com)laint against res)ondent on Barch ,;$ ,984$ he came to *now that the res)ondent and one (eatri6 :ornado were

living as husband and wife in (asey$ Samar> that they had several children$ two of whom are Baria Felisa :! .mante$

who was born on .)ril ,2$ ,938$ as )er certified true co)y of the "ertificate of (irth of said child$ 9 duly signed and issued

on Bay 8$ ,984 by Perfecto "abuEuit$ the ocal "ivil Registrar$ 10 and .lma .mante y :ornada$ who was born on .)ril 7$

,931 and ba)ti6ed on :uly 1$ ,931$ as )er "ertificate of (a)tism$ duly signed and issued on Barch 3$ ,984 by the Parish

Priest$ Rev! Fr! :ose B! ente'as> 11 and that one of the reasons why he filed his com)laint against the res)ondent was

because of their land dis)ute!

On the other hand$ res)ondent Demetrio .mante testified$ in his behalf$ and )resented .tty! Demosthenes DuEuilla$ as

well as HAhibits L,L and L2L! Res)ondent admits his marriage with Filomena .bella on October ,3$ ,97!12 @e also admits

that he has been living with (eatri6 :ornada$ whom he married on .)ril $ ,93 during a religious revival in .lmagro$

Samar$ before Rev! Fr! :ohn (elly$ a Franciscan Bissionary$ 13 and with whom he begot siA <3= children!1Res)ondent$

however$ claims he was coerced into marrying Filomena .bella$ unaware that she was already married to another man$

and they se)arated in ,99 after Filomena .bella told him of her )revious marriage> that from ,99 to ,93$ the

res)ondent did not hear or received any communication from Filomena .bella$ much less *new of her whereabouts!

To rebut the charge of immorality$ res)ondent )resented in evidence the certification dated Se)tember ,2$ ,98 of David

"! :acobe$ the ocal "ivil Registrar of Pateros$ Ri6al 15 attesting that$ in accordance with the Register of Barriages in his

office$ Filomena .bella was married to one Hliseo Portales on February ,3$ ,97! Res)ondentKs contention is that his

marriage with Filomena .bella was void ab initio$ because of her )revious marriage with said Hliseo Portales!

The Investigator finds for the res)ondent and recommends his eAoneration from this charge! Indeed$ there is no Euestionthat Filomena .bellaKs marriage with the res)ondent was void ab initio under .rticle 7; +- of the New "ivil code$ and no

'udicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of void marriages! 14

4! 4alsification of a This document ! M The Investigator found that the com)lainant failed to )rove this charge! "ontrary to

the allegation of the com)lainant$ the document in Euestion$ 1/ shows that the res)ondent actually )laced in LItem 3! "ivil

StatusL therein the word LBarriedL! 1




In view of the foregoing$ e find that the recommendation of the Investigator is in accordance with law and the evidence

on record!

@HRHFORH$ res)ondent Demetrio .mante is hereby eAonerated from the charges filed against him by com)lainant!

et a co)y of this decision be attached to his )ersonal record$

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 122/9. ;u&y 31, 1994]

AN"ONIO A. S. <ADS, petitioner, vs. RGIONA "RIA COUR", RANC+ 102, JUEON CI"Y, a) CONSUO-. GO-E!<ADS, respondents.

D C I S I O N

<I"UG, J .#

The )etition for review bewails$ )urely on a Euestion of law$ an alleged error committed by the Regional Trial "ourtin "ivil "ase No! 5/92/,2149! Petitioner avers that the court a uohas failed to a))ly the correct law that should govern

the dis)osition of a family dwelling in a situation where a marriage is declared void ab initio because of )sychologica

inca)acity on the )art of either or both of the )arties to the contract!

The )ertinent facts giving rise to this incident are$ by and large$ not in dis)ute!

.ntonio Valdes and "onsuelo 0ome6 were married on ;1 :anuary ,98,! (egotten during the marriage were five

children! In a )etition$ dated 22 :une ,992$ Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage )ursuant to .rticle 43

of the Family "ode <doc*eted "ivil "ase No! 5/92/,2149$ Regional Trial "ourt of 5ue6on "ity$ (ranch ,;2=! .fter

hearing the )arties following the 'oinder of issues$ the trial court$+,- in its decision of 29 :uly ,99$ granted the )etition> /iD

L@HRHFORH$ 'udgment is hereby rendered as follows

L<,= The marriage of )etitioner .ntonio Valdes and res)ondent "onsuelo 0ome6/Valdes is hereby declared null and

void under .rticle 43 of the Family "ode on the ground of their mutual )sychological inca)acity to com)ly with their

essential marital obligations>

L<2= The three older children$ "arlos HnriEue III$ .ntonio 5uintin and .ngela Rosario shall choose which )arent they

would want to stay with!

LStella Hloisa and :oaEuin Pedro shall be )laced in the custody of their mother$ herein res)ondent "onsuelo 0ome6/

Valdes!

LThe )etitioner and res)ondent shall have visitation rights over the children who are in the custody of the other!

L<4= The )etitioner and res)ondent are directed to start proceedings on the liuidation of their common properties as

defined by Article '86 of the Family "ode$ and to com)ly with the )rovisions of Articles :&, :' and :% of the same code$

within thirty <4;= days from notice of this decision!


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jul1996/122749.htm#_edn1





Let a co)y of this decision be furnished the ocal "ivil Registrar of Bandaluyong$ Betro Banila$ for )ro)er recording in

the registry of marriages!L+2- <Italics ours=

"onsuelo 0ome6 sought a clarification of that )ortion of the decision directing com)liance with .rticles 1;$ 1, and

12 of the Family "ode! She asserted that the Family "ode contained no )rovisions on the )rocedure for the liEuidation of

common )ro)erty in Lunions without marriage!L Parenthetically$ during the hearing on the motion$ the children filed a 'oint

affidavit eA)ressing their desire to remain with their father$ .ntonio Valdes$ herein )etitioner!

In an Order$ dated ;1 Bay ,991$ the trial court made the following clarification

L"onseEuently$ considering that .rticle ,8 of the Family "ode eA)licitly )rovides that the )ro)erty acEuired by both

)arties during their union$ in the absence of )roof to the contrary$ are )resumed to have been obtained through the 'oint

efforts of the )arties and will be owned by them in eEual shares$ )laintiff and defendant will own their Kfamily homeK and

all their other )ro)erties for that matter in eual shares!

LIn the liEuidation and )artition of the )ro)erties owned in common by the )laintiff and defendant$ the )rovisions on co/

ownershi) found in the "ivil "ode shall a))ly!L +4- <Italics su))lied=

In addressing s)ecifically the issue regarding the dis)osition of the family dwelling$ the trial court said

L"onsidering that this "ourt has already declared the marriage between )etitioner and res)ondent as null and void ab

initio$ )ursuant to .rt! ,8$ the )ro)erty regime of )etitioner and res)ondent shall be governed by the rules on co@

o#nership!

LThe )rovisions of .rticles ,;2 and ,29 of the Family "ode finds no a))lication since .rticle ,;2 refers to the )rocedure

for the liEuidation of the con=ugal partnership property and .rticle ,29 refers to the )rocedure for the liEuidation of

the absolute community of property !L+-

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the order! The motion was denied on 4; October ,991!

In his recourse to this "ourt$ )etitioner submits that .rticles 1;$ 1, and 12 of the Family "ode should be held

controlling> he argues that

KI

L.rticle ,8 of the Family "ode does not a))ly to cases where the )arties are )sychological inca)acitated!

KII

L.rticles 1;$ 1, and 12 in relation to .rticles ,;2 and ,29 of the Family "ode govern the dis)osition of the family dwelling

in cases where a marriage is declared void ab initio$ including a marriage declared void by reason of the )sychological

inca)acity of the s)ouses!

KIII

L.ssuming arguendo that .rticle ,8 a))lies to marriages declared void ab initio on the ground of the )sychological

inca)acity of a s)ouse$ the same may be read consistently with .rticle ,29!











KI<

LIt is necessary to determine the )arent with whom ma'ority of the children wish to stay!L+1-

The trial court correctly a))lied the law! In a /oid marriage$ regardless of the cause thereof$ the )ro)erty relations of

the )arties during the )eriod of cohabitation is governed by the )rovisions of .rticle ,8 or .rticle ,7$ such as the case

may be$ of the Family "ode! .rticle ,8 is a rema*e of .rticle , of the "ivil "ode as inter)reted and so a))lied in

)revious cases>+3- it )rovides

L.RT! ,8! hen a man and a woman who are ca)acitated to marry each other$ live eAclusively with each other as

husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage$ their wages and salaries shall be owned by

them in eEual shares and the )ro)erty acEuired by both of them through their wor* or industry shall be governed by the

rules on co/ownershi)!

LIn the absence of )roof to the contrary$ )ro)erties acEuired while they lived together shall be )resumed to have been

obtained by their 'oint efforts$ wor* or industry$ and shall be owned by them in eEual shares! For )ur)oses of this .rticle$

a )arty who did not )artici)ate in the acEuisition by the other )arty of any )ro)erty shall be deemed to have contributed

'ointly in the acEuisition thereof if the formerKs efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of thehousehold!

LNeither )arty can encumber or dis)ose by acts inter /i/os of his or her share in the )ro)erty acEuired during

cohabitation and owned in common$ without the consent of the other$ until after the termination of their cohabitation!

Lhen only one of the )arties to a void marriage is in good faith$ the share of the )arty in bad faith in the co/ownershi)

shall be forfeited in favor of their common children! In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or

their descendants$ each vacant share shall belong to the res)ective surviving descendants! In the absence of

descendants$ such share shall belong to the innocent )arty! In all cases$ the forfeiture shall ta*e )lace u)on termination

of the cohabitation!L

This )eculiar *ind of co/ownershi) a))lies when a man and a woman$ suffering no legal im)ediment to marry each

other$ so eAclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage! The term

Lca)acitatedL in the )rovision <in the first )aragra)h of the law= refers to the legal capacity of a )arty to contract marriage

i!e!$ any Lmale or female of the age of eighteen years or u)wards not under any of the im)ediments mentioned in .rticles

48 and 47L+8- of the "ode!

Cnder this )ro)erty regime$ )ro)erty acEuired by both s)ouses through their #or? and industry shall be governed by

the rules on eual co/ownershi)! .ny )ro)erty acEuired during the union is prima facie )resumed to have been obtained

through their 'oint efforts! . )arty who did not )artici)ate in the acEuisition of the )ro)erty shall still be considered as

having contributed thereto 'ointly if said )artyKs Lefforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family

household!L+7- Cnli*e the con'ugal )artnershi) of gains$ the fruits of the cou)leKs se)arate )ro)erty are not included in the

co/ownershi)!

.rticle ,8 of the Family "ode$ in substance and to the above eAtent$ has clarified .rticle , of the "ivil "ode> in

addition$ the law now eA)ressly )rovides that M

<a= Neither )arty can dis)ose or encumber by act inter /i/os his or her share in co/ownershi) )ro)erty

without the consent of the other$ during the )eriod of cohabitation> and














G.R. No. 112019 ;a)uary , 1995

OU SAN"OS, )etitioner$

vs!

"+ +ONORA COUR" OF AAS AND ;UIA ROSARIO DIA!SAN"OS, res)ondents.

<I"UG, J.:

"oncededly a highly$ if not indeed the most li*ely$ controversial )rovision introduced by the Family "ode is .rticle 43 <as

amended by H!O! No! 228 dated ,8 :uly ,978=$ which declares

.rt! 43! . marriage contracted by any )arty who$ at the time of the celebration$ was )sychologically

inca)acitated to com)ly with the essential marital obligations of marriage$ shall li*ewise be void even if

such inca)acity becomes manifest only after its solemni6ation!

The )resent )etition for review on certiorari $ at the instance of eouel Santos <LeouelL=$ brings into fore the

above )rovision which is now invo*ed by him! Cndaunted by the decisions of the court a uo 1 and the "ourt of

.))eal$ 2 eouel )ersists in beseeching its a))lication in his attem)t to have his marriage with herein )rivate

res)ondent$ :ulia Rosario (edia/Santos <L:uliaL=$ declared a nullity!

It was in Iloilo "ity where eouel$ who then held the ran* of First ieutenant in the Phili))ine .rmy$ first met :ulia! The

meeting later )roved to be an eventful day for eouel and :ulia! On 2; Se)tember ,973$ the two eAchanged vows before

Bunici)al Trial "ourt :udge "ornelio 0! a6aro of Iloilo "ity$ followed$ shortly thereafter$ by a church wedding! eouel

and :ulia lived with the latterKs )arents at the :! (edia "om)ound$ a Pa6$ Iloilo "ity! On ,7 :uly ,978$ :ulia gave birth to

a baby boy$ and he was christened eouel Santos$ :r! The ecstasy$ however$ did not last long! It was bound to ha))en$eouel averred$ because of the freEuent interference by :uliaKs )arents into the young s)ouses family affairs!

Occasionally$ the cou)le would also start a LEuarrelL over a number of other things$ li*e when and where the cou)le

should start living inde)endently from :uliaKs )arents or whenever :ulia would eA)ress resentment on eouelKs s)ending

a few days with his own )arents!

On ,7 Bay ,977$ :ulia finally left for the Cnited Sates of .merica to wor* as a nurse des)ite eouelKs )leas to so

dissuade her! Seven months after her de)arture$ or on ;, :anuary ,979$ :ulia called u) eouel for the first time by long

distance tele)hone! She )romised to return home u)on the eA)iration of her contract in :uly ,979! She never did! hen

eouel got a chance to visit the Cnited States$ where he underwent a training )rogram under the aus)ices of the .rmed

Forces of the Phili))ines from ;, .)ril u) to 21 .ugust ,99;$ he des)erately tried to locate$ or to somehow get in touch

with$ :ulia but all his efforts were of no avail!

@aving failed to get :ulia to somehow come home$ eouel filed with the regional trial "ourt of Negros Oriental$ (ranch

4;$ a com)laint for LVoiding of marriage Cnder .rticle 43 of the Family "odeL <doc*eted$ "ivil "ase No! 97,=! Summons

was served by )ublication in a news)a)er of general circulation in Negros Oriental!

On 4, Bay ,99,$ res)ondent :ulia$ in her answer <through counsel=$ o))osed the com)laint and denied its allegations$

claiming$ in main$ that it was the )etitioner who had$ in fact$ been irres)onsible and incom)etent!




. )ossible collusion between the )arties to obtain a decree of nullity of their marriage was ruled out by the Office of the

Provincial Prosecutor <in its re)ort to the court=!

On 21 October ,99,$ after )re/trial conferences had re)eatedly been set$ albeit unsuccessfully$ by the court$ :ulia

ultimately filed a manifestation$ stating that she would neither a))ear nor submit evidence!

On ;3 November ,99,$ the court a uo finally dismissed the com)laint for lac* of merit! 3

eouel a))ealed to the "ourt of .))eal! The latter affirmed the decision of the trial court!

The )etition should be denied not only because of its non/com)liance with "ircular 27/9,$ which reEuires a certification

of non/sho))ing$ but also for its lac* of merit!

eouel argues that the failure of :ulia to return home$ or at the very least to communicate with him$ for more than five

years are circumstances that clearly show her being )sychologically inca)acitated to enter into married life! In his own

words$ eouel asserts

! ! ! <T=here is no leave$ there is no affection for <him= because res)ondent :ulia Rosario (edia/Santosfailed all these years to communicate with the )etitioner! . wife who does not care to inform her husband

about her whereabouts for a )eriod of five years$ more or less$ is )sychologically inca)acitated!

The family "ode did not define the term L)sychological inca)acity!L The deliberations during the sessions of the Family

"ode Revision "ommittee$ which has drafted the "ode$ can$ however$ )rovide an insight on the im)ort of the )rovision!

Art ! 7: ! The following marriages shall be void from the beginning

AAA AAA AAA

Art ! 7) ! ! ! !

<8= Those marriages contracted by any )arty who$ at the time of the celebration$ was wanting in the

sufficient use of reason or 'udgment to understand the essential nature of marriage or was

)sychologically or mentally inca)acitated to discharge the essential marital obligations$ even if such lac*

of inca)acity is made manifest after the celebration!

On sub)aragra)h <8=$ which as lifted from the "anon aw$ :ustice <:ose (!!= Reyes suggested that they

say Lwanting in sufficient use$L but :ustice <Hduardo= "aguioa )referred to say Lwanting in the sufficient

use!L On the other hand$ :ustice Reyes )ro)osed that they say Lwanting in sufficient reason!L :ustice

"aguioa$ however$ )ointed out that the idea is that one is not lac*ing in 'udgment but that he is lac*ing in

the eAercise of 'udgment! @e added that lac* of 'udgment would ma*e the marriage voidable! :udge

<.licia Sem)io/= Diy remar*ed that lac* of 'udgment is more serious than insufficient use of 'udgment

and yet the latter would ma*e the marriage null and void and the former only voidable! :ustice "aguioa

suggested that sub)aragra)h <8= be modified to read

LThat contracted by any )arty who$ at the time of the celebration$ was )sychologically

inca)acitated to discharge the essential marital obligations$ even if such lac* of

inca)acity is made manifest after the celebration!L




:ustice "aguioa eA)lained that the )hrase Lwas wanting in sufficient use of reason of 'udgment to

understand the essential nature of marriageL refers to defects in the mental faculties vitiating consent$

which is not the idea in sub)aragra)h <8=$ but lac* of a))reciation of oneKs marital obligations!

:udge Diy raised the Euestion Since LinsanityL is also a )sychological or mental inca)acity$ why is

LinsanityL only a ground for annulment and not for declaration or nullity In re)ly$ :ustice "aguioa

eA)lained that in insanity$ there is the a))earance of consent$ which is the reason why it is a ground for

voidable marriages$ while sub)aragra)h <8= does not refer to consent but to the very essence of marital

obligations!

Prof! <.raceli= (aviera suggested that$ in sub)aragra)h <8=$ the word LmentallyL be deleted$ with which

:ustice "aguioa concurred! :udge Diy$ however$ )refers to retain the word Lmentally!L

:ustice "aguioa remar*ed that sub)aragra)h <8= refers to )sychological im)otence! :ustice <Ricardo=

Puno stated that sometimes a )erson may be )sychologically im)otent with one but not with another!

:ustice <eonor Ines/= uciano said that it is called selective im)otency!

Dean <Fortunato= 0u)it stated that the confusion lies in the fact that in inserting the "anon awannulment in the Family "ode$ the "ommittee used a language which describes a ground for voidable

marriages under the "ivil "ode! :ustice "aguioa added that in "anon aw$ there are voidable marriages

under the "anon aw$ there are no voidable marriages Dean 0u)it said that this is )recisely the reason

why they should ma*e a distinction!

:ustice Puno remar*ed that in "anon aw$ the defects in marriage cannot be cured!

:ustice Reyes )ointed out that the )roblem is hy is LinsanityL a ground for void ab initio marriages In

re)ly$ :ustice "aguioa eA)lained that insanity is curable and there are lucid intervals$ while )sychological

inca)acity is not!

On another )oint$ :ustice Puno suggested that the )hrase Leven if such lac* or inca)acity is made

manifestL be modified to read Leven if such lac* or inca)acity becomes manifest!L

:ustice Reyes remar*ed that in insanity$ at the time of the marriage$ it is not a))arent!

:ustice "aguioa stated that there are two inter)retations of the )hrase L)sychological or mentally

inca)acitatedL M in the first one$ there is vitiation of consent because one does not *now all the

conseEuences of the marriages$ and if he had *nown these com)letely$ he might not have consented to

the marriage!

AAA AAA AAA

Prof! (autista stated that he is in favor of ma*ing )sychological inca)acity a ground for voidable

marriages since otherwise it will encourage one who really understood the conseEuences of marriage to

claim that he did not and to ma*e eAcuses for invalidating the marriage by acting as if he did not

understand the obligations of marriage! Dean 0u)it added that it is a loose way of )roviding for divorce!

AAA AAA AAA




:ustice "aguioa eA)lained that his )oint is that in the case of inca)acity by reason of defects in the

mental faculties$ which is less than insanity$ there is a defect in consent and$ therefore$ it is clear that it

should be a ground for voidable marriage because there is the a))earance of consent and it is ca)able

of convalidation for the sim)le reason that there are lucid intervals and there are cases when the insanity

is curable! @e em)hasi6ed that )sychological inca)acity does not refer to mental faculties and has

nothing to do with consent> it refers to obligations attendant to marriage!

AAA AAA AAA

On )sychological inca)acity$ Prof! <Flerida Ruth P!= Romero inEuired if they do not consider it as going to

the very essence of consent! She as*ed if they are really removing it from consent! In re)ly$ :ustice

"aguioa eA)lained that$ ultimately$ consent in general is effected but he stressed that his )oint is that it is

not )rinci)ally a vitiation of consent since there is a valid consent! @e ob'ected to the lum)ing together of

the validity of the marriage celebration and the obligations attendant to marriage$ which are com)letely

different from each other$ because they reEuire a different ca)acity$ which is eighteen years of age$ for

marriage but in contract$ it is different! :ustice Puno$ however$ felt that )sychological inca)acity is still a

*ind of vice of consent and that it should not be classified as a voidable marriage which is inca)able of

convalidation> it should be convalidated but there should be no )rescri)tion! In other words$ as long asthe defect has not been cured$ there is always a right to annul the marriage and if the defect has been

really cured$ it should be a defense in the action for annulment so that when the action for annulment is

instituted$ the issue can be raised that actually$ although one might have been )sychologically

inca)acitated$ at the time the action is brought$ it is no longer true that he has no conce)t of the

conseEuence of marriage!

Prof! <Hsteban= (autista raised the Euestion ill not cohabitation be a defense In res)onse$ :ustice

Puno stated that even the bearing of children and cohabitation should not be a sign that )sychological

inca)acity has been cured!

Prof! Romero o)ined that )sychological inca)acity is still insanity of a lesser degree! :ustice uciano

suggested that they invite a )sychiatrist$ who is the eA)ert on this matter! :ustice "aguioa$ however$

reiterated that )sychological inca)acity is not a defect in the mind but in the understanding of the

conseEuences of marriage$ and therefore$ a )sychiatrist will not be a hel)!

Prof! (autista stated that$ in the same manner that there is a lucid interval in insanity$ there are also

momentary )eriods when there is an understanding of the conseEuences of marriage! :ustice Reyes and

Dean 0u)it remar*ed that the ground of )sychological inca)acity will not a))ly if the marriage was

contracted at the time when there is understanding of the conseEuences of marriage! 5

AAA AAA AAA

:udge Diy )ro)osed that they include )hysical inca)acity to co)ulate among the grounds for voidmarriages! :ustice Reyes commented that in some instances the im)otence that in some instances the

im)otence is only tem)orary and only with res)ect to a )articular )erson! :udge Diy stated that they can

s)ecify that it is incurable! :ustice "aguioa remar*ed that the term LincurableL has a different meaning in

law and in medicine! :udge Diy stated that L)sychological inca)acityL can also be cured! :ustice

"aguioa$ however$ )ointed out that L)sychological inca)acityL is incurable!




:ustice Puno observed that under the )resent draft )rovision$ it is enough to show that at the time of the

celebration of the marriage$ one was )sychologically inca)acitated so that later on if already he can

com)ly with the essential marital obligations$ the marriage is still void ab initio! :ustice "aguioa

eA)lained that since in divorce$ the )sychological inca)acity may occur after the marriage$ in void

marriages$ it has to be at the time of the celebration of marriage! @e$ however$ stressed that the idea in

the )rovision is that at the time of the celebration of the marriage$ one is )sychologically inca)acitated to

com)ly with the essential marital obligations$ which inca)acity continues and later becomes manifest!

:ustice Puno and :udge Diy$ however$ )ointed out that it is )ossible that after the marriage$ oneKs

)sychological inca)acity become manifest but later on he is cured! :ustice Reyes and :ustice "aguioa

o)ined that the remedy in this case is to allow him to remarry! 4

AAA AAA AAA

:ustice Puno formulated the neAt .rticle as follows

.rt! 48! . marriage contracted by any )arty who$ at the time of the celebration$ was

)sychologically inca)acitated$ to com)ly with the essential obligations of marriage shallli*ewise be void from the beginning even if such inca)acity becomes manifest after its

solemni6ation!

:ustice "aguioa suggested that Leven ifL be substituted with Lalthough!L On the other hand$ Prof!

(autista )ro)osed that the clause Lalthough such inca)acity becomes manifest after its solemni6ationL

be deleted since it may encourage one to create the manifestation of )sychological inca)acity! :ustice

"aguioa )ointed out that$ as in other )rovisions$ they cannot argue on the basis of abuse!

:udge Diy suggested that they also include mental and )hysical inca)acities$ which are lesser in degree

than )sychological inca)acity! :ustice "aguioa eA)lained that mental and )hysical inca)acities are vices

of consent while )sychological inca)acity is not a s)ecies of vice or consent!

Dean 0u)it read what (isho) "ru6 said on the matter in the minutes of their February 9$ ,97 meeting

LOn the third ground$ (isho) "ru6 indicated that the )hrase L)sychological or mental

im)otenceL is an invention of some churchmen who are moralists but not canonists$ that

is why it is considered a wea* )hrase! @e said that the "ode of "anon aw would rather

eA)ress it as L)sychological or mental inca)acity to discharge ! ! !L

:ustice "aguioa remar*ed that they deleted the word LmentalL )recisely to distinguish it from vice of

consent! @e eA)lained that L)sychological inca)acityL refers to lac* of understanding of the essential

obligations of marriage!

:ustice Puno reminded the members that$ at the last meeting$ they have decided not to go into the

classification of L)sychological inca)acityL because there was a lot of debate on it and that this is

)recisely the reason why they classified it as a s)ecial case!

.t this )oint$ :ustice Puno$ remar*ed that$ since there having been annulments of marriages arising from

)sychological inca)acity$ "ivil aw should not reconcile with "anon aw because it is a new ground

even under "anon aw!




Prof! Romero raised the Euestion ith this common )rovision in "ivil aw and in "anon aw$ are they

going to have a )rovision in the Family "ode to the effect that marriages annulled or declared void by the

church on the ground of )sychological inca)acity is automatically annulled in "ivil aw The other

members re)lied negatively!

:ustice Puno and Prof! Romero inEuired if .rticle 48 should be retroactive or )ros)ective in a))lication!

:ustice Diy o)ined that she was for its retroactivity because it is their answer to the )roblem of church

annulments of marriages$ which are still valid under the "ivil aw! On the other hand$ :ustice Reyes and

:ustice Puno were concerned about the avalanche of cases!

Dean 0u)it suggested that they )ut the issue to a vote$ which the "ommittee a))roved!

The members voted as follows

<,= :ustice Reyes$ :ustice Puno and Prof! Romero were for )ros)ectivity!

<2= :ustice "aguioa$ :udge Diy$ Dean 0u)it$ Prof! (autista and Director Hufemio were for retroactivity!

<4= Prof! (aviera abstained!

:ustice "aguioa suggested that they )ut in the )rescri)tive )eriod of ten years within which the action for

declaration of nullity of the marriage should be filed in court! The "ommittee a))roved the suggestion! /

It could well be that$ in sum$ the Family "ode Revision "ommittee in ultimately deciding to ado)t the )rovision with less

s)ecificity than eA)ected$ has in fact$ so designed the law as to allow some resiliency in its a))lication! Bme! :ustice

.licia V! Sem)io/Diy$ a member of the "ode "ommittee$ has been Euoted by Br! :ustice :osue N! (ellosillo in Salita

/s! +on! -agtolis <0!R! No! ,;329$ ,4 :une ,99=> thus

The "ommittee did not give any eAam)les of )sychological inca)acity for fear that the giving of

eAam)les would limit the a))licability of the )rovision under the )rinci)le of e=usdem generis! Rather$ the

"ommittee would li*e the 'udge to inter)ret the )rovision on a case/to/case basis$ guided by eA)erience$

the findings of eA)erts and researchers in )sychological disci)lines$ and by decisions of church tribunals

which$ although not binding on the civil courts$ may be given )ersuasive effect since the )rovision was

ta*en from "anon aw!

. )art of the )rovision is similar to "anon ,;91 of the New "ode of "anon aw$ 9 which reads

"anon ,;91! They are inca)able of contracting marriage

,! who lac* sufficient use of reason>

2! who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of 'udgment concerning essentila matrimonial rights and

duties$ to be given and acce)ted mutually>

4! #ho for causes of psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage!

<Hm)hasis su))lied!=




defect did in fact de)rive the )erson$ at the moment of giving consent$ of the ability to assume the

essential duties of marriage and conseEuently of the )ossibility of being bound by these duties!

:ustice Sem)io/Diy 11 cites with a))roval the wor* of Dr! 0erardo Veloso$ a former Presiding :udge of the Betro)olitan

Barriage Tribunal of the "atholic .rchdiocese of Banila <(ranch ,=$ who o)ines that )sychological inca)acity must be

characteri6ed by <a= gravity$ <b= 'uridical antecedence$ and <c= incurability! The inca)acity must be grave or serious such

that the )arty would be inca)able of carrying out the ordinary duties reEuired in marriage> it must be rooted in the history

of the )arty antedating the marriage$ although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage> and it must

be incurable or$ even if it were otherwise$ the cure would be beyond the means of the )arty involved!

It should be obvious$ loo*ing at all the foregoing disEuisitions$ including$ and most im)ortantly$ the deliberations of the

Family "ode Revision "ommittee itself$ that the use of the )hrase L)sychological inca)acityL under .rticle 43 of the "ode

has not been meant to com)rehend all such )ossible cases of )sychoses as$ li*ewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical

authorities$ eAtremely low intelligence$ immaturity$ and li*e circumstances <cited in Fr! .rtemio (alumaKs LVoid and

Voidable Barriages in the Family "ode and their Parallels in "anon aw$L Euoting from the Diagnostic Statistical Banual

of Bental Disorder by the .merican Psychiatric .ssociation> Hdward @udsonKs L@andboo* II for Barriage Nullity "asesL=!

.rticle 43 of the Family "ode cannot be ta*en and construed inde)endently of$ but must stand in con'unction with$

eAisting )rece)ts in our law on marriage! Thus correlated$ L)sychological inca)acityL should refer to no less than amental <not )hysical= inca)acity that causes a )arty to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that

concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the )arties to the marriage which$ as so eA)ressed by .rticle 37 of

the Family "ode$ include their mutual obligations to live together$ observe love$ res)ect and f idelity and render hel) and

su))ort! There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of L)sychological

inca)acityL to the most serious cases of )ersonality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter intensitivity or inability to

give meaning and significance to the marriage! This )schologic condition must eAist at the time the marriage is

celebrated! The law does not evidently envision$ u)on the other hand$ an inability of the s)ouse to have seAual relations

with the other! This conclusion is im)licit under .rticle 1 of the Family "ode which considers children conceived )rior to

the 'udicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be Llegitimate!L

The other forms of )sychoses$ if eAisting at the ince)tion of marriage$ li*e the state of a )arty being of unsound mind or

concealment of drug addiction$ habitual alcoholism$ homoseAuality or lesbianism$ merely renders the marriage

contract /oidable )ursuant to .rticle 3$ Family "ode! If drug addiction$ habitual alcholism$ lesbianism or homoseAuality

should occur only during the marriage$ they become mere grounds for legal se)aration under .rticle 11 of the Family

"ode! These )rovisions of the "ode$ however$ do not necessarily )reclude the )ossibility of these various circumstances

being themselves$ de)ending on the degree and severity of the disorder$ indicia of )sychological inca)acity!

Cntil further statutory and 'uris)rudential )arameters are established$ every circumstance that may have some bearing

on the degree$ eAtent$ and other conditions of that inca)acity must$ in every case$ be carefully eAamined and evaluated

so that no )reci)itate and indiscriminate nullity is )erem)torily decreed! The well/considered o)inions of )sychiatrists$

)sychologists$ and )ersons with eA)ertise in )sychological disci)lines might be hel)ful or even desirable!

Barriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment! e should continue to be reminded that innate in our society$then enshrined in our "ivil "ode$ and even now still indelible in .rticle , of the Family "ode$ is that M

.rt! ,! Barriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man a woman entered into in

accordance with law for the establishment of con'ugal and family life! It is the foundation of the family

and an in/iolable social institution whose nature$ conseEuences$ and incidents are governed by law and

not sub'ect to sti)ulation$ eAce)t that marriage settlements may fiA the )ro)erty relations during the

marriage within the limits )rovided by this "ode! <Hm)hasis su))lied!=




Our "onstitution is no less em)hatic

Sec! ,! The State recogni6es the Fili)ino family as the foundation of the nation! .ccordingly$ it shall

strengthen its solidarity and actively )romote its total develo)ment!

Sec! 2! Barriage$ as an inviolable social institution$ is the foundation of the family and shall be )rotected

by the State! <.rticle V$ ,978 "onstitution=!

The above )rovisions eA)ress so well and so distinctly the basic nucleus of our laws on marriage and the family$ and they

are doubt the tenets we still hold on to!

The factual settings in the case at bench$ in no measure at all$ can come close to the standards reEuired to decree a

nullity of marriage! Cndeniably and understandably$ eouel stands aggrieved$ even des)erate$ in his )resent situation!

Regrettably$ neither law nor society itself can always )rovide all the s)ecific answers to every individual )roblem!

@HRHFORH$ the )etition is DHNIHD!

Re)ublic of the Phili))inesSUR- COUR"

Banila

SH"OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 119190 ;a)uary 14, 199/

C+I -ING "SOI, )etitioner$

vs!COUR" OF AAS a) GINA AO!"SOI, res)ondents!

"ORRS, ;R., J.:

Ban has not invented a reliable com)ass by which to steer a marriage in its 'ourney over troubled waters! aws are

seemingly inadeEuate! Over time$ much reliance has been )laced in the wor*s of the unseen hand of @im who created

all things!

ho is to blame when a marriage fails

This case was originally commenced by a distraught wife against her uncaring husband in the Regional Trial "ourt of

5ue6on "ity <(ranch 79= which decreed the annulment of the marriage on the ground of )sychological inca)acity!

Petitioner a))ealed the decision of the trial court to res)ondent "ourt of .))eals <"./0!R! "V No! 2817= which affirmed

the Trial "ourtKs decision November 29$ ,99 and corres)ondingly denied the motion for reconsideration in a resolution

dated February ,$ ,991!




The statement of the case and of the facts made by the trial court and re)roduced by the "ourt of .))eals 1 its decision

are as follows

From the evidence adduced$ the following acts were )re)onderantly established

Sometime on Bay 22$ ,977$ the )laintiff married the defendant at the Banila "athedral$ ! ! ! Intramuros Banila$

as evidenced by their Barriage "ontract! <HAh! L.L=

.fter the celebration of their marriage and wedding rece)tion at the South Villa$ Ba*ati$ they went and )roceeded

to the house of defendantKs mother!

There$ they sle)t together on the same bed in the same room for the first night of their married life!

It is the version of the )laintiff$ that contrary to her eA)ectations$ that as newlyweds they were su))osed to en'oy

ma*ing love$ or having seAual intercourse$ with each other$ the defendant 'ust went to bed$ sle)t on one side

thereof$ then turned his bac* and went to slee) ! There was no seAual intercourse between them during the first

night! The same thing ha))ened on the second$ third and fourth nights!

In an effort to have their honeymoon in a )rivate )lace where they can en'oy together during their first wee* as

husband and wife$ they went to (aguio "ity! (ut$ they did so together with her mother$ an uncle$ his mother and

his ne)hew! They were all invited by the defendant to 'oin them! +T-hey stayed in (aguio "ity for four <= days!

(ut$ during this )eriod$ there was no seAual intercourse between them$ since the defendant avoided her by

ta*ing a long wal* during siesta time or by 'ust slee)ing on a roc*ing chair located at the living room! They sle)t

together in the same room and on the same bed since Bay 22$ ,977 until Barch ,1$ ,979! (ut during this )eriod

there was no attem)t of seAual intercourse between them! +S-he claims$ that she did not even see her husbandKs

)rivate )arts nor did he see hers!

(ecause of this$ they submitted themselves for medical eAaminations to Dr! Hufemio Bacalalag$ a urologist at

the "hinese 0eneral @os)ital$ on :anuary 2;$ ,979!

The results of their )hysical eAaminations were that she is healthy$ normal and still a virgin$ while that of her

husbandKs eAamination was *e)t confidential u) to this time! hile no medicine was )rescribed for her$ the

doctor )rescribed medications for her husband which was also *e)t confidential! No treatment was given to her!

For her husband$ he was as*ed by the doctor to return but he never did!

The )laintiff claims$ that the defendant is im)otent$ a closet homoseAual as he did not show his )enis! She said$

that she had observed the defendant using an eyebrow )encil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother!

.nd that$ according to her$ the defendant married her$ a Fili)ino citi6en$ to acEuire or maintain his residency

status here in the country and to )ublicly maintain the a))earance of a normal man!

The )laintiff is not willing to reconcile with her husband!

On the other hand$ it is the claim of the defendant that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason of

)sychological inca)acity$ the fault lies with his wife!

(ut$ he said that he does not want his marriage with his wife annulled for several reasons$ /iD <,= that he loves

her very much> <2= that he has no defect on his )art and he is )hysically and )sychologically ca)able> and$ <4=

since the relationshi) is still very young and if there is any differences between the two of them$ it can still be




reconciled and that$ according to him$ if either one of them has some inca)abilities$ there is no certainty that this

will not be cured! @e further claims$ that if there is any defect$ it can be cured by the intervention of medical

technology or science!

The defendant admitted that since their marriage on Bay 22$ ,977$ until their se)aration on Barch ,1$ ,979$

there was no seAual contact between them! (ut$ the reason for this$ according to the defendant$ was that

everytime he wants to have seAual intercourse with his wife$ she always avoided him and whenever he caresses

her )rivate )arts$ she always removed his hands! The defendant claims$ that he forced his wife to have seA with

him only once but he did not continue because she was sha*ing and she did not li*e it! So he sto))ed!

There are two <2= reasons$ according to the defendant $ why the )laintiff filed this case against him$ and these

are <,= that she is afraid that she will be forced to return the )ieces of 'ewelry of his mother$ and$ <2= that her

husband$ the defendant$ will consummate their marriage!

The defendant insisted that their marriage will remain valid because they are still very young and there is still a

chance to overcome their differences!

The defendant submitted himself to a )hysical eAamination! @is )enis was eAamined by Dr! Sergio .lte6a$ :r!$ forthe )ur)ose of finding out whether he is im)otent ! .s a result thereof$ Dr! .lte6a submitted his DoctorKs Bedical

Re)ort! <HAh! L2L=! It is stated there$ that there is no evidence of im)otency <HAh! L2/(L=$ and he is ca)able of

erection! <HAh! L2/"L=

The doctor said$ that he as*ed the defendant to masturbate to find out whether or not he has an erection and he

found out that from the original si6e of two <2= inches$ or five <1= centimeters$ the )enis of the defendant

lengthened by one <,= inch and one centimeter! Dr! .lte6a said$ that the defendant had only a soft erection which

is why his )enis is not in its full length! (ut$ still is ca)able of further erection$ in that with his soft erection$ the

defendant is ca)able of having seAual intercourse with a woman!

In o)en "ourt$ the Trial Prosecutor manifested that there is no collusion between the )arties and that the

evidence is not fabricated!L 2

.fter trial$ the court rendered 'udgment$ the dis)ositive )ortion of which reads

.""ORDIN0?$ 'udgment is hereby rendered declaring as VOID the marriage entered into by the )laintiff with

the defendant on Bay 22$ ,977 at the Banila "athedral$ (asilica of the Immaculate "once)tion$ Intramuros$

Banila$ before the Rt! Rev! Bsgr! Belencio de Vera! ithout costs! et a co)y of this decision be furnished the

ocal "ivil Registrar of 5ue6on "ity! et another co)y be furnished the ocal "ivil Registrar of Banila!

SO ORDHRHD!

On a))eal$ the "ourt of .))eals affirmed the trial courtKs decision!

@ence$ the instant )etition!

Petitioner alleges that the res)ondent "ourt of .))eals erred

I




in affirming the conclusions of the lower court that there was no seAual intercourse between the )arties without

ma*ing any findings of fact!

II

in holding that the refusal of )rivate res)ondent to have seAual communion with )etitioner is a )sychological

inca)acity inasmuch as )roof thereof is totally absent!

III

in holding that the alleged refusal of both the )etitioner and the )rivate res)ondent to have seA with each other

constitutes )sychological inca)acity of both!

IV

in affirming the annulment of the marriage between the )arties decreed by the lower court without fully satisfying

itself that there was no collusion between them!

e find the )etition to be bereft of merit!

Petitioner contends that being the )laintiff in "ivil "ase No! 5/79/4,,$ )rivate res)ondent has the burden of )roving the

allegations in her com)laint> that since there was no inde)endent evidence to )rove the alleged non/coitus between the

)arties$ there remains no other basis for the courtKs conclusion eAce)t the admission of )etitioner> that )ublic )olicy

should aid acts intended to validate marriage and should retard acts intended to invalidate them> that the conclusion

drawn by the trial court on the admissions and confessions of the )arties in their )leadings and in the course of the trial is

mis)laced since it could have been a )roduct of collusion> and that in actions for annulment of marriage$ the material

facts alleged in the com)laint shall always be )roved! 3

Section ,$ Rule ,9 of the Rules of "ourt reads

Section ,! :udgment on the )leadings! M here an answer fails to tender an issue$ or otherwise admits the

material allegations of the adverse )artyKs )leading$ the court may$ on motion of that )arty$ direct 'udgment on

such )leading! (ut in actions for annulment of marriage or for legal se)aration the material facts alleged in the

com)laint shall always be )roved!

The foregoing )rovision )ertains to a 'udgment on the )leadings! hat said )rovision see*s to )revent is annulment of

marriage without trial! The assailed decision was not based on such a 'udgment on the )leadings! hen )rivate

res)ondent testified under oath before the trial court and was cross/eAamined by oath before the trial court and was

cross/eAamined by the adverse )arty$ she thereby )resented evidence in form of a testimony! .fter such evidence was

)resented$ it be came incumbent u)on )etitioner to )resent his side! @e admitted that since their marriage on Bay 22$

,977$ until their se)aration on Barch ,1$ ,979$ there was no seAual intercourse between them!

To )revent collusion between the )arties is the reason why$ as stated by the )etitioner$ the "ivil "ode )rovides that no

'udgment annulling a marriage shall be )romulgated u)on a sti)ulation of facts or by confession of 'udgment <.rts! 77

and ,;,+)ar! 2-= and the Rules of "ourt )rohibit such annulment without trial <Sec! ,$ Rule ,9=!

The case has reached this "ourt because )etitioner does not want their marriage to be annulled! This only shows that

there is no collusion between the )arties! hen )etitioner admitted that he and his wife <)rivate res)ondent= have never




had seAual contact with each other$ he must have been only telling the truth! e are re)roducing the relevant )ortion of

the challenged resolution denying )etitionerKs Botion for Reconsideration$ )enned with magisterial lucidity by .ssociate

:ustice Binerva 0on6aga/Reyes$ /iD

The 'udgment of the trial court which was affirmed by this "ourt is not based on a sti)ulation of facts! The issue

of whether or not the a))ellant is )sychologically inca)acitated to discharge a basic marital obligation was

resolved u)on a review of both the documentary and testimonial evidence on record! .))ellant admitted that he

did not have seAual relations with his wife after almost ten months of cohabitation$ and it a))ears that he is not

suffering from any )hysical disability! Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is

strongly indicative of a serious )ersonality disorder which to the mind of this "ourt clearly demonstrates an Kutter

insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriageK within the meaning of .rticle 43 of the

Family "ode <See Santos vs! "ourt of .))eals$ 0!R! No! ,,2;,9$ :anuary $ ,991=!

Petitioner further contends that res)ondent court erred in holding that the alleged refusal of both the )etitioner and the

)rivate res)ondent to have seA with each other constitutes )sychological inca)acity of both! @e )oints out as error the

failure of the trial court to ma*e La categorical finding about the alleged )sychological inca)acity and an in/de)th analysis

of the reasons for such refusal which may not be necessarily due to )hyschological disordersL because there might have

been other reasons$ M i !e!$ )hysical disorders$ such as aches$ )ains or other discomforts$ M why )rivate res)ondentwould not want to have seAual intercourse from Bay 22$ ,977 to Barch ,1$ ,979$ in a short s)an of ,; months!

First$ it must be stated that neither the trial court nor the res)ondent court made a finding on who between )etitioner and

)rivate res)ondent refuses to have seAual contact with the other! The fact remains$ however$ that there has never been

coitus between them! .t any rate$ since the action to declare the marriage void may be filed by either )arty$ i !e!$ even the

)sychologically inca)acitated$ the Euestion of who refuses to have seA with the other becomes immaterial!

Petitioner claims that there is no inde)endent evidence on record to show that any of the )arties is suffering from

)hychological inca)acity! Petitioner also claims that he wanted to have seA with )rivate res)ondent> that the reason for

)rivate res)ondentKs refusal may not be )sychological but )hysical disorder as stated above!

e do not agree! .ssuming it to be so$ )etitioner could have discussed with )rivate res)ondent or as*ed her what is

ailing her$ and why she bal*s and avoids him everytime he wanted to have seAual intercourse with her! @e never did! .t

least$ there is nothing in the record to show that he had tried to find out or discover what the )roblem with his wife could

be! hat he )resented in evidence is his doctorKs Bedical Re)ort that there is no evidence of his im)otency and he is

ca)able of erection! 5 Since it is )etitionerKs claim that the reason is not )sychological but )erha)s )hysical disorder on

the )art of )rivate res)ondent$ it became incumbent u)on him to )rove such a claim!

If a s)ouse$ although )hysically ca)able but sim)ly refuses to )erform his or her essential marriage obligations$

and the refusal is senseless and constant$ "atholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to )sychological

inca)acity than to stubborn refusal! Senseless and )rotracted refusal is eEuivalent to )sychological inca)acity!

Thus$ the )rolonged refusal of a s)ouse to have seAual intercourse with his or her s)ouse is considered a sign of

)sychological inca)acity! 4

Hvidently$ one of the essential marital obligations under the Family "ode is LTo )rocreate children based on the universal

)rinci)le that )rocreation of children through seAual coo)eration is the basic end of marriage!L "onstant non/ fulfillment o

this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage! In the case at bar$ the senseless and

)rotracted refusal of one of the )arties to fulfill the above marital obligation is eEuivalent to )sychological inca)acity!

.s a)tly stated by the res)ondent court$




.n eAamination of the evidence convinces Cs that the husbandKs )lea that the wife did not want carnal

intercourse with him does not ins)ire belief! Since he was not )hysically im)otent$ but he refrained from seAual

intercourse during the entire time <from Bay 22$ ,977 to Barch ,1$ ,979= that he occu)ied the same bed with his

wife$ )urely out of sym)haty for her feelings$ he deserves to be doubted for not having asserted his right seven

though she bal*ed <Tom)*ins vs! Tom)*ins$ ,,, .tl! 199$ cited in I Paras$ "ivil "ode$ at )! 44;=! (esides$ if it

were true that it is the wife was suffering from inca)acity$ the fact that defendant did not go to court and see* the

declaration of nullity wea*ens his claim! This case was instituted by the wife whose normal eA)ectations of her

marriage were frustrated by her husbandKs inadeEuacy! "onsidering the innate modesty of the Fili)ino woman$ it

is hard to believe that she would eA)ose her )rivate life to )ublic scrutiny and fabricate testimony against her

husband if it were not necessary to )ut her life in order and )ut to rest her marital status!

e are not im)ressed by defendantKs claim that what the evidence )roved is the unwillingness or lac* of

intention to )erform the seAual act$ which is not )hychological inca)acity$ and which can be achieved Lthrough

)ro)er motivation!L .fter almost ten months of cohabitation$ the admission that the husband is reluctant or

unwilling to )erform the seAual act with his wife whom he )rofesses to love very dearly$ and who has not )osed

any insurmountable resistance to his alleged a))roaches$ is indicative of a ho)eless situation$ and of a serious

)ersonality disorder that constitutes )sychological inca)acity to discharge the basic marital covenants within the

contem)lation of the Family "ode! /

hile the law )rovides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together$ observe mutual love$ res)ect and

fidelity <.rt! 37$ Family "ode=$ the sanction therefor is actually the Ls)ontaneous$ mutual affection between husband and

wife and not any legal mandate or court orderL <"uaderno vs! "uaderno ,2; Phil! ,297=! ove is useless unless it is

shared with another! Indeed$ no man is an island$ the cruelest act of a )artner in marriage is to say LI could not have

cared less!L This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self! The egoist has nothing but himself! In the natural

order$ it is seAual intimacy which brings s)ouses wholeness and oneness! SeAual intimacy is a gift and a )artici)ation in

the mystery of creation! It is a function which enlivens the ho)e of )rocreation and ensures the continuation of family

relations!

It a))ears that there is absence of em)athy between )etitioner and )rivate res)ondent! That is M a shared feeling which

between husband and wife must be eA)erienced not only by having s)ontaneous seAual intimacy but a dee) sense of

s)iritual communion! Barital union is a two/way )rocess! .n eA)ressive interest in each otherKs feelings at a time it is

needed by the other can go a long way in dee)ening the marital relationshi)! Barriage is definitely not for children but for

two consenting adults who view the relationshi) with love amor gignit amorem$ res)ect$ sacrifice and a continuing

commitment to com)romise$ conscious of its value as a sublime social institution!

This "ourt$ finding the gravity of the failed relationshi) in which the )arties found themselves tra))ed in its mire of

unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations$ can do no less but sustain the studied 'udgment of res)ondent

a))ellate court!

IN VIH OF T@H FORH0OIN0 PRHBISHS $ the assailed decision of the "ourt of .))eals dated November 29$ ,99 is

hereby .FFIRBHD in all res)ects and the )etition is hereby DHNIHD for lac* of merit!


SUR- COUR"Banila

HN (.N"




G.R. No. 10/43 February 13, 199/

RUIC OF "+ +IIINS,8.COUR" OF AAS a) RORID OA<IANO -OINA, re8o)e)%8.

ANGANIAN, J.:

"6e Fa(&y Coe o7 %6e 6(&(()e8 ro(e8 a) e)%(re&y )e =rou) H() a(%(o) %o %6o8e e)uera%e () %6e C((&Coe %o a88a(& %6e a&((%y o7 a arr(a=e, )ae&y, K8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%y.K S()$e %6e CoeL8 e77e$%((%y, our$our%8 6ae bee) 8ae (%6 ar(ou8 e%(%(o)8 %o e$&are arr(a=e8 o( ba8e o) %6(8 =rou). A&%6ou=6 %6(8Cour% 6a ()%erre%e %6e ea)()= o7 8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%y () %6e re$e)% $a8e o7 Santos vs. *ourt o! -ppea$s,8%(&& a)y 'u=e8 a) &ayer8 7() (77($u&%y () a&y()= 8a( )oe& ro(8(o) () 8e$(7($ $a8e8. I) %6e re8e)%

$a8e a) () %6e $o)%e% o7 %6e 6ere() a88a(&e De$(8(o) o7 %6e Cour% o7 Aea&8, %6e So&($(%or Ge)era& 6a8&abe&&e M ea==era%e %o be 8ure bu% )o)e%6e&e88 ere88(e o7 6(8 7ru8%ra%(o) M Ar%($&e 34 a8 %6e Ko8% &(bera&(or$e ro$eure () %6e or&.K +e)$e, %6(8 Cour% () a(%(o) %o re8o&()= %6e re8e)% $a8e, 7()8 %6e )ee %o&ay o) 8e$(7($ =u(e&()e8 () %6e ()%erre%a%(o) a) a&($a%(o) o7 Ar%($&e 34 o7 %6e Fa(&y Coe.

e7ore u8 (8 a e%(%(o) 7or re(e o) certiorari u)er Ru&e 5 $6a&&e)=()= %6e ;a)uary 25, 1993 De$(8(o) 1 o7 %6eCour% o7 Aea&8 2 () CA!G.R. C< No. 35 a77(r()= in toto %6e -ay 1, 1991 e$(8(o) o7 %6e Re=(o)a& "r(a&Cour% o7 a "r()(a, 3 e)=ue%, 6($6 e$&are %6e arr(a=e o7 re8o)e)% Ror(e& O&a(a)o -o&()a %o Rey)a&o-o&()a o( ab initio, o) %6e =rou) o7 K8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%yK u)er Ar%($&e 34 o7 %6e Fa(&y Coe.

("e acts

"6(8 $a8e a8 $oe)$e o) Au=u8% 14, 1990 (%6 %6e 7(&()= by re8o)e)% Ror(e& O. -o&()a o7 a er(7(ee%(%(o) 7or e$&ara%(o) o7 )u&&(%y o7 6er arr(a=e %o Rey)a&o -o&()a. 88e)%(a&&y, %6e e%(%(o) a&&e=e %6a% Ror(e&a) Rey)a&o ere arr(e o) Ar(& 1, 195 a% %6e Sa) A=u8%() C6ur$6 () -a)(&a? %6a% a 8o), A)re O. -o&()aa8 bor)? %6a% a7%er a year o7 arr(a=e, Rey)a&o 86oe 8(=)8 o7 K(a%ur(%y a) (rre8o)8(b(&(%yK a8 a6u8ba) a) a 7a%6er 8()$e 6e re7erre %o 8e) ore %(e (%6 6(8 eer8 a) 7r(e)8 o) 6o 6e 8ua)ere6(8 o)ey? %6a% 6e ee)e o) 6(8 are)%8 7or a( a) a88(8%a)$e, a) a8 )eer 6o)e8% (%6 6(8 (7e () re=ar%o %6e(r 7()a)$e8, re8u&%()= () 7reue)% uarre&8 be%ee) %6e? %6a% 8oe%(e () February 194, Rey)a&o a8re&(ee o7 6(8 'ob () -a)(&a, a) 8()$e %6e) Ror(e& 6a bee) %6e 8o&e brea())er o7 %6e 7a(&y? %6a% () O$%ober194 %6e $ou&e 6a a ery ()%e)8e uarre&, a8 a re8u&% o7 6($6 %6e(r re&a%(o)86( a8 e8%ra)=e? %6a% () -ar$619/, Ror(e& re8(=)e 7ro 6er 'ob () -a)(&a a) e)% %o &(e (%6 6er are)%8 () a=u(o C(%y? %6a% a 7e eeB8&a%er, Rey)a&o &e7% Ror(e& a) %6e(r $6(&, a) 6a 8()$e %6e) aba)o)e %6e? %6a% Rey)a&o 6a %6u8 86o)

%6a% 6e a8 8y$6o&o=($a&&y ()$aab&e o7 $o&y()= (%6 e88e)%(a& ar(%a& ob&(=a%(o)8 a) a8 a 6(=6&y(a%ure a) 6ab(%ua&&y uarre& 8oe ()((ua& 6o %6ou=6% o7 6(8e&7 a8 a B()= %o be 8ere? a) %6a% (% ou&be %o %6e $ou&eL8 be8% ()%ere8% %o 6ae %6e(r arr(a=e e$&are )u&& a) o( () orer %o 7ree %6e 7ro 6a%aeare %o be a) ()$oa%(b&e arr(a=e 7ro %6e 8%ar%.

I) 6(8 A)8er 7(&e o) Au=u8% 2, 199, Rey)a&o a(%%e %6a% 6e a) Ror(e& $ou& )o &o)=er &(e %o=e%6er a86u8ba) a) (7e, bu% $o)%e)e %6a% %6e(r (8u)er8%a)()=8 a) 7reue)% uarre&8 ere ue %o H1 Ror(e&L88%ra)=e be6a(or o7 ()8(8%()= o) a()%a()()= 6er =rou o7 7r(e)8 ee) a7%er %6e(r arr(a=e? H2 Ror(e&L8 re7u8a&




%o er7or 8oe o7 6er ar(%a& u%(e8 8u$6 a8 $ooB()= ea&8? a) H3 Ror(e&L8 7a(&ure %o ru) %6e 6ou8e6o& a)6a)&e %6e(r 7()a)$e8.

Dur()= %6e re!%r(a& o) O$%ober 1/, 1990, %6e 7o&&o()= ere 8%(u&a%e#

1. "6a% %6e ar%(e8 6ere() ere &e=a&&y arr(e o) Ar(& 1, 195 a% %6e C6ur$6 o7 S%. Au=u8%()e,-a)(&a?

2. "6a% ou% o7 %6e(r arr(a=e, a $6(& )ae A&ber% A)re O&a(a)o -o&()a a8 bor) o) ;u&y 29,194?

3. "6a% %6e ar%(e8 are 8eara%e!()!7a$% 7or ore %6a) %6ree year8?

. "6a% e%(%(o)er (8 )o% a8B()= 8uor% 7or 6er a) 6er $6(&?

5. "6a% %6e re8o)e)% (8 )o% a8B()= 7or aa=e8?

4. "6a% %6e $oo) $6(& o7 %6e ar%(e8 (8 () %6e $u8%oy o7 %6e e%(%(o)er (7e.

(e)$e 7or 6ere() re8o)e)% (7e $o)8(8%e o7 6er o) %e8%(o)y a) %6a% o7 6er 7r(e)8 Ro8ear(e <e)%uraa) -ar(a eo)ora a(&&a a8 e&& a8 o7 Ru%6 G. a&a8, a 8o$(a& orBer, a) o7 Dr. "ere8(%a +(a&=o!S(8o), a8y$6(a%r(8% o7 %6e a=u(o Ge)era& +o8(%a& a) -e($a& Ce)%er. S6e a&8o 8ub(%%e o$ue)%8 arBe a86(b(%8 KAK %o K!1.K Rey)a&o ( )o% re8e)% a)y e(e)$e a8 6e aeare o)&y ur()= %6e re!%r(a&$o)7ere)$e.

O) -ay 1, 1991, %6e %r(a& $our% re)ere 'u=e)% e$&ar()= %6e arr(a=e o(. "6e aea& o7 e%(%(o)er a8e)(e by %6e Cour% o7 Aea&8 6($6 a77(re in toto %6e R"CL8 e$(8(o). +e)$e, %6e re8e)% re$our8e.

("e Issue

I) 6(8 e%(%(o), %6e So&($(%or Ge)era& ()8(8%8 %6a% K%6e Cour% o7 Aea&8 ae a) erro)eou8 a) ()$orre$%()%erre%a%(o) o7 %6e 6ra8e L8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%yL Ha8 ro(e u)er Ar%. 34 o7 %6e Fa(&y Coe a) aea) ()$orre$% a&($a%(o) %6ereo7 %o %6e 7a$%8 o7 %6e $a8e,K a()= %6a% %6e aea&e De$(8(o) %e)e K%o e8%ab&(86() e77e$% %6e o8% &(bera& (or$e ro$eure () %6e or& 6($6 (8 a)a%6ea %o our $u&%ure.K

I) e)y()= %6e So&($(%or Ge)era&L8 aea&, %6e re8o)e)% Cour% re&(e 5 6ea(&y o) %6e %r(a& $our%L8 7()()=8 K%6a%%6e arr(a=e be%ee) %6e ar%(e8 broBe u be$au8e o7 %6e(r oo8()= a) $o)7&($%()= er8o)a&(%(e8.K "6e), (%ae (% 8o) o()(o) %6a% K%6e C((& Coe Re(8(o) Co(%%ee H6ere()a7%er re7erre %o a8 Co(%%ee ()%e)e%o &(bera&(e %6e a&($a%(o) o7 our $((& &a8 o) er8o)a& a) 7a(&y r(=6%8. . . .K I% $o)$&ue %6a%#

A8 =rou) 7or a))u&e)% o7 arr(a=e, *e (e 8y$6o&o=($a&&y ()$aa$(%y a8 a broa ra)=e o7e)%a& a) be6a(ora& $o)u$% o) %6e ar% o7 o)e 8ou8e ()($a%(e o7 6o 6e or 86e re=ar8 %6ear(%a& u)(o), 6(8 or 6er er8o)a& re&a%(o)86( (%6 %6e o%6er 8ou8e, a8 e&& a8 6(8 or 6er$o)u$% () %6e &o)= 6au& 7or %6e a%%a()e)% o7 %6e r()$(a& ob'e$%(e8 o7 arr(a=e. I7 8a($o)u$%, ob8ere a) $o)8(ere a8 a 6o&e, %e)8 %o $au8e %6e u)(o) %o 8e&7!e8%ru$% be$au8e(% e7ea%8 %6e ery ob'e$%(e8 o7 arr(a=e, %6e) %6ere (8 e)ou=6 rea8o) %o &eae %6e 8ou8e8 %o%6e(r ()((ua& 7a%e8.




I) %6e $a8e a% bar, *e 7() %6a% %6e %r(a& 'u=e $o(%%e )o ()(8$re%(o) () a)a&y()= a)e$(()= %6e ()8%a)% $a8e, a8 (% (, 6e)$e, *e 7() )o $o=e)% rea8o) %o (8%urb %6e 7()()=8 a)$o)$&u8(o)8 %6u8 ae.

Re8o)e)%, () 6er -eora)u, ao%8 %6e8e (8$u88(o)8 o7 %6e Cour% o7 Aea&8.

"6e e%(%(o)er, o) %6e o%6er 6a), ar=ue8 %6a% Koo8()= a) $o)7&($%()= er8o)a&(%(e8K (8 )o% eu(a&e)% %o8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%y, e&a()()= %6a% 8u$6 =rou) K(8 )o% 8(&y %6e neg$ect by %6e ar%(e8 %o %6e arr(a=eo7 %6e(r re8o)8(b(&(%(e8 a) u%(e8, bu% a de!ect () %6e(r 8y$6o&o=($a& )a%ure 6($6 re)er8 %6e ()$aab&e o7er7or()= 8u$6 ar(%a& re8o)8(b(&(%(e8 a) u%(e8.K

("e *ourt/s 0u$ing

"6e e%(%(o) (8 er(%or(ou8.

I) Leoue$ Santos vs. *ourt o! -ppea$s 4 %6(8 Cour%, 8eaB()= %6ru -r. ;u8%($e ;o8e C. <(%u=, ru&e %6a%K8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%y 86ou& re7er %o )o &e88 %6a) a e)%a& H)or 6y8($a& ()$aa$(%y . . . a) %6a% H%6ere (8

6ar&y a)y oub% %6a% %6e ()%e)e)% o7 %6e &a 6a8 bee) %o $o)7()e %6e ea)()= o7 L8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%yL %o%6e o8% 8er(ou8 $a8e8 o7 er8o)a&(%y (8orer8 $&ear&y eo)8%ra%(e o7 a) u%%er ()8e)8(%((%y or ()ab(&(%y %o =(eea)()= a) 8(=)(7($a)$e %o %6e arr(a=e. "6(8 8y$6o&o=($ $o)(%(o) u8% e(8% a% %6e %(e %6e arr(a=e (8$e&ebra%e.K C(%()= Dr. Geraro <e&o8o, a 7orer re8(()= 'u=e o7 %6e -e%roo&(%a) -arr(a=e "r(bu)a& o7 %6eCa%6o&($ Ar$6(o$e8e o7 -a)(&a, / ;u8%($e <(%u= ro%e %6a% K%6e 8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%y u8% be $6ara$%er(eby Ha =ra(%y, Hb 'ur(($a& a)%e$ee)$e, a) H$ ()$urab(&(%y.K

O) %6e o%6er 6a), () %6e re8e)% $a8e, %6ere (8 )o $&ear 86o()= %o u8 %6a% %6e 8y$6o&o=($a& e7e$% 8oBe) o7(8 a) ()$aa$(%y. I% aear8 %o u8 %o be ore o7 a K(77($u&%y,K (7 )o% ou%r(=6% Kre7u8a&K or K)e=&e$%K () %6eer7ora)$e o7 8oe ar(%a& ob&(=a%(o)8. -ere 86o()= o7 K(rre$o)$(&(ab&e (77ere)$e8K a) K$o)7&($%()=er8o)a&(%(e8K () )o (8e $o)8%(%u%e8 8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%y. I% (8 )o% e)ou=6 %o roe %6a% %6e ar%(e8 7a(&e %oee% %6e(r re8o)8(b(&(%(e8 a) u%(e8 a8 arr(e er8o)8? (% (8 e88e)%(a& %6a% %6ey u8% be 86o) %obe incapab$e o7 o()= 8o, ue %o 8oe 8y$6o&o=($a& H)or 6y8($a& (&&)e88.

"6e e(e)$e au$e by re8o)e)% ere&y 86oe %6a% 86e a) 6er 6u8ba) $ou& )or =e% a&o)= (%6 ea$6o%6er. "6ere 6a bee) )o 86o()= o7 %6e =ra(%y o7 %6e rob&e? )e(%6er (%8 'ur(($a& a)%e$ee)$e )or (%8()$urab(&(%y. "6e eer% %e8%(o)y o7 Dr. S(8o) 86oe )o ()$urab&e 8y$6(a%r($ (8orer bu% o)&y ()$oa%(b(&(%y,)o% 8y$6o&o=($a& ()$aa$(%y. Dr. S(8o) %e8%(7(e#

COUR"

J I% (8 %6ere7ore %6e re$oe)a%(o) o7 %6e 8y$6(a%r(8% ba8e o) your 7()()=8%6a% (% (8 be%%er 7or %6e Cour% %o a))u& Hsic %6e arr(a=e

A Ye8, Your +o)or.

J "6ere (8 )o 6oe 7or %6e arr(a=e

A "6ere (8 )o 6oe, %6e a) (8 a&8o &(()= (%6 a)o%6er oa).




generis, 13 )eer%6e&e88 8u$6 roo% $au8e u8% be (e)%(7(e a8 a 8y$6o&o=($a& (&&)e88 a) (%8 ()$aa$(%a%()=)a%ure e&a()e. er% e(e)$e ay be =(e) ua&(7(e 8y$6(a%r(8% a) $&()($a& 8y$6o&o=(8%8.

H3 "6e ()$aa$(%y u8% be roe) %o be e(8%()= a% K%6e %(e o7 %6e $e&ebra%(o)K o7 %6e arr(a=e. "6e e(e)$eu8% 86o %6a% %6e (&&)e88 a8 e(8%()= 6e) %6e ar%(e8 e$6a)=e %6e(r KI oL8.K "6e a)(7e8%a%(o) o7 %6e(&&)e88 )ee )o% be er$e(ab&e a% 8u$6 %(e, bu% %6e (&&)e88 (%8e&7 u8% 6ae a%%a$6e a% 8u$6 oe)%, or r(or%6ere%o.

H Su$6 ()$aa$(%y u8% a&8o be 86o) %o be e($a&&y or $&()($a&&y era)e)% or incurab$e. Su$6 ()$urab(&(%yay be ab8o&u%e or ee) re&a%(e o)&y () re=ar %o %6e o%6er 8ou8e, )o% )e$e88ar(&y ab8o&u%e&y a=a()8% eeryo)eo7 %6e 8ae 8e. Fur%6erore, 8u$6 ()$aa$(%y u8% be re&ea)% %o %6e a88u%(o) o7 arr(a=e ob&(=a%(o)8, )o%)e$e88ar(&y %o %6o8e )o% re&a%e %o arr(a=e, &(Be %6e eer$(8e o7 a ro7e88(o) or e&oye)% () a 'ob. +e)$e, ae(a%r($(a) ay be e77e$%(e () (a=)o8()= (&&)e88e8 o7 $6(&re) a) re8$r(b()= e($()e %o $ure %6e bu% ay)o% be 8y$6o&o=($a&&y $aa$(%a%e %o ro$rea%e, bear a) ra(8e 6(86er o) $6(&re) a8 a) e88e)%(a& ob&(=a%(o)o7 arr(a=e.

H5 Su$6 (&&)e88 u8% be grave e)ou=6 %o br()= abou% %6e (8ab(&(%y o7 %6e ar%y %o a88ue %6e e88e)%(a&

ob&(=a%(o)8 o7 arr(a=e. "6u8, K(& $6ara$%er(o&o=($a& e$u&(ar(%(e8, oo $6a)=e8, o$$a8(o)a& eo%(o)a&ou%bur8%8K $a))o% be a$$e%e a8 root $au8e8. "6e (&&)e88 u8% be 86o) a8 o)r(=6% ()$aa$(%y or ()ab(&(%y,)or a re7u8a&, )e=&e$% or (77($u&%y, u$6 &e88 (&& (&&. I) o%6er or8, %6ere (8 a )a%a& or 8uere)()= (8ab&()=7a$%or () %6e er8o), a) aer8e ()%e=ra& e&ee)% () %6e er8o)a&(%y 8%ru$%ure %6a% e77e$%(e&y ()$aa$(%a%e8 %6eer8o) 7ro rea&&y a$$e%()= a) %6ereby $o&y()= (%6 %6e ob&(=a%(o)8 e88e)%(a& %o arr(a=e.

H4 "6e e88e)%(a& ar(%a& ob&(=a%(o)8 u8% be %6o8e ebra$e by Ar%($&e8 4 u %o /1 o7 %6e Fa(&y Coe a8re=ar8 %6e 6u8ba) a) (7e a8 e&& a8 Ar%($&e8 220, 221 a) 225 o7 %6e 8ae Coe () re=ar %o are)%8 a)%6e(r $6(&re). Su$6 )o)!$o&(e ar(%a& ob&(=a%(o)H8 u8% a&8o be 8%a%e () %6e e%(%(o), roe) by e(e)$ea) ()$&ue () %6e %e% o7 %6e e$(8(o).

H/ I)%erre%a%(o)8 =(e) by %6e Na%(o)a& Ae&&a%e -a%r(o)(a& "r(bu)a& o7 %6e Ca%6o&($ C6ur$6 () %6e 6(&(()e86(&e )o% $o)%ro&&()= or e$(8(e, 86ou& be =(e) =rea% re8e$% by our $our%8. I% (8 $&ear %6a% Ar%($&e 34 a8 %aBe)by %6e Fa(&y Coe Re(8(o) Co(%%ee 7ro Ca)o) 1095 o7 %6e Ne Coe o7 Ca)o) a, 6($6 be$aee77e$%(e () 193 a) 6($6 ro(e8#

"6e 7o&&o()= are ()$aab&e o7 $o)%ra$%()= arr(a=e# "6o8e 6o are u)ab&e %o a88ue %6ee88e)%(a& ob&(=a%(o)8 o7 arr(a=e ue %o $au8e8 o7 8y$6o&o=($a& )a%ure. 1

S()$e %6e uro8e o7 ()$&u()= 8u$6 ro(8(o) () our Fa(&y Coe (8 %o 6aro)(e our $((& &a8 (%6 %6ere&(=(ou8 7a(%6 o7 our eo&e, (% 8%a)8 %o rea8o) %6a% %o a$6(ee 8u$6 6aro)(a%(o), =rea% er8ua8(e e(=6%86ou& be =(e) %o e$(8(o) o7 8u$6 ae&&a%e %r(bu)a&. Iea&&y M 8ub'e$% %o our &a o) e(e)$e M 6a% (8e$ree a8 $a)o)($a&&y ()a&( 86ou& a&8o be e$ree $((&&y o(.

"6(8 (8 o)e ()8%a)$e 6ere, () (e o7 %6e e(e)% 8our$e a) uro8e o7 %6e Fa(&y Coe ro(8(o),$o)%eora)eou8 re&(=(ou8 ()%erre%a%(o) (8 %o be =(e) er8ua8(e e77e$%. +ere, %6e S%a%e a) %6e C6ur$6 M6(&e rea()()= ()ee)e)%, 8eara%e a) aar% 7ro ea$6 o%6er M 86a&& a&B %o=e%6er () 8y)oa& $ae)$e%oar8 %6e 8ae =oa& o7 ro%e$%()= a) $6er(86()= arr(a=e a) %6e 7a(&y a8 %6e ()(o&ab&e ba8e o7 %6e )a%(o).

H "6e %r(a& $our% u8% orer %6e ro8e$u%()= a%%or)ey or 7(8$a& a) %6e So&($(%or Ge)era& %o aear a8 $ou)8e&7or %6e 8%a%e. No e$(8(o) 86a&& 6e 6a)e o) u)&e88 %6e So&($(%or Ge)era& (88ue8 a $er%(7($a%(o), 6($6 (&& be


persons midterm

Documents