Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 169766 March 30, 2011
ESTRELLITA JULIANO-LLAE, Petitioner,
vs.
REPU!LIC O" T#E P#ILIPPINES, #AJA PUTRI $ORA%&A A. TAMANO a'(
A&I! A#MA& A. TAMANO, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
&EL CASTILLO, J.:
" ne# la# ou$ht to affect the future, not #hat is past. %ence, in the case of subse&uent
'arria$e la#s, no vested ri$hts shall be i'paired that pertain to the protection of the
le$iti'ate union of a 'arried couple.
This petition for revie# on certiorari assails the Decision
(
dated "u$ust (), *++, of the
!ourt of "ppeals -!". in !"/0.R. !V No. 1()1* and its subse&uent Resolution
*
dated
Septe'ber (2, *++3, #hich affir'ed the Decision of the Re$ional Trial !ourt -RT!. of
4ue5on !it6, 7ranch 89 declarin$ petitioner strellita :uliano/;lave<s -strellita.
'arria$e to Sen. Ma'intal ".:. Ta'ano -Sen. Ta'ano. as void ab initio.
Factual "ntecedents
"round (( 'onths before his death, Sen. Ta'ano 'arried strellita t#ice = initiall6
under the Isla'ic la#s and tradition on Ma6 *), (992 in !otabato !it6
2
and,
subse&uentl6, under a civil cere'on6 officiated b6 an RT! :ud$e at Malaban$, ;anao del
Sur on :une *, (992.
,
In their 'arria$e contracts, Sen. Ta'ano<s civil status #as indicated
as >divorced.<
Since then, strellita has been representin$ herself to the #hole #orld as Sen. Ta'ano<s
#ife, and upon his death, his #ido#.
On Nove'ber *2, (99,, private respondents %a?a Putri @ora6da ". Ta'ano -@ora6da.
and her son "dib "h'ad ". Ta'ano -"dib., in their o#n behalf and in behalf of the rest
of Sen. Ta'ano<s le$iti'ate children #ith @ora6da,
3
filed a co'plaint #ith the RT! of
4ue5on !it6 for the declaration of nullit6 of 'arria$e bet#een strellita and Sen.
Ta'ano for bein$ bi$a'ous. The co'plaint
1
alle$ed, inter alia, that Sen. Ta'ano 'arried
@ora6da on Ma6 2(, (938 under civil rites, and that this 'arria$e re'ained subsistin$
#hen he 'arried strellita in (992. The co'plaint liAe#ise averred thatB
((. The 'arria$e of the deceased and !o'plainant @ora6da, havin$ been
celebrated under the Ne# !ivil !ode, is therefore $overned b6 this la#. 7ased on
"rticle 23 -,. of the Fa'il6 !ode, the subse&uent 'arria$e entered into b6
deceased Ma'intal #ith Defendant ;lave is void ab initio because he contracted
the sa'e #hile his prior 'arria$e to !o'plainant @ora6da #as still subsistin$,
and his status bein$ declared as CdivorcedC has no factual or le$al basis, because
the deceased never divorced !o'plainant @ora6da in his lifeti'e, and he could
not have validl6 done so because divorce is not allo#ed under the Ne# !ivil
!odeD
((.( Moreover, the deceased did not and could not have divorced !o'plainant
@ora6da b6 invoAin$ the provision of P.D. (+82, other#ise Ano#n as the !ode of
Musli' Personal ;a#s, for the si'ple reason that the 'arria$e of the deceased
#ith !o'plainant @ora6da #as never dee'ed, le$all6 and factuall6, to have been
one contracted under Musli' la# as provided under "rt. (81 -*. of P.D. (+82,
since the6 -deceased and !o'plainant @ora6da. did not re$ister their 'utual
desire to be thus covered b6 this la#D
)
Su''ons #as then served on strellita on Dece'ber (9, (99,. She then asAed fro' the
court for an eEtension of 2+ da6s to file her ans#er to be counted fro' :anuar6 ,, (993,
8

and a$ain, another (3 da6s
9
or until Februar6 (8, (993, both of #hich the court $ranted.
(+
Instead of sub'ittin$ her ans#er, ho#ever, strellita filed a Motion to Dis'iss
((
on
Februar6 *+, (993 #here she declared that Sen. Ta'ano and @ora6da are both Musli's
#ho #ere 'arried under the Musli' rites, as had been averred in the latter<s disbar'ent
co'plaint a$ainst Sen. Ta'ano.
(*
strellita ar$ued that the RT! has no ?urisdiction to
taAe co$ni5ance of the case because under Presidential Decree -PD. No. (+82, or the
!ode of Musli' Personal ;a#s of the Philippines -Musli' !ode., &uestions and issues
involvin$ Musli' 'arria$es and divorce fall under the eEclusive ?urisdiction of shari<a
courts.
The trial court denied strellita<s 'otion and asserted its ?urisdiction over the case for
declaration of nullit6.
(2
Thus, strellita filed in Nove'ber (993 a certiorari petition #ith
this !ourt &uestionin$ the denial of her Motion to Dis'iss. On Dece'ber (3, (993, #e
referred the petition to the !"
(,
#hich #as docAeted thereat as !"/0.R. SP No. 29131.
Durin$ the pendenc6 of !"/0.R. SP No. 29131, the RT! continued to tr6 the case since
there can be no default in cases of declaration of nullit6 of 'arria$e even if the
respondent failed to file an ans#er. strellita #as allo#ed to participate in the trial #hile
her opposin$ parties presented their evidence. Fhen it #as strellita<s turn to adduce
evidence, the hearin$s set for such purpose
(3
#ere postponed 'ostl6 at her instance until
the trial court, on March **, (991, suspended the proceedin$s
(1
in vie# of the !"<s
te'porar6 restrainin$ order issued on Februar6 *9, (991, en?oinin$ it fro' hearin$ the
case.
()
ventuall6, ho#ever, the !" resolved the petition adverse to strellita in its Decision
dated Septe'ber 2+, (991.
(8
strellita then elevated the appellate court<s ?ud$'ent to this
!ourt b6 #a6 of a petition for revie# on certiorari docAeted as 0.R. No. (*11+2.
(9
Subse&uent to the pro'ul$ation of the !" Decision, the RT! ordered strellita to present
her evidence on :une *1, (99).
*+
"s strellita #as indisposed on that da6, the hearin$ #as
reset to :ul6 9, (99).
*(
The da6 before this scheduled hearin$, strellita a$ain asAed for a
postpone'ent.
**
Gnhapp6 #ith the dela6s in the resolution of their case, @ora6da and "dib 'oved to
sub'it the case for decision,
*2
reasonin$ that strellita had lon$ been dela6in$ the case.
strellita opposed, on the $round that she has not 6et filed her ans#er as she still a#aits
the outco'e of 0.R. No. (*11+2.
*,
On :une *9, (998, #e upheld the ?urisdiction of the RT! of 4ue5on !it6,
*3
statin$ as one
of the reasons that as shari<a courts are not vested #ith ori$inal and eEclusive ?urisdiction
in cases of 'arria$es celebrated under both the !ivil !ode and PD (+82, the RT!, as a
court of $eneral ?urisdiction, is not precluded fro' assu'in$ ?urisdiction over such cases.
In our Resolution dated "u$ust *,, (998,
*1
#e denied strellita<s 'otion for
reconsideration
*)
#ith finalit6.
" fe# da6s before this resolution, or on "u$ust (8, (998, the RT! rendered the
afore'entioned ?ud$'ent declarin$ strellita<s 'arria$e #ith Sen. Ta'ano as void ab
initio.
*8
Rulin$ of the Re$ional Trial !ourt
The RT!, findin$ that the 'arital ties of Sen. Ta'ano and @ora6da #ere never severed,
declared Sen. Ta'ano<s subse&uent 'arria$e to strellita as void ab initio for bein$
bi$a'ous under "rticle 23 of the Fa'il6 !ode of the Philippines and under "rticle 82 of
the !ivil !ode of the Philippines.
*9
The court saidB
" co'parison bet#een Ehibits " and 7 -supra. i''ediatel6 sho#s that the second
'arria$e of the late Senator #ith HstrellitaI #as entered into durin$ the subsistence of
his first 'arria$e #ith H@ora6daI. This renders the subse&uent 'arria$e void fro' the
ver6 be$innin$. The fact that the late Senator declared his civil status as CdivorcedC #ill
not in an6 #a6 affect the void character of the second 'arria$e because, in this
?urisdiction, divorce obtained b6 the Filipino spouse is not an acceptable 'ethod of
ter'inatin$ the effects of a previous 'arria$e, especiall6, #here the subse&uent 'arria$e
#as sole'ni5ed under the !ivil !ode or Fa'il6 !ode.
2+
Rulin$ of the !ourt of "ppeals
In her appeal,
2(
strellita ar$ued that she #as denied her ri$ht to be heard as
the RT! rendered its ?ud$'ent even #ithout #aitin$ for the finalit6 of the Decision of the
Supre'e !ourt in 0.R. No. (*11+2. She clai'ed that the RT! should have re&uired her
to file her ans#er after the denial of her 'otion to dis'iss. She 'aintained that Sen.
Ta'ano is capacitated to 'arr6 her as his 'arria$e and subse&uent divorce #ith @ora6da
is $overned b6 the Musli' !ode. ;astl6, she hi$hli$hted @ora6da<s lacA of le$al standin$
to &uestion the validit6 of her 'arria$e to the deceased.
In dis'issin$ the appeal in its Decision dated "u$ust (), *++,,
2*
the !" held that
strellita can no lon$er be allo#ed to file her ans#er as she #as $iven a'ple opportunit6
to be heard but si'pl6 i$nored it b6 asAin$ for nu'erous postpone'ents. She never filed
her ans#er despite the lapse of around 1+ da6s, a period lon$er than #hat #as prescribed
b6 the rules. It also ruled that strellita cannot rel6 on her pendin$ petition for certiorari
#ith the hi$her courts since, as an independent and ori$inal action, it does not interrupt
the proceedin$s in the trial court.
"s to the substantive 'erit of the case, the !" ad?ud$ed that strellita<s 'arria$e to Sen.
Ta'ano is void ab initio for bein$ bi$a'ous, reasonin$ that the 'arria$e of @ora6da and
Sen. Ta'ano is $overned b6 the !ivil !ode, #hich does not provide for an absolute
divorce. It noted that their first nuptial celebration #as under civil rites, #hile the
subse&uent Musli' celebration #as onl6 cere'onial. @ora6da then, accordin$ to the !",
had the le$al standin$ to file the action as she is Sen. Ta'ano<s #ife and, hence, the
in?ured part6 in the senator<s subse&uent bi$a'ous 'arria$e #ith strellita.
In its Septe'ber (2, *++3 Resolution,
22
the !" denied strellita<s Motion for
ReconsiderationJSupple'ental Motion for Reconsideration #here it debunAed the
additional errors she raised. The !" noted that the alle$ation of lacA of the public
prosecutor<s report on the eEistence of collusion in violation of both Rule 9, Section 2-e.
of the Rules of !ourt
2,
and "rticle ,8 of the Fa'il6 !ode
23
#ill not invalidate the trial
court<s ?ud$'ent as the proceedin$s bet#een the parties had been adversarial, ne$atin$
the eEistence of collusion. "ssu'in$ that the issues have not been ?oined before the RT!,
the sa'e is attributable to strellita<s refusal to file an ans#er. ;astl6, the !" disre$arded
strellita<s alle$ation that the trial court erroneousl6 rendered its ?ud$'ent #a6 prior to
our re'and to the RT! of the records of the case ratiocinatin$ that 0.R. No. (*11+2
pertains to the issue on the denial of the Motion to Dis'iss, and not to the issue of the
validit6 of strellita<s 'arria$e to Sen. Ta'ano.
The Parties< Respective "r$u'ents
Reiteratin$ her ar$u'ents before the court a &uo, strellita no# ar$ues that the !" erred
in upholdin$ the RT! ?ud$'ent as the latter #as pre'aturel6 issued, deprivin$ her of the
opportunit6 to file an ans#er and to present her evidence to dispute the alle$ations
a$ainst the validit6 of her 'arria$e. She clai's that :ud$e Macias v. Macias
21
laid do#n
the rule that the filin$ of a 'otion to dis'iss instead of an ans#er suspends the period to
file an ans#er and, conse&uentl6, the trial court is obli$ed to suspend proceedin$s #hile
her 'otion to dis'iss on the $round of lacA of ?urisdiction has not 6et been resolved #ith
finalit6. She 'aintains that she 'erel6 participated in the RT! hearin$s because of the
trial court<s assurance that the proceedin$s #ill be #ithout pre?udice to #hatever action
the %i$h !ourt #ill taAe on her petition &uestionin$ the RT!<s ?urisdiction and 6et, the
RT! violated this co''it'ent as it rendered an adverse ?ud$'ent on "u$ust (8, (998,
'onths before the records of 0.R. No. (*11+2 #ere re'anded to the !" on Nove'ber
((, (998.
2)
She also &uestions the lacA of a report of the public prosecutor anent a findin$
of #hether there #as collusion, this bein$ a prere&uisite before further proceedin$ could
be held #hen a part6 has failed to file an ans#er in a suit for declaration of nullit6 of
'arria$e.
strellita is also steadfast in her belief that her 'arria$e #ith the late senator is valid as
the latter #as alread6 divorced under the Musli' !ode at the ti'e he 'arried her. She
asserts that such la# auto'aticall6 applies to the 'arria$e of @ora6da and the deceased
#ithout need of re$isterin$ their consent to be covered b6 it, as both parties are Musli's
#hose 'arria$e #as sole'ni5ed under Musli' la#. She pointed out that Sen. Ta'ano
'arried all his #ives under Musli' rites, as attested to b6 the affidavits of the siblin$s of
the deceased.
28
;astl6, strellita ar$ues that @ora6da and "dib have no le$al standin$ to file suit because
onl6 the husband or the #ife can file a co'plaint for the declaration of nullit6 of 'arria$e
under Supre'e !ourt Resolution ".M. No. +*/((/(+/S!.
29
Refutin$ the ar$u'ents, the Solicitor 0eneral -Sol 0en. defends the !"<s reasonin$ and
stresses that strellita #as never deprived of her ri$ht to be heardD and, that filin$ an
ori$inal action for certiorari does not sta6 the proceedin$s of the 'ain action before the
RT!.
"s re$ards the alle$ed lacA of report of the public prosecutor if there is collusion, the Sol
0en sa6s that this is no lon$er essential considerin$ the vi$orous opposition of strellita
in the suit that obviousl6 sho#s the lacA of collusion. The Sol 0en also supports private
respondents< le$al standin$ to challen$e the validit6 of strellita<s purported 'arria$e
#ith Sen. Ta'ano, reasonin$ that an6 proper interested part6 'a6 attacA directl6 or
collaterall6 a void 'arria$e, and @ora6da and "dib have such ri$ht to file the action as
the6 are the ones pre?udiced b6 the 'arital union.
@ora6da and "dib, on the other hand, did not file an6 co''ent.
I))*+)
The issues that 'ust be resolved are the follo#in$B
(. Fhether the !" erred in affir'in$ the trial court<s ?ud$'ent, even thou$h the
latter #as rendered pre'aturel6 becauseB a. the ?ud$'ent #as rendered #ithout
#aitin$ for the Supre'e !ourt<s final resolution of her certiorari petition, i.e.,
0.R. No. (*11+2D b. she has not 6et filed her ans#er and thus #as denied due
processD and c. the public prosecutor did not even conduct an investi$ation
#hether there #as collusionD
*. Fhether the 'arria$e bet#een strellita and the late Sen. Ta'ano #as
bi$a'ousD and
2. Fhether @ora6da and "dib have the le$al standin$ to have strellita<s 'arria$e
declared void ab initio.
O*r R*,-'.
strellita<s refusal to file an ans#er eventuall6 led to the loss of her ri$ht to ans#erD and
her pendin$ petition for certiorariJrevie# on certiorari &uestionin$ the denial of the
'otion to dis'iss before the hi$her courts does not at all suspend the trial proceedin$s of
the principal suit before the RT! of 4ue5on !it6.
Firstl6, it can never be ar$ued that strellita #as deprived of her ri$ht to due process. She
#as never declared in default, and she even activel6 participated in the trial to defend her
interest.
strellita invoAes :ud$e Macias v. Macias
,+
to ?ustif6 the suspension of the period to file
an ans#er and of the proceedin$s in the trial court until her petition for certiorari
&uestionin$ the validit6 of the denial of her Motion to Dis'iss has been decided b6 this
!ourt. In said case, #e affir'ed the follo#in$ reasonin$ of the !" #hich, apparentl6, is
strellita<s basis for her ar$u'ent, to #itB
%o#ever, she opted to file, on "pril (+, *++(, a >Motion to Dis'iss,< instead of filin$ an
"ns#er to the co'plaint. The filin$ of said 'otion suspended the period for her to file
her "ns#er to the co'plaint. Gntil said 'otion is resolved b6 the Respondent !ourt #ith
finalit6, it behooved the Respondent !ourt to suspend the hearin$s of the case on the
'erits. The Respondent !ourt, on "pril (9, *++(, issued its Order den6in$ the >Motion to
Dis'iss< of the Petitioner. Gnder Section 1, Rule (1 of the (99) Rules of !ivil Procedure
Hno# Section ,I, the Petitioner had the balance of the period provided for in Rule (( of
the said Rules but in no case less than five -3. da6s co'puted fro' service on her of the
aforesaid Order of the Respondent !ourt #ithin #hich to file her "ns#er to the
co'plaintB E E E
,(
-'phasis supplied..
strellita obviousl6 'isappreciated Macias. "ll #e pronounced therein is that the trial
court is 'andated to suspend trial until it finall6 resolves the 'otion to dis'iss that is
filed before it. Nothin$ in the above eEcerpt states that the trial court should suspend its
proceedin$s should the issue of the propriet6 or i'propriet6 of the 'otion to dis'iss be
raised before the appellate courts. In Macias, the trial court failed to observe due process
in the course of the proceedin$ of the case because after it denied the #ife<s 'otion to
dis'iss, it i''ediatel6 proceeded to allo# the husband to present evidence eE parte and
resolved the case #ith undue haste even #hen, under the rules of procedure, the #ife still
had ti'e to file an ans#er. In the instant case, strellita had no ti'e left for filin$ an
ans#er, as she filed the 'otion to dis'iss be6ond the eEtended period earlier $ranted b6
the trial court after she filed 'otions for eEtension of ti'e to file an ans#er.
strellita ar$ues that the trial court pre'aturel6 issued its ?ud$'ent, as it should have
#aited first for the resolution of her Motion to Dis'iss before the !" and, subse&uentl6,
before this !ourt. %o#ever, in upholdin$ the RT!, the !" correctl6 ruled that the
pendenc6 of a petition for certiorari does not suspend the proceedin$s before the trial
court. C"n application for certiorari is an independent action #hich is not part or a
continuation of the trial #hich resulted in the rendition of the ?ud$'ent co'plained of.C
,*

Rule 13 of the Rules of !ourt is eEplicit in statin$ that CHtIhe petition shall not interrupt
the course of the principal case unless a te'porar6 restrainin$ order or a #rit of
preli'inar6 in?unction has been issued a$ainst the public respondent fro' further
proceedin$ in the case.C
,2
In fact, the trial court respected the !"<s te'porar6 restrainin$
order and onl6 after the !" rendered ?ud$'ent did the RT! a$ain re&uire strellita to
present her evidence.
Notabl6, #hen the !" ?ud$'ent #as elevated to us b6 #a6 of Rule ,3, #e never issued
an6 order precludin$ the trial court fro' proceedin$ #ith the principal action. Fith her
nu'erous re&uests for postpone'ents, strellita re'ained obstinate in refusin$ to file an
ans#er or to present her evidence #hen it #as her turn to do so, insistin$ that the trial
court should #ait first for our decision in 0.R. No. (*11+2. %er failure to file an ans#er
and her refusal to present her evidence #ere attributable onl6 to herself and she should
not be allo#ed to benefit fro' her o#n dilator6 tactics to the pre?udice of the other part6.
Sans her ans#er, the trial court correctl6 proceeded #ith the trial and rendered its
Decision after it dee'ed strellita to have #aived her ri$ht to present her side of the
stor6. Neither should the lo#er court #ait for the decision in 0.R. No. (*11+2 to beco'e
final and eEecutor6, nor should it #ait for its records to be re'anded bacA to it because
0.R. No. (*11+2 involves strictl6 the propriet6 of the Motion to Dis'iss and not the
issue of validit6 of 'arria$e.
The Public Prosecutor issued a report as
to the non/eEistence of collusion.
"side fro' "rticle ,8 of the Fa'il6 !ode and Rule 9, Section 2-e. of the Rules of !ourt,
the Rule on Declaration of "bsolute Nullit6 of Void Marria$es and "nnul'ent of
Voidable Marria$es -".M. No. +*/((/(+/S!.
,,
also re&uries the participation of the
public prosecutor in cases involvin$ void 'arria$es. It specificall6 'andates the
prosecutor to sub'it his investi$ation report to deter'ine #hether there is collusion
bet#een the partiesB
Sec. 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor.=-(. Fithin one 'onth after receipt of
the court order 'entioned in para$raph -2. of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor shall
sub'it a report to the court statin$ #hether the parties are in collusion and serve copies
thereof on the parties and their respective counsels, if an6.
-*. If the public prosecutor finds that collusion eEists, he shall state the basis
thereof in his report. The parties shall file their respective co''ents on the
findin$ of collusion #ithin ten da6s fro' receipt of a cop6 of the report. The court
shall set the report for hearin$ and if convinced that the parties are in collusion, it
shall dis'iss the petition.
-2. If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion eEists, the court shall set the
case for pre/trial. It shall be the dut6 of the public prosecutor to appear for the
State at the pre/trial.
Records sho# that the trial court i''ediatel6 directed the public prosecutor to sub'it the
re&uired report,
,3
#hich #e find to have been sufficientl6 co'plied #ith b6 "ssistant !it6
Prosecutor d$ardo T. Para$ua in his Manifestation dated March 2+, (993,
,1
#herein he
attested that there could be no collusion bet#een the parties and no fabrication of
evidence because strellita is not the spouse of an6 of the private respondents.
Further'ore, the lacA of collusion is evident in the case at bar. ven assu'in$ that there
is a lacA of report of collusion or a lacA of participation b6 the public prosecutor, ?ust as
#e held in Tuason v. !ourt of "ppeals,
,)
the lacA of participation of a fiscal does not
invalidate the proceedin$s in the trial courtB
The role of the prosecutin$ attorne6 or fiscal in annul'ent of 'arria$e and le$al
separation proceedin$s is to deter'ine #hether collusion eEists bet#een the parties and to
taAe care that the evidence is not suppressed or fabricated. PetitionerKs vehe'ent
opposition to the annul'ent proceedin$s ne$ates the conclusion that collusion eEisted
bet#een the parties. There is no alle$ation b6 the petitioner that evidence #as suppressed
or fabricated b6 an6 of the parties. Gnder these circu'stances, #e are convinced that the
non/intervention of a prosecutin$ attorne6 to assure lacA of collusion bet#een the
contendin$ parties is not fatal to the validit6 of the proceedin$s in the trial court.
,8
The !ivil !ode $overns the 'arria$e of @ora6da and the late Sen. Ta'anoD their 'arria$e
#as never invalidated b6 PD (+82. Sen. Ta'ano<s subse&uent 'arria$e to strellita is
void ab initio.
The 'arria$e bet#een the late Sen. Ta'ano and @ora6da #as celebrated in (938,
sole'ni5ed under civil and Musli' rites.
,9
The onl6 la# in force $overnin$ 'arria$e
relationships bet#een Musli's and non/Musli's aliAe #as the !ivil !ode of (93+, under
the provisions of #hich onl6 one 'arria$e can eEist at an6 $iven ti'e.
3+
Gnder the
'arria$e provisions of the !ivil !ode, divorce is not reco$ni5ed eEcept durin$ the
effectivit6 of Republic "ct No. 29,
3(
#hich #as not availed of durin$ its effectivit6.
"s far as strellita is concerned, Sen. Ta'ano<s prior 'arria$e to @ora6da has been
severed b6 #a6 of divorce under PD (+82,
3*
the la# that codified Musli' personal la#s.
%o#ever, PD (+82 cannot benefit strellita. Firstl6, "rticle (2-(. thereof provides that
the la# applies to C'arria$e and divorce #herein both parties are Musli's, or #herein
onl6 the 'ale part6 is a Musli' and the 'arria$e is sole'ni5ed in accordance #ith
Musli' la# or this !ode in an6 part of the Philippines.C 7ut #e alread6 ruled in 0.R. No.
(*11+2 that C"rticle (2 of PD (+82 does not provide for a situation #here the parties
#ere 'arried both in civil and Musli' rites.C
32
Moreover, the Musli' !ode tooA effect onl6 on Februar6 ,, (9)), and this la# cannot
retroactivel6 override the !ivil !ode #hich alread6 besto#ed certain ri$hts on the
'arria$e of Sen. Ta'ano and @ora6da. The for'er eEplicitl6 provided for the prospective
application of its provisions unless other#ise providedB
"rt. (81 -(.. ffect of code on past acts. L"cts eEecuted prior to the effectivit6 of this
!ode shall be $overned b6 the la#s in force at the ti'e of their eEecution, and nothin$
herein eEcept as other#ise specificall6 provided, shall affect their validit6 or le$alit6 or
operate to eEtin$uish an6 ri$ht ac&uired or liabilit6 incurred thereb6.
It has been held thatB
The fore$oin$ provisions are consistent #ith the principle that all la#s operate
prospectivel6, unless the contrar6 appears or is clearl6, plainl6 and une&uivocabl6
eEpressed or necessaril6 i'pliedD accordin$l6, ever6 case of doubt #ill be resolved
a$ainst the retroactive operation of la#s. "rticle (81 aforecited enunciates the $eneral
rule of the Musli' !ode to have its provisions applied prospectivel6, and i'plicitl6
upholds the force and effect of a pre/eEistin$ bod6 of la#, specificall6, the !ivil !ode =
in respect of civil acts that tooA place before the Musli' !ode<s enact'ent.
3,
"n instance of retroactive application of the Musli' !ode is "rticle (81-*. #hich statesB
" 'arria$e contracted b6 a Musli' 'ale prior to the effectivit6 of this !ode in
accordance #ith non/Musli' la# shall be considered as one contracted under Musli'
la# provided the spouses re$ister their 'utual desire to this effect.
ven $rantin$ that there #as re$istration of 'utual consent for the 'arria$e to be
considered as one contracted under the Musli' la#, the re$istration of 'utual consent
bet#een @ora6da and Sen. Ta'ano #ill still be ineffective, as both are Musli's #hose
'arria$e #as celebrated under both civil and Musli' la#s. 7esides, as #e have alread6
settled, the !ivil !ode $overns their personal status since this #as in effect at the ti'e of
the celebration of their 'arria$e. In vie# of Sen. Ta'ano<s prior 'arria$e #hich
subsisted at the ti'e strellita 'arried hi', their subse&uent 'arria$e is correctl6
ad?ud$ed b6 the !" as void ab initio.
@ora6da and "dib, as the in?ured parties, have the le$al personalities to file the
declaration of nullit6 of 'arria$e. ".M. No. +*/((/(+/S!, #hich li'its to onl6 the
husband or the #ife the filin$ of a petition for nullit6 is prospective in application and
does not shut out the prior spouse fro' filin$ suit if the $round is a bi$a'ous subse&uent
'arria$e.
%er 'arria$e covered b6 the Fa'il6 !ode of the Philippines,
33
strellita relies on ".M.
No. +*/((/(+/S! #hich tooA effect on March (3, *++2 clai'in$ that under Section *-a.
31

thereof, onl6 the husband or the #ife, to the eEclusion of others, 'a6 file a petition for
declaration of absolute nullit6, therefore onl6 she and Sen. Ta'ano 'a6 directl6 attacA
the validit6 of their o#n 'arria$e.
strellita clai's that onl6 the husband or the #ife in a void 'arria$e can file a petition
for declaration of nullit6 of 'arria$e. %o#ever, this interpretation does not appl6 if the
reason behind the petition is bi$a'6.
In eEplainin$ #h6 under ".M. No. +*/((/(+/S! onl6 the spouses 'a6 file the petition to
the eEclusion of co'pulsor6 or intestate heirs, #e saidB
The Rationale of the Rules on "nnul'ent of Voidable Marria$es and Declaration of
"bsolute Nullit6 of Void Marria$es, ;e$al Separation and Provisional Orders eEplicates
on Section *-a. in the follo#in$ 'anner, vizB
-(. Onl6 an a$$rieved or in?ured spouse 'a6 file petitions for annul'ent of voidable
'arria$es and declaration of absolute nullit6 of void 'arria$es. Such petitions cannot be
filed b6 the co'pulsor6 or intestate heirs of the spouses or b6 the State. HSection *D
Section 2, para$raph aI
Onl6 an a$$rieved or in?ured spouse 'a6 file a petition for annul'ent of voidable
'arria$es or declaration of absolute nullit6 of void 'arria$es. Such petition cannot be
filed b6 co'pulsor6 or intestate heirs of the spouses or b6 the State. The !o''ittee is of
the belief that the6 do not have a le$al ri$ht to file the petition. !o'pulsor6 or intestate
heirs have onl6 inchoate ri$hts prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence can onl6
&uestion the validit6 of the 'arria$e of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a
proceedin$ for the settle'ent of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the re$ular
courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve 'arria$e and not to seeA
its dissolution.
3)
Note that the Rationale 'aAes it clear that Section *-a. of ".M. No. +*/((/(+/S! refers
to the Ca$$rieved or in?ured spouse.C If strellita<s interpretation is e'plo6ed, the prior
spouse is un?ustl6 precluded fro' filin$ an action. Surel6, this is not #hat the Rule
conte'plated.
The subse&uent spouse 'a6 onl6 be eEpected to taAe action if he or she had onl6
discovered durin$ the connubial period that the 'arria$e #as bi$a'ous, and especiall6 if
the con?u$al bliss had alread6 vanished. Should parties in a subse&uent 'arria$e benefit
fro' the bi$a'ous 'arria$e, it #ould not be eEpected that the6 #ould file an action to
declare the 'arria$e void and thus, in such circu'stance, the Cin?ured spouseC #ho
should be $iven a le$al re'ed6 is the one in a subsistin$ previous 'arria$e. The latter is
clearl6 the a$$rieved part6 as the bi$a'ous 'arria$e not onl6 threatens the financial and
the propert6 o#nership aspect of the prior 'arria$e but 'ost of all, it causes an e'otional
burden to the prior spouse. The subse&uent 'arria$e #ill al#a6s be a re'inder of the
infidelit6 of the spouse and the disre$ard of the prior 'arria$e #hich sanctit6 is protected
b6 the !onstitution.
Indeed, Section *-a. of ".M. No. +*/((/(+/S! precludes the son fro' i'pu$nin$ the
subse&uent 'arria$e.1wphi1 7ut in the case at bar, both @ora6da and "dib have le$al
personalities to file an action for nullit6. "lbeit the Supre'e !ourt Resolution $overns
'arria$es celebrated under the Fa'il6 !ode, such is prospective in application and does
not appl6 to cases alread6 co''enced before March (3, *++2.
38
@ora6da and "dib filed the case for declaration of nullit6 of strellita<s 'arria$e in
Nove'ber (99,. Fhile the Fa'il6 !ode is silent #ith respect to the proper part6 #ho
can file a petition for declaration of nullit6 of 'arria$e prior to ".M. No. +*/((/(+/S!, it
has been held that in a void 'arria$e, in #hich no 'arria$e has taAen place and cannot be
the source of ri$hts, an6 interested part6 'a6 attacA the 'arria$e directl6 or collaterall6
#ithout prescription, #hich 'a6 be filed even be6ond the lifeti'e of the parties to the
'arria$e.
39
Since ".M. No. +*/((/(+/S! does not appl6, "dib, as one of the children of
the deceased #ho has propert6 ri$hts as an heir, is liAe#ise considered to be the real part6
in interest in the suit he and his 'other had filed since both of the' stand to be benefited
or in?ured b6 the ?ud$'ent in the suit.
1+
Since our Philippine la#s protect the 'arital union of a couple, the6 should be interpreted
in a #a6 that #ould preserve their respective ri$hts #hich include striAin$ do#n
bi$a'ous 'arria$es. Fe thus find the !" Decision correctl6 rendered.
F%RFOR, the petition is DNID. The assailed "u$ust (), *++, Decision of the
!ourt of "ppeals in !"/0.R. !V No. 1()1*, as #ell as its subse&uent Resolution issued
on Septe'ber (2, *++3, are hereb6 "FFIRMD.
SO ORDRD.
MARIANO C. &EL CASTILLO
"ssociate :ustice
F !ON!GRB
RENATO C. CORONA
!hief :ustice
!hairperson
PRES!ITERO J. ELASCO, JR.
"ssociate :ustice
TERESITA J. LEONAR&O-&E
CASTRO
"ssociate :ustice
JOSE PORTUGAL PERE$
"ssociate :ustice
! R T I F I ! " T I O N
Pursuant to Section (2, "rticle VIII of the !onstitution, it is hereb6 certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case #as
assi$ned to the #riter of the opinion of the !ourt<s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
!hief :ustice
"oo/'o/+)
(
!" rollo, pp. (*9/(,*D penned b6 "ssociate :ustice "urora Santia$o/;a$'an
and concurred in b6 "ssociate :ustices Portia "liMo/%or'achuelos and Rebecca
de 0uia/Salvador.
*
Id. at *+3/*(+.
2
Records, p. (+2.
,
Id. at (2.
3
Na'el6 :a'ila, :acob, "'ina, Macapanton, Ns'ael, Sora6a, "del and "&uil.
1
Rollo, pp. 3,/1+.
)
Id. at 3).
8
Records, pp. (,/(3, *3/*1.
9
Id. at *3/*1.
(+
Id. at (), *9.
((
Id. at 2*/28.
(*
Id. at 28/,+.
(2
Id. at (+9/(((, (*2.
(,
Id. at (,2.
(3
Id. at (3(, (32, ()2, (),.
(1
Id. at *(2.
()
Id. at ()1.
(8
Id. at *2+/*21.
(9
Ta'ano v. %on. Orti5, 232 Phil. ))3 -(998..
*+
Records, p. *2). The trial court erred in statin$ that >let reception of plaintiff<s
evidence herein be set on :une *1, (99) E E EC #hen in fact, it #as alread6
defendant<s turn.
*(
Id. at *,+.
**
Id. at *,*/*,,.
*2
Id. at 2(3/2(8.
*,
Id. at 2(9/2**.
*3
Rollo, pp. 19/)1.
*1
Records, p. 21).
*)
Id. at 23,/21*.
*8
Rollo, pp. ))/8*D penned b6 :ud$e lsa de 0u5'an.
*9
Fa'il6 !ode, "rticle 23. The follo#in$ 'arria$es shall be void fro' the
be$innin$B
E E E E
-,. Those bi$a'ous or pol6$a'ous 'arria$es not fallin$ under "rticle ,(D
E E E E
Ne# !ivil !ode, "rticle 82. "n6 'arria$e subse&uentl6 contracted b6 an6
person durin$ the lifeti'e of the first spouse of such person #ith an6
person other than such first spouse shall be ille$al and void fro' its
perfor'ance, unlessB
-(. The first 'arria$e #as annulled or dissolvedD
E E E E
2+
Rollo, p. 8+.
2(
!" rollo, pp. ()/,(.
2*
Rollo, pp. 2,/,1.
22
Id. at ,8/32.
2,
Rules of !ourt, Rule 9, Section 2-e. Where no defaults allowed. L If the
defendin$ part6 in an action for annul'ent or declaration of nullit6 of 'arria$e or
for le$al separation fails to ans#er, the court shall order the prosecutin$ attorne6
to investi$ate #hether or not a collusion bet#een the parties eEists, and if there is
no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence
sub'itted is not fabricated.
23
Fa'il6 !ode, "rticle ,8. In all cases of annul'ent or declaration of absolute
nullit6 of 'arria$e, the !ourt shall order the prosecutin$ attorne6 or fiscal
assi$ned to it to appear on behalf of the State to taAe steps to prevent collusion
bet#een the parties and to taAe care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
In the cases referred to in the precedin$ para$raph, no ?ud$'ent shall be
based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of ?ud$'ent.
21
,3) Phil ,12 -*++2..
2)
Rollo, p. *().
28
Id. at (22, (23.
29
Inadvertentl6 referred to as ".M. No. ++/((/+(/S!.
,+
Supra note 21.
,(
Id. at ,18.
,*
Sps. Dia5 v. Dia5, 28) Phil 2(,, 22, -*+++..
,2
Rules of !ourt, Rule 13, Section ).
,,
Dated March ,, *++2, #ith an effectivit6 date of March (3, *++2.
,3
Records, p. 2+.
,1
Id. at 31.
,)
2*1 Phil (19 -(991..
,8
Id. at (8(.
,9
Supra note (*, #here @ora6da<s disbar'ent co'plaint stated that the 'arria$e
#as conducted under both rites.
3+
Malan$ v. :ud$e Moson, 298 Phil. ,( -*+++..
3(
"n "ct "uthori5in$ For " Period Of T#ent6 Nears Divorce "'on$ Mosle's
Residin$ In Non/!hristian Provinces In "ccordance Fith Mosle' !usto's and
Practices -approved on :une (8, (9,9., Section ( of #hich providesB
Section (. For a period of t#ent6 6ears fro' the date of the approval of
this "ct, divorce a'on$ Mosle's residin$ in non/!hristian provinces shall
be reco$ni5ed and be $overned b6 Mosle' custo's and practices.
3*
Gnder "rticles ,3/3).
32
Ta'ano v. %on. Orti5, supra note (9 at )8(.
3,
Malan$ v. :ud$e Moson, supra note 3+ at 3).
33
Eecutive Order No. *+9, #hich tooA effect on "u$ust 2, (988.
31
Sec. *. Petition for declaration of absolute nullit6 of void 'arria$es.=
-a. Fho 'a6 file.=" petition for declaration of absolute nullit6 of void
'arria$e 'a6 be filed solel6 b6 the husband or the #ife.
3)
nrico v. %eirs of Sps. ulo$io 7. Medinaceli and Trinidad !atli/Medinaceli,
0.R. No. ()21(,, Septe'ber *8, *++), 32, S!R" ,(8, ,*9, citin$ Rationale of
the Rules on "nnul'ent of Voidable Marria$es and Declaration of "bsolute
Nullit6 of Void Marria$es, ;e$al Separation and Provisional Orders.
38
!arlos v. Sandoval, 0.R. No. ()99**, Dece'ber (1, *++8, 3), S!R" ((1, (2*
citin$ nrico v. %eirs of Sps. ulo$io 7. Medinaceli and Trinidad !atli/
Medinaceli, supra note 3) at ,*8.
39
NiMal v. 7a6ado$, 28, Phil 11(, 1)2 -*+++..
1+
Rules of !ourt, Rule 2, Section *.