TOLENTINO V PARAS

Art 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely
of a final judgement declaring such previous marriage void.

Amado Tolentino was married to petitioner Serafia, when he contracted a second marriage with the private
respondent, Maria Clemente. Petitioner charged Amado with bigamy and upon pleading guilty, he was
sentenced some prison time. After his release, he continued to live with Maria until his death. His death
certificate indicated that his surviving spouse was Maria Clemente. Petitioner sought to have this corrected to
reflect her name, Serafia.

ISSUE: WON the petition is the proper remedy to correct the death certificate.

HELD:
YES. In order to lay the basis for the correction of the entry in the death certificate, petitioner initially sought a
judicial declaration that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased, Amado. Considering that Amado was
convicted with bigamy, that is enough proof of the marital status of the petitioner to the deceased. The second
marriage contracted with the respondent is null and void. Therefore, no judicial decree is necessary to establish
the invalidity of a void marriage.

Hence, since the second marriage is void, the entry in the death certificate is therefore false and it may be
corrected. The court declared Serafia Tolentino the surviving spouse of Amado and ordered that the
corresponding correction to the death certificate be made.

WEIGEL V SEMPIO-DIY
August 19, 1986

Karl Weigel petitioned to declare his marriage to Lilia Weigel null and void on ground of Lilias subsisting
marriage to an Eduardo Maxion. Lilia admitted to the existence of the prior marriage however she claims it is
null and void because she was forced into the union/

ISSUE: WON the prior marriage was void. WON her subsequent marriage to Karl was valid.

HELD. NO, on both counts. Since the petitioner herself claimed that her first marriage was only vitiated through
force, it can be concluded that it is not void but merely voidable and therefore valid until annulled.

Since no annulment has been made, it is clear that when she married respondent, she had a subsisting marriage
rendering her second marriage VOID.

Even though, for arguments sake her first marriage was indeed void, she would still need a judicial declaration
of nullity for her marriage to respondent to be valid. Since she also has not done that, her marriage to Karl
Weigel is still VOID.
ATIENZA V BRILLANTES
March 12, 1995

Art 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely
of a final judgement declaring such previous marriage void.
Atienza charged Judge Francisco Brillantes with Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety for cohabiting
and marrying Atienzas common law wife, Yolanda de Castro. Atienza claims that Brillantes was married to
Zenaida Ongkingko but respondent refuted this saying his marriage to Ongkingko was void ab initio for lack of
marriage license.

ISSUE: WON Brillantes is guilty of Gross Immorality and Appearance of impropriety for contracting a subsequent
marriage with de Castro

HELD: YES, Article 40 requiring a judicial decree of absolute nullity for the purpose of subsequent marriages,
applies to second marriages contracted after the enactment of the Family Code in 1988 regardless of when the
first marriage was celebrated. Besides, Article 256 has given the Code a retroactive effect given that it does not
violate vested rights. Since he married de Castro in 1991, Article 40 applies to the case at bar. Aside from
Brillantes failure to secure a final judgement of nullity before marrying de Castro, he also failed to acquire a
marriage license for his marriage to Ongkingko. This shows a clear failure on his part to meet the standard of
moral fitness needed in the legal profession. He was thus dismissed from service.

APIAG v CANTERO
February 12, 1997

Maria Apiag and Judge Esmeraldo Cantero were married and had two children. Thereafter, Esmeraldo left their
conjugal home and abandoned his wife and kids without means for support. The plaintiffs learned later that
Esmeraldo contracted another marriage with Nieves Ygay and they have five children. In all of his data, insurance
policy, GSIS and income tax return, he misrepresented himself as being married to Nieves. Petitioners filed a
case of gross misconduct for allegedly committing bigamy and falsifying public documents.

Esmeraldo denied the validity of the marriage alleging that it was dramatized and he was forced to sign a
prepared marriage contract. He pressed the idea that his consent was not freely given. Prior to that, their love
affair resulted to a pregnancy and it was only for the preservation of the family name that their parents
consented to the marriage. He did not file annulment because he believed that the marriage was void from the
[
beginning. However prior to the proceedings, both parties have agreed to a settlement wherein Teresita, his

daughter shall receive part of his retirement pay and inherit properties from him. ]

ISSUE:
(1) WON Esmeraldo is guilty of gross misconduct. NO
(2) WON Esmeraldos 2nd marriage with Nieves is valid. YES

HELD:
(1) NO. Misconduct is an administrative action covering performance of duties as an officer and not as a
private individual. The acts imputed herein clearly pertain to Esmeraldos personal life and have no direct
relation to his judicial function.
(2) YES, the second marriage is valid. Art 40 of the FC is not applicable in this case because the second
marriage was contracted before the effectivity of the Family Code and the Wiegel v Sempio-Diy case that
enunciated the rule in Art 40.

In line with this, the charge of falsification of public documents will not prosper since the complaint of
bigamy was not found.
NICDAO-CARINO V YEE-CARINO
February 2, 2001

SP04 Carino contracted two marriages, the first with Susan Nicdao (1969) with whom he had 2 children and the
second was with Susan Yee (1992) with whom he had no children but have been cohabiting for 10 years.

In 1992, he passed away. Both the petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial
assistance from various government agencies. Nicdao was able to collect a total of 146, 000 while Yee received a
total of 21,000. Susan Yee filed the instant case so that the petitioner may be ordered to return to her at least
one-half of the 146,000. Susan Yee claims she did not know of the prior marriage but contends that it was void ab
initio for lack of marriage license.

ISSUE: WON respondent Yee is entitled to a part of the 146,000 benefit claim.

HELD: NO. The court ruled that neither of the marriages were valid. Since the first marriage to Nicdao lacked a
marriage license, it was void ab initio. However, the declaration of nullity of the previous case was still essential
to validate the second marriage to Yee. Hence, the second marriage is also void for failure to obtain a judicial
decree of nullity for the prior marriage.

Considering that both marriages were void, the applicable property regime is not absolute community nor
conjugal partnership but rather governed by Art 147 and 148 of the Family Code.

Article 148 applies to bigamous marriages. Susan Yees marriage is considered bigamous since the prior marriage
was presumed to be valid absent the declaration of nullity. In this property regime, the properties acquired by
the parties through their actual joint contribution shall belong to the co-ownership. Wages and salaries earned
by each party belong to him or her exclusively. Contributions in the form of care of home or children are not
included.

Hence, the benefits earned by the deceased through his service as a police officer belonged only to him and thus
in turn, belong to his legal heirs and Susan Yee is not included as she is not the legal wife.

Artcle 147 applies to unions wherein the parties are legally capacitated to marry but whose marriage is void for
other reasons such as absence of marriage license. Their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal
share and the properties acquired by both through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership. If a partys participation is through the care and maintenance of the family and household, he/she
shall be deemed to have contributed equally

Lastly, the death benefits by virtue of Article 147 belong to the co-ownership property regime. As such, Nicdao
is entitled to half of it and the other half shall belong to Carinos legal heirs, which are his children with Nicdao.

NOTE: Art 43 (2) may also apply for instances wherein either spouse contracted a subsequent marriage in bad
faith, his or her share of the profits shall be forfeited to the (1) common children (2) children of the guilty spouse
from the previous marriage (3) innocent spouse