ART.

39- PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ACTION/ DEFENSE FOR DECLARATION OF

ABSOLUTE NULLITY (AMENDED BY E.O 227 and RA 8533)

i. Ninal v Bayadog- http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/10/case-digest-ninal-v-

bayadog/
Before the effectivity of FC

Ruling: The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage.
Voidable and void marriages are not identical. Consequently, void marriages can be questioned
even after the death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only during the
lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in which case the parties and their offspring
will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid.

ii. Enrico vs Heirs of Spouses Eulogio- http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2014/01/case-

digest-enrico-v-heirs/. After the effectivity of FC
ISSUES:

Whether of or not the heirs may validly file the declaration of nullity of marriage between Eulogio and Lolita.

RULING:
No. Administrative Order No. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, effective March 14, 2003, covers marriages under the
Family Code of the Philippines does not allow it. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on August 26,
2004 which falls within the ambit of the order. The order declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity
of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. But it does not mean that the compulsory or
intestate heirs are already without any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as
stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity
of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity, but upon the death of a spouse in a
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.

iii. VDA DE CONEGUERA V. https://batasnatin.com/law-library/mercantile-

GSIS-
law/insurance/1628-vda-de-consuegra-v-gsis-retirement-insurance-benefits.html

iv. ODAYAT v AMANTE- ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER

To rebut the charge of immorality, respondent presented in evidence the certification dated September
12, 1974 of David C. Jacobe, the Local Civil Registrar of Pateros, Rizal attesting that, in accordance with
the Register of Marriages in his office, Filomena Abella was married to one Eliseo Portales on
February 16, 1948. Respondent's contention is that his marriage with Filomena Abella was
void abinitio, because of her previous marriage with said Eliseo Portales.
The Investigator finds for the respondent and recommends his exoneration from this charge. Indeed,
there is no question that Filomena Abella's marriage with the respondent was void ab initio under Article
80[4] of the New Civil Code, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of void
marriages.
ART 40: JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE:

i. DOMINGO vs CA- http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/08/domingo-vs-ca-gr-no-

104818.html OR https://ibpzn.com/domingo-v-court-of-appeals/
ii. WIEGEL vs SEMPIO-DIY- http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/10/case-digest-
wiegel-v-sempio-diy/ OR http://skinnycases.blogspot.com/2013/08/weigel-vs-sempio-diy-
gr-no-l-53703.html
iii. VALDES vs RTC-
iv. NICDAO CARINO v CARINO- SEE TSM
v. MERCADO v MERCADO- http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/10/case-digest-
mercato-v-tan/

Is the judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage necessary for remarriage?

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. Under Article 40 of the Family
Code, ‘the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a
final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.’ But here, the final judgment declaring null and void accused’s
previous marriage came not before the celebration of the second marriage, but after, when the case for bigamy against
accused was already tried in court. And what constitutes the crime of bigamy is the act of any person who shall contract
a second subsequent marriage ‘before’ the former marriage has been legally dissolved.
It is now settled that the fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge. As
with a voidable marriage, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage before contracting the second
marriage.

ART. 45: VOIDABLE MARRIAGES:

i. Jimenez v Canizares: Impotency

In the case at bar, the annulment of the marriage in question was decreed upon the sole testimony of the
husband who was expected to give testimony tending or aiming at securing the annulment of his marriage he
sought and seeks. Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactorily established,
because from the commencement of the proceedings until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking part
therein. Although her refusal to be examined or failure to appear in court show indifference on her part, yet
from such attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or be inferred
because women of this country are by nature coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to a physical
examination unless compelled to by competent authority. This the Court may do without doing violence to and
infringing in this case is not self-incrimination. She is not charged with any offense. She is not being compelled to be
a witness against herself.1 "Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption
is in favor of potency."2 The lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual
intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as husband and wife.

ii. Menciano v San Jose: Impotency

Was the deceased Faustino Neri impotent during his cohabitation with Matilde Menciano?

Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of
potency. The best evidence that the deceased was potent is the statement of Dr. Antonio Garcia that in order to get
a specimen of the semen of the deceased Faustino Neri for examination as to its contents of spermatozoa, Faustino,
following the doctor's advice, used a rubber sac, commonly called "condom", and a woman. The fact that the deceased
was able to produce the specimen by said means shows conclusively that he was potent. Impotency is not synonymous
with sterility. Impotency is the physical inability to have sexual intercourse; it is different from sterility.
ART 46: FRAUD REFERRED TO in number 3 Art 45:

i. Aquino v Delizo: Concealment of Pregnancy (2)

- https://ibpzn.com/aquino-v-delizo/

ii. Anaya v Palaroan: http://famcode.blogspot.com/2014/03/anaya-vs-palaroan-case-digest.html

Is non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman a ground for annulment
of marriage?

Held: No. Non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the
enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment; and it is further excluded by the last
paragraph of the article, providing that "no other misrepresentation or deceit as to ... chastity" shall give ground for an
action to annul a marriage. While a woman may detest such non-disclosure of premarital lewdness or feel having been
thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage, nevertheless the law does not assuage her grief after her
consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself alone,
is interested. The lawmaker's intent being plain, the Court's duty is to give effect to the same, whether it agrees with
the rule or not.

iii. Bucat v Bucat: https://ibpzn.com/buccat-v-buccat/

Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution in which the
State is interested and where society rests.
In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting
fraud as a ground for annulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law student, did not suspect
anything about Luida’s condition considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy (highly
developed physical manifestation, ie. enlarged stomach ) when they got married. As she gave birth less than
3 months after they got married, she must have looked very pregnant even before they were married. Thus,
consent freely given: ARTICLE 4 and 45 FC.

iv. Ruiz v Atienza: Art 46 (4);

- DOCTRINE: The provision of the Marriage Law (Sec. 30, Act No. 3613) referring to "force" or
"violence" as ground of annulment of marriage, does not seem to include mere intimidation, at least where
it does not in legal effect amount to force or violence.

Appellant would make it appear that that afternoon Ruiz was practically kidnapped by Pelagia's relatives
until after the marriage ceremony.
a. That cannot be true.
b. He had many occasions to escape, as pointed out in appellee's brief.
c. He had companions in the house whom he could have asked for help.
d. There was even the policeman.

ART 48: CONFESSION OF JUDGEMENT

a. Ocampo v Florenciano- https://quizlet.com/88353177/family-code-case-digests-art-48-49-flash-

cards/

Ruling: No , it was not fatal because it was not they type of confession prohibited by Article 48 of the Family
Code. In the case, she admitted to committing adultery to the fiscal who was investigating the case. It was done in the
court, which is the confession that is not allowed. Also, the judgement was based not based solely on the confession,
but more on the other evidences presented to prove that the wife committed adultery. The point of the prohibition is
to prevent spouses from abusing the provisions on legal separation, if it was seen, like in the case, that there was an
actual ground for legal separation, the courts cannot deny them their right just because of the confession which was
not the one prohibited by the law.
OR Whether or not decree for legal separation be granted.
RULING:
The decree of separation should be granted since it would not be based on the confession but upon
the evidence presented by the plaintiff. Florenciano’s admission on the investigating fiscal that she
committed adultery, in the existence of evidence of adultery other than such confession, is not the
confession of judgement disallowed by the law. What is prohibited is a confession of judgment, a confession
done in court or through a pleading, where there is evidence of the adultery independent of the defendant’s
statement agreeing to the legal separation. The petition should be granted based on the second adultery,
which has not yet prescribed.