WIEGEL v. SEMPIO-DIY No L-53703 August 19, 1986 Petitioner: Lilia Olivia Wiegel Respondents: Hon.

Alicia Sempio-Diy (presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of CAloocan City) ; Karl Heinz Wiegel Nature of the Case: Petition to review the orders of the Juvenile and Domestic Realtions Court of Caloocan City POnente: Paras, J. Issue: 1) Was said prior marriage void or was it merely viodable? 2) Facts:

1)
2)

Respondent Wiegel asked for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage (celebrated July, 1978 at the Holy Catholic Apostolic Christian Church, Makati MM)with petititoner Ground: previous existing marriage of petitioner to one Eduardo A. MAxion (june 25, 1972-Our lady of Lourdes Church QC)

Lilia claims previous marriage was null and void, she and husband forced to enter said marital union Lilia asked to be allowed to present evidence- that first marriage was vitiated by force exercised upon both her and first husband; that first husband was at the time of marriage in 1972 already married to someone else J and D Relations Court: ruled against presentation of evidence because the existence of force on both parties of the first marriage had already been agreed upon (issued order dated March 17, 1980compelled to submit the case for resolution based on agreed facts; Order dated April 14, 1980, denying petitioner s motion to allow her to rpesent evidence in her favor) 4) SC: petition devoid of merit; petition DISMISSED for lack of merit and the orders complained of are hereby AFFIRMED REASONS: 1) there is no need to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriage will not be void but merely voidable and therefore valid until annulled 2) since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married respondents she was still validly married to her first husbandher marriage to respondent is VOID

3)

3)

no need for introducing evidence about existing marriage of first husband at the time they married each othersuch marriage though void still needs according judicial declaration TERRE vs. TERRE Adm Case NO. 2349 July 3, 1992

Complainant: Dorothy B. Terre Respondent: Atty. Jordan Terre Nature of the Case: Administrative Case in the SC. Grossly Immoral Conduct Ponente: Per Curiam Issue: Facts:

1)
2)

24 dec 1981: complainant charged respondent, Jordan terre, a member of the Phil Bar with grossly immoral conduct, consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman other than complainant while his marriage with complainant remained subsisting Respondent successfully evaded 5 attempts to serve copy of the courts resolution and of the complaint by moving from one place to another, he could not be found or reached 24 april 1985- after three and a half yearsstill no answer from respondent

3)

COURT: resolved to suspend respondent Atty Terre from the practice of law until after he appears and/ or file answers to this complaint 4) 28 Sept 1985- respondent finally filed Answer with motion to set aside and/or lift suspension order RESPONDENT: averred that he contracted marriage w/ complainant on June 14 1977 upon her representation that she was single and later on knew she was married to Merlito Bercenilla in 1968 when he confronted complainantshe drove him out of their conjugal residence complainant mockingly tells her that their son (Jason terre) was son of Bercenilla

believing in good faith that his marriage to complainant was null and void ab initio he contracted marriage with Helina Malicdem at Dasol, Pangasinan

COMPLAINANT: denied that Jason terre was child of Bercenilla but child of respondent while she had given birth to Jason terre at PAFGH registered as dependent of Mercelito Bercenilla this was done due to necessity ( risk of death and injury of child)abandoned by respondent leaving her penniless and w/o means to pay for medical and hospital bills arising by reason of her preganancy

COURT; denied respondents motion to set aside/life suspension order-referred to Solicitor General (resolution dated 6 Jan 1986) for investigation, report and recommendation SOLICITOR GENERAL: pio Guerrero non-appearance of respondent considered respondent to have waived his right to present evidence and declared the case submitted for resolution requested parties to file memorandarespondent did not file memoranda 26 February 1990submitted report and recommendation to this court (SC) With ff info: 1) complainant and respondent met 1979 as fourth year high school classmates in cadiz City High School 2) married to Mercenilla married and while respondent was singlerespondent was aware of her marital status

3)
4) 5)

respondent Law Student at Layceum Univtold complainant her marriage was null and void ab initio since they were first cousins (complainant and first husband) they were marriedwrote single in marriage license respondent disappeared in 1981 not aware of his disappearance until found out he was married to Vilma Malicdem filed a case for abandonment of minor with city fiscal of pasay and filed a caseof bigamy against respondent and Helina Malicdem and filed administrative case against respondent with COA where he was employed (but case was closed for being moot and academic since respondent separated from service for going on absence w/o leave)

6)

DECISION OF SC: the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent Jordan terre and to STRIKE OUT his name from the Roll of Attorneys. Copy to be spread on personal record of respondent in the Bar Confidants Officecopy furnished to IBP and all courts of the land REASONS: 1) when the second marriage was entered into, respondents prior marriage to complainant was subsisting, no judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of such prior marriage

2)

3)

spurious defenseacting in good faith that first marriage was null and void ab initio and that no action for a judicial declaration of nullity was necessary- proven by facts (making complainant believe her marriage was nul and void, abandoned them) and being a lawyer he should have known that the prevailing case law of this court holds that for purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential His first marriage to complainant must be deemed valid, with the result that his second marriage to Helina Malicdem must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in character Moral character of respondent was deeply flawedrespondent went through law school being supported financially by complaint after graduation and gotten complainant pregnant he abandoned complainant w/o support and w/o the wherewithal for delivering his own child safely in hospitalHis conduct constituted grossly immoral conduct (Sec 27 of Rules 138 of the Rules of Court, affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment of respondentunworthy of admission to the Bar TY vs. CA GR NO. 127406 November 27, 2000

4) 5)

Petitioner: Ofelia P. Ty Respondents: CA and Edgardo M. Reyes Nature of the case: petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Ponente: Quisumbing, J. Issue: whether the nullity of the first marriage is required before a subsequent marriage can be entreed into validly? Facts: 1) CA affirmed the decision of RTC PAsig, Br 160 declaring the marriage contract between private respondent Edgardo reyes and petitioner Ofelia TY null and void ab initio 2) CA ordered private respondent to pay 15,000 as monthly support for their children Faye Eloise reyes and Rachel Anne Reyes 3) respondent married Anna Maria regina Villanueva in a civil ceremony on March 29, 1977 in Manilachurch wedding on August 27, 1977 4) August 4, 1980: Juvenile and Domestic relations Court of QC declared their marriage null and void ab initio for lack of valid marriage license 5) church wedding was also declared null and void due to lack of consent of the parties Even before decree of nullity of marriage respondent married Ofelia TY on April 4, 1979 and church wedding on April 4,. 1982 in Makita, MM January 3, 1991: respondent filed civil case (1853-J) RTC Pasig Branch 160 praying that his marriage to petitioner be declared null and voidthey no marriage license 7) He was still married to Anna Maria no declaration yet of nullity of their marriagedeclaration of nullity of marriage with Anna Maria was only rendered on August 4, 1980 and marriage w/ complainant happened April 4, 1979 PETITIONER: 1) they had marriage license No. 5739990 issued at Rosario cavite (april 3, 1979) 2) submitted proof that previous marriage of respondent was declared null and void by Juvenile and Domestic relations issued on March 29, 1977 and his church marriage on August 27, 1977

6)

PASIG RTC: sustained private respondents civil suit and declared his marriage to herein petitioner null and void ab initio in its decision dated Nov 4, 1991 CA: upheld lower Courts decision (july 24, 1996)ruled that a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage (Anna Maria) must first be secured before a subsequent marriage be validly contracted motion for reconsideration deniedtherefore this case

DECISION OF SC: petition is GRANTED. Assailed decision of CA (july 24, 1996) and its resolution dated Nov 7, 1996 are REVERSED PARTIALLY so that marriage of petitioner and private respondent is hereby DECLARED VALID AND SUBSISTING and the award of amount of P15,000 is RATIFIED and MAINTAINED as monthly support for as long as their two children faye Eloise Reyes and Rachel Anne reyes, for as long as they are of minor age or otherwise legally entitled thereto. REASONS:

1)
2)

rejected People v. Mendoza and People v. Aragon are not applicable in this casemarriage is void from its performance, no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity these were decided before the enactment of Family Code (EO NO. 209 as amended by EO 227) no loner controlbinding decree now needed respondents first and second marriage (1977 and 1979) are governed by the provisions of Civil Code Article 83 of Civil Code Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person w/ any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance unless: the first marriage was annulled or dissolved the first spouse had been absent for 7 consecutive years at the time of the 2nd marriage w/o the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered dead and before any person believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such marriage or is the absentee as presumed dead accdg to article 390 and 391. the marriage to be contracted shall be valid of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court

3) 4)
a)

b)

NOTE: PEOPLE V. MENDOZA and PEOPLE vs ARAGON: no judicial decree is necessary to establish the nullity of void marriage (death of first wifehad second marriage and third marriage2nd marriage void) GOMEZ vs LIPANA and CONSUEGRA vs GSIS: need for judicial declaration for nullity of marriage ODAYAT vs AMANTE: no need WIEGEL vs SEMPIO-DIY: need for judicial declaration of nullity before second marriage\ YAP v CA: no need of judicial declaration TERRE vs TERRE: judicial declaration of nullity is necessarypurposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential DOMINGO v. CA: declaration required- for purposes of contracting second marriage

This case was entered into in 1979 before Wiegel caseprevailing rule during that time is that there was no need for judicial declaration due to nullity of marriage (w/o marriage license) Provisions of Family Code cannot be retroactively applied to present case There was am marriage licenseCA erred when it refused to recognize the validity and salutary effects of said canonical marriage Petitioner and respondent complied with essential and formal requirements of marriage Court cannot play blind to the absurdity, if not inequity of letting the wrongdoer profit from what the CA calls his own deceit and perfidy No damages should be awarded in present case but for another reasonnot reason of CA (lack of evidence)reason of SC; petitioner wants her marriage w/ respondent held valid and subsisting, suing to maintain status as legal wifeif prayer granted husband will pay damages from conjugal funds or common fundsabsurd application of the law

SANTOS vs. BEDIA-SANTOS GR No. 112019 January 4, 1995 Petitioner: Leouel Santos Respondents: Hon CA and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos Nature of the Case: Petition for review on certiorari of decision of the CA Ponente: Vitug, J Issue: Art 36: FC; Facts: 1) Leouel persist in beseeching its application in his attempt to have his marriage with herein respondent< Julia Rosario bedia-Santos declared a nullity 2) 20 Sept 1986: two exchanged vows before MTC (judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City( followed by a church wedding 3) 18 July 1987: Julia gave birth to baby boy (leouel Santos Jr.) 4) Frequent interference of Julias parents into the young spouses family affairs 5) 18 May 1988: Julia finally left for US to work as a nurse despite Leouels plea to dissuade her

6) 7) 8)

7 mos after departure (January 1, 1989) Julia called up leouel for the first time (promised to return upon expiration of contract in July 1989 but she never did) Leouel wnet to US (training program AFP from April 10 to 25 Aug 1990), tried to locate her or to somehow get in touch with, but efforts were of no avail Filed with RTC Negros Oriental Br 30 a complaint for voiding of marriage under Art 36 of FC

9)

31 May 1991: Julia answered (through counsel) e the complaint and denied allegations, claiming it was asserting that failure of Julia to return home or at very least communicate with him for more than 5 years show that she is psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life 10) petitioner who had in fact been irresponsible and incompetent 11) Possible collusion was ruled out by Solicitor general RTC:6 Nov 1991: court a quo finally dismissed the complaint for lack of merit CA; Affirmed decision of RTC; lack of merit NOTE: retroactivity of Art 37? 10-year prescription period?

leniency in application of Art 37no specific examples given or enumeration of psychological incapacityaimed to be applied case to case basis TRUE INCAPACITY consists of: true inability to commit oneself to essentials of marriageto render what is due by the contract

a) b)

this inability to commit oneself must refer to essential obligations of marriage c) inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality CHARACTERISTICS: a) gravity; b) juridical antecedence and c) incurability VOIDABLE: party being or unsound mind of concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, (during time of marriage) LEGAL SEPARATION: if these happens only after marriage (art 55, FC) DECISION OF SC: petition is DENIED DISSENTING OPINION PADILLA, J: respondent shown to be [psychologically incapacitated to comply with at least one essential marital obligationco habitation with husband took 7 mos to communicate with wife after departure ;promised to return home but did not; petitioner went to US exerted efforts to be with Julia but no effort on respondents side etc) love and respect: letting spouse know your whereabouts CONCURRING OPINION ROMERO, J Art 36 prone to abuse

Court has to prevent this: court shall order SG or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between parties and to take case that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed Interpretation case-to-case; guided by experience, findings of researchers and experts in psychological disciplines and by decisions of church tribunals although not binding on the civil courts may be given persuasive effects since the provision was taken from Canon Law CHOA v. CHOA GR no. 143376 November 26, 2002

Petitioner: Leni O. Choa Respondent: Alfonso C. Choa Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA Ponente: Panganiban, J Issue: Facts: 1) petitioner and respondent were married on March 15, 1981 2) two children: Cheryl Lynne and Albryan

3)
4)

October 27, 1993: respondent filed before RTC Negross Occidental Br 51 complaint for annulment of his marriage to petitioner (Civil Case no. 93-8098) Filed amended complaint dated Nov 8, 1993- declaration of nullity of his marriage to petitioner based on her psychological incapacity Instead of offering any objection to it, petitioner filed MOTION TO DISMISS (Demurrer to Evidence) dated May 11, 1998

5)

RTC: Dec 2, 1998 Order: denying petitioners Demurrer to Evidence; held that respondent established a quantum of evidence that the petitioner must controvert; motion for reconsideration was denied in mArch 22, 1990 order; petitioner elevated to CA

CA: petition DISMISSED (CA GR SP NO. 53100); denial of demurrer was only interlocutory hence, certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was not available Proper remedy was for defense to present evidence and to take appeal if decision is unfavorable Propriety of granting or denying a demurrer to evidence rests on the sound exercise of the trial courts decision

1) 2)

Petitioner failed to show that issues in the court had been resolved arbitrarily or w/o basis

ISSUES: upon denial of demurrer of evidence, is petitioner under obligation to present her evidence and just appeal after if decision is unfavorable (Rule 33 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) (is certiorari available to correct an order denying a demurrer to evidence?) in upholding lower courts denial of petitioners demurrer to evidence, did CA violate, ignore or disregard in whimsical manner the doctrinal pronouncements of this court in Molina and Santos (in its denial, did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by violating or ignoring the applicable law and jurisprudence?)

DECISION OF SC: Petition is MERITORIOUS. The petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision of CA REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondents Demurrer to Evidence is GRANTED and the case for declaration of nullity of marriage based on the alleged psychological incapacity of petitioner is DISMISSED. FIRST ISSUE: Resort to certiorari weakness and gross insufficiency of respondents evidence she was entitle to the immediate recourse of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari

in general, interlocutory orders are neither appealable nor subject to certiorari proceedings but this is not absolutein this instant where judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 a denial of demurrer that is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction may be assailed through a petition for certiorari

SECOND ISSUE: Denial of Demurrer to Evidence

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE: an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or situation the issuethis challenges the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a verdict Evidence against respondentis grossly insufficient to support any finding of psychological incapacity that would warrant a declaration of nullity of the parties marriage First: petitioner claims that the filing of petitioner of a series of charges against him are proof of latters psychological incapacity to complu with essential obligations of marriageabnormal for wife who instead of protecting name of husband had acted to contrary documents presented by respondent during trial do not show alleged incapacity of his wife to rule that filings are sufficient to establish her psychological incapacity is not only erroneous but also grave abuse of discretion bordering on absurdity

Second: neither is the testimony of respondent taken by itself or in conjunction w/ his documentary offerings sufficient to prove petitioners alleged incapacity -testimony of respondent: 1) lack of attention to children; 2) immaturity; 3) lack of intention of procreative sexualitynone of these constituent psychological incapacity * Third: insufficiency, if not incompetency of the supposed expert testimony presented by respondent (Dr. Antonio M./ Gauzon), failed to identify and prove root cause of alleged incapacity no meical or clinical proof of incurability if there was true incapacity nor was it grave enough - assessment of petitioner by dr. Gauzon was based merely on descriptions communicated to him by respondentnever conducted any p[psychological examinations NOTE; definitions of psychological incapacitymental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties (Art 68 FC)

mere neglect, difficulty or refusal in the performance of marital obligations and mere showing of irreconcilable differences or conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity In case at bar, respondent merely shows that he and his wife could not get along with each otherno showing of the gravity and juridical antecedent or incurability of problems besetting their marital union TC should have carefully studied and assessed the evidence presented by respondent and taken into account the prevailing jurisprudence on the matterconcluded that it was useless to proceed further with the tedious process of hearing contravening proof It was grave abuse of discretion for the RTC to deny the Demurrer and to violate or ignore this courts rulings in point continuing the process of litigation would have been a total; waste of time and money for the parties and an unwelcome imposition on trial courts docket

REPUBLIC vs MOLINA GR NO 108763 February 13, 1997 Petitioner: RP Respondents: CA and Roridel Olaviano Molina Nature of the Case: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Poenente: Panganiban, J. Issue: Facts: 1) HERNANDEZ vs. CA

NINAL vs BAYADOG GR NO 133778 March 14, 2000 Petitioners: Engrace Ninal for herself and guardian ad litem of minors BABYLINE NINAL, INGRID NINAL, ARCHIE NINAL and PEPITO NINAL jr. Respondent: Norma bayadog Nature of the Case: petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J. Issue: May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the decoration of nullity of his marriage after death? Facts: 1) pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on Sept 26, 1974 2) petitioner born from this marriage

3)
4) 5) 6) 7)

teodulfa was shot by pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985 Dec 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent Bayadog got married w/o any marriage license Feb 19, 1997: pepito died in a car accident After fathers death, petitioners filed a petition a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage was void for lack of a marriage license Case was filed under the assumption tat the validity of invalidity of the second marriage would affect the petitioners successional rights Norma filed petition to dismiss on the ground for lack of cause of action since they are not among the persons who could file an action for annulment of marriage under Art 47 of FC

8)

RTC: dismissed the petition after finding that FC is rather silent, obscure, insufficient to resolve the issues ISSUES: 1) WON plaintiffs have a cause of action against defendant in asking for declaration of nullity of marriage of their deceased father?

2) 3)

WON the second marriage of plaintiffs deceased father w/ defendant is null and void ab initio WON plaintiffs are estopped from assailing the validity of the second marriage after it was dissolved due to their fathers death

RTC: petitioners should have filed the action to declare null and void their fathers marriage to respondent before his death (art 47 of FC which enumerates the time and persons who could initiate an action for annulment of marriage) Petition for review w/ this court grounded a pure question of law petition was originally dismissed for non-compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and because the verification failed to state the basis of petitioners averment that the allegations in the petition are true and correct

SC; due to motion of petitioners, this court reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the petition for review DECISION OF SC: the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Order of the RTC Toledo City Cebu Br 59 dismissing Civil Case T-639 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The said case is REINSTATED. REASONS: 1) marriage solemnized before effectivity of FCCC is applicablethe law in effect during this time

2)
3) 4)

a valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage w/o which the marriage is rendered void ab initio (art 80 (3) in relations to Art 58 one exception: when man and a woman who have lived together and exclusively w/ each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least 5 years before the marriage marriage of petitioners father and respondent norma is w/o marriage license but they executed an affidavit stating that they have attained age of majority and being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and that they have the desire to marry each other

5)

6)

QUESTION?: should it be cohabitation wherein both parties are capacitated to marry each other during the entire 5-year continuous period or should It be a cohabitation wherein both p[arties have lived together and exclusively w/ each other as husband and wife during the entire 5-year continuous period regardless of whether there is a legal impediment to their being lawfully married, w/c impediment may have either disappeared or intervened sometime during the celebration period? ANSWER: this 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivitymeaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuitythis is unbrokenfor if not law might sanction immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on equal foot with those who lived faithfully w/ their spouse Any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void except if spouse is already dead or the marriage was annulled In this case, at the time pepito and respondent s marriage, it cannot be said thayt they have lived w/ each other as husband and wife for at least 5 years prior to their wedding day

7)
8)

9)

10) Only about 20- mos have elapsed from death of first spouse to marriage with second wife
11) If ever they have really lived together for at least 5 yearsthis cohabitation is not the cohabitation as contemplated by the law

12) Second marriage not covered by the exception to the requirement of marriage licensethe marriage is considered null and
void ab initio

13) NEXT ISSUE: do petitioners have the personality to file a petition to declare fathers marriage void after his death?
Art 47 pertains to filing of annulment suit NOT suit for declaration of nullity of marriage Voidable and void marriages are not identicalannullable marriage is valid until otherwise declared by the courts but void marriages are void from the start as having never have taken place and cannot be the source of rights Voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in direct proceeding while VOID marriage can be attacked collaterally VOID marriages can be questioned even after death of either party but VOIDABLE marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of either parties and not after death of either Action or defense for nullity is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE unlike VOIDABLE marriages action prescribes Only parties to a VOIDABLE marriage can assail but any proper interested party may attack A VOID marriage VOID marriages have no legal effects except those declared by law concerning the properties of the alleged spouses, regarding co-ownership or ownership through actual joint contributions and its effect on the children born to such void marriages as provided in Art 50 in relation to Art 43 and 44 as well as Art 51, 53 and 54 of FC VOIDABLE marriages-property regime governing is generally conjugal partnership and the children conceived before the annulment are legitimate No marriage was dissolved between petitioners father and respondent since it was void contrary to trial courts ruling Jurisprudence under the CC states that no judicial decree is necessary in order to establish the nullity of marriage however, for the sake of good order of society as for the peace of mind of all concerned, it is expedient that the nullity of the marriage should be ascertained and declared by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction Other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but nit limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case Final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry BARCELONA vs. CA GR NO. 130087 September 24, 2003 Petitioner: Diana M. Barcelona Respondent: CA and Tadeo R. Bengzon Nature of the Case: Petition for review of the decision of CA Ponente: carpio, J. Issue: Facts:

1)
2) 3) 4) 5) a) b)

CA affirmed the Order dated January 21, 1997 of the RTC of QC Branch 106 in Civil case NO Q-95-24471- refusing to dismiss private respondents petition for annulment of marriage for failure to state a cause of action and for violation of SC Administrative Circular NO 04-94assailed resolution dismissed motion for reconsideration 29 March 1995 Tadeo Bengzon filed petition for annulment against Diana Barcelona 9 ,mAy 1995, Tadeo filed a motion to withdraw petition which the trial court granted in its Order dated 7 June 1995 21 July 1995 respondent Tadeo filed anew a petition for annulment pof marriage against petitioner Diana Petitioner Diana filed motion to dismiss second petiotn on two grounds: Second petin failed to state a cause of action it violates SC Admin Circular no 04-94 on forum shopping

RTC: 18 September 1996 issued an Order deferring resolution of the Motion until the parties ventilate their arguments in a hearing

Dian filed Motion for reconsideration RTC: denied motion for reconsiderationwhen the ground of dismissal is the complaints failure to state a cause of action, the trial court determines such fact solely from he petition itself; perusal of the allegations in the petition shows the petitioner has violated respondents right thus giving rise to cause of action

said that when Tadeo filed the second petition, the first petition ws no longer pending as it had been earlier dismissed w/o prejudice

CA: dismissed the filed petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus by petitioner and denied motion for reconsideration agreed w/ Diana that the trial court in its first order erred in deferring action on the Motion until after the gearing on whether the complaint states a cause of actionbut corrected by second order CA agreed with RTC that the allegations in the second petition state a cause of action sufficient to sustain a valid judgment if proven to be true

ISSUES:

No violation of circular No 04-94 (forum shopping) there is no litis pendentia because respondent had caused the dismissal without prejudice of the first petition before filing the second petition Neither is there res judicata because these is no final decision on the merits

1) 2)

WON the allegations of the second petition for annulment of marriage sufficiently state a cause of action Whether the respondent Tadeo violated SC Court Admin Circular No. 04-94 in failing to state the filing of a previous petition for annulment of marriage, its termination and status

DECISION OF SC: Petition has no Merit; Petition is DENIED.The assailed deicison dated 30 May 1997 as well as the resolution dated 7 August 1997 of the CA is AFFIRMED. REASONS:

1)
-

SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE OF ACTION a cause of action is an act or omission of the defendant in violation of the legal right of the plaintiff

three essential elements: a) right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises; 2) an obligation of the defendant to respect such right; 3) the act or omission of the defendant violates the right of the plaintiff Sc finds the second petition sufficiently alleges a cause of actionsought the declaration of nullity of marriage based on Art 36 of FC PETITION ALLEGED THAT: a) Tadeo and Dian were married at the Holy Cross parish and resided in QC b) Begot five children: Ana Maria (8 Nov 1964); Isabel (28 Oct 1968); Ernesto (31 March 1970) Regina Rachelle (7 <March 1974 and Cristina Maria (Feb 1978) c) Petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the celebration of the marriage to comply with essential obligations of marriage and such incapacity subsists up to the present time d) ALLEGATIONS: frequent quarrels due to disorganized housekeeping and out of the house frequently; would play tennis the whole day several miscarriages of respondentrefused to speak to her husband nov 1977-5 mos pregnantpretext of re evaluating feelings for petitioner asked petitioner to leave conjugal dwelling separation resulting to complete estrangement between the petitioner and respondent incapacity was conclusively found in the psychological examination conducted on the relationship between petitioner and the respondent e) second petition states the ultimate facts on which respondent bases his claim in accordance with sec 1 Rule 8 of the old Rules of CourtULTIMATE FACTS- refer to the principal, determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which the cause of action rests PETITIONER:

contends that second petition is defective because it fails to allege the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity and that it existed during time of solemnization of marriage and that it is incurable second petition did not even state the marital obligations which petitioner Diana allegedly failed to comply due to psychological incapacity

f) NOTE: Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Vid Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (new rules) Section 2 Par (d) of the new rules expert opinion need not be alleged and no need to allege root cause of incapacity it require physical manifestations indicative of P. incapacitycomplies with requirement

f)

second petion states cause of action since it states the legal right of tadeo, correlative obligation of petitioner Diana and the act of omission of petitioner Diana in violation of this legal right

2) ON FORUM SHOPPING Petitioner points out the respondent Tadeo did not disclose in his certificate of non-forum shopping that he had previously commenced a similar action based on the same grounds with the same prayer for reliefcertificate of non-forum shopping should have stated the fact of termination of the first petition or its status

* SC: first petition was dismissed without prejudice ay the instance of respodnet Tadeo to keep the peace between him and his grown up children. The dismissal happened before seerv ice of answer or any responsive pleadingno litis pendentia neither is there res judicata

ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS vs. LICAROS GR No. 150656 April 29, 2003 Petitioner: Margarita Romualdez- Licaros Respondent: Abelardo B. Licaros Nature of the case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of CA Ponente: Carpio, J. Issue: Facts: 1) 9 August 2001 and Resolution dated 23 Oct 2001 denying motion for reconsiderationdismissed the petition to annul the following decisions rendered by Branch 143 of RTC of Makati a) 27 Dec 1990 decision granting the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of the spouses Abelardo Licaros and margarita Licaros b) 8 Nov 1991 decision declaring the marriage between same spouses null and void 2) Parties married on Dec 15,1968 3) Born Maria Concepcion and Abelardo Jr 4) Differences, squabbles and irreconcilable conflicts transpired between spouses such that sometime in 1979 agreed to separate 5) Margarita left for US settle down with 2 children 6) US- April 26, 1989- applied for divorce Superior Court of CAlifronia Country san mateo 7) August 6, 1990-granted the divorce together with distribution of properties between her and Abelardo 8) August 17 1990 Abelardo and Margarita executed Agreement of Separation of Properties 9) August 21 1990-petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of the spouses and or the approval of the agreement of separation of their properties filed before RTC of Makati 10) June 24, 1991: Abelardo filed petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on psychological incapacity under new FC RTC: denied motion. It ordered that summons be served by publication in a news paper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks at the same time furnishing respondent a copy of the order, as well as the corresponding summons and a copy of the petition at the given address in the US through DFA all at the expense of Abelardo,. Respondent was given 60 days after publication to file a responsive pleading

11) July 15, 1991officers return was submittedproof of serving summons and complaint with annexes to mArgarita licaros 12) Referred to trial Prosecutor for possible collusion between partiesnegative
DECISION OF RTC: the marriage between Abelardo and Margarita null and void

13) April 28, 2000: almost 9 years later: petition filed by margarita when she received a letter dated Nov 18, 1991 from certain
Atty. Angela Valencia informing her that she no longer has the right to use the family name LIcaros since marriage was already dissolved 14) Petition of ff grounds:

a) b)

exist8ing fraud in the preparation and filing of the petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership of gains andits annex the agreement of separation of properties TC lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide petition for declaration of nullity of marriage

CA: debunked the claim of Margarita that there was fraudthe allegations of threatcut off financial and material support to their children petitioner had no hand in the preparation of agreement of separation of properties, he never met with counsel nor the notary public who notarized the deed and never received any notice of the pendency of the petition not a copy of the decision documents signed in the proper space, she appeared before Amado P. Cortez, Consul of RP at San Francisco CA USA Consulate Office to affirm and acknowledge before said official that she executed the agreement with her free will no indication of showing of fraud or coercion

rejected claim that the TC lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for improper service of summons on herpurpose of service of summon is no for the trial court to be given jurisdiction over the person of defendant but only to comply with due processerror in service of summons do not destroy the TC;s jurisdiction over the res which is the parties marital statusdismissed petition for annulment of judgment

ISSUES: 1) Whether Margarita was validly served with summons in the cases for declaration of nullity of her marriage w/ Abelardo 2) Whether there was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing by Abelardo of the petition for Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and its annexes, the Agreement of Separation of Properties

DECISION OF SC: Petition bereft of merit; Decision of CA in CA-GR SP No. 58487 dismissing the petition to annul judgment is AFFIRMED. REASONS:

1) -

First Issue: Validity of the Service of Summons on Margarita Amragrita insists TC never acquired jurisdiction over her person on the petition since she was never validly served with summons neither did she appear in court to submit voluntarily to its jurisdiction TC and CA made a clear factual findingproper summons by publication effected through DFA as directed by TCTC acquired jurisdiction to render the decision declaring the marriage a nullity SUMMON- writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him As a rule when defendant does not reside and is not found in the phils, Phil courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over the person unless he voluntarily appears in court But when case is one of actions in rem or quasi in rem (sec 15) rule 14 of Rules of Court Phil courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case Actions in personam and actions in rem or quasi in rem differ in that actions in personam are directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments; actions n rem or quassi in rem are directed against the thing or property or status of a person and seek judgments w/ respect thereto as against the whole world Since case at bar deal with personal statusextraterritoriality is authorizedservice of summons under Sec 15 Rule 14 of Rules of Court

NOTE: non-residents and is not found in the country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances: 1) when action affects personal status of the plaintiff 2) when the action relates to or the subject of which is property within the PHils in which defendant has a claim 3) when the relief demanded consists wholly or in part in excluding the defendant from any interest in property located in the Phils 4) when the property of the defendant has been attached w/in the Phils THIS MAY BE AFFCETED IN THREE MODES:

1) 2)
3)

by personal service out of the country w/ leave of court by publication and sending a copy of the summons and order of the courts by registered mail to the defendants last address also with leave of court any other means the judge may consider sufficient Process Servers return (15 July 1991) shows that the summons addressed to Margarita together with the complaint and its annexes were sent by mail to the DFA with acknowledgement of receiptservers certificate of service of summons is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in certificate Compliance with jurisdictional requirements were met Second Issue: Validity of the Judgment dissolving the conjugal partnership of Gains Margarita claims that Abelardo coerced her into signing the Petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of Gians and its annesthreatened to cut off financial and material support to children TC did not find anything amiss in the petition and agreement filed by Abelardo CA meticulous perusal of petition and agreement shows that Margarita signed the same on proper space a, observed that 6 August 1990, Margarita appeared before Consul Amado Cortrez in the Phil Consulate Office to affirm that she executed the Agreement of her own free will SC: Court is not trier of facts=--- court is bounded by the factual findings of the trial and appellate courtsthere is prima facie presumption that Margarita freely and voluntarily executed the AgreementMargarita failed to rebut presumption Document acknowledged before a Notary public is prima facie evidence of the due and regular execution og the document

2)

ANTONIO vs. REYES Petitioner: Leonilo N. Antonio Respondent: Marie Ivonne F. Reyes Nature of the case: petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA Ponente: Tinga, J. Issue: Facts: 1) CA decisions dated 29 Nov 2991 and 24 Oct 2002 reversed the judgment of RTC of MAkati declaring the marriage of Leonilo Antonio and marie Ivonne Reyes null and void 2) Met in August 1989- petitioner was 26 y/o and respondent 36 y/o

3) 4) 5) 6) -

They got married after barely a year before minister of gospel at the mAnila City Hall and subsequent church wedding at Sta Rosa de Lima Parish pasig MM 6 Dec 1990 Child born: April 19,, 1991 (died 5 months later) Mrach 8, 1993 petitioner filed petition to have his marriage to respondent declared null and voidArt 36 of the FC respondent was psychologically incapacitated it existed during the time of their marriage and subsists upto the present Manifestations as claimed by petitioner: 1) consistently lied about herself and people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events o things concealed the fact she previously gave birth to an illegitimate son and introduced the boy to petitioner as adopted child of her family she fabricated a story to her brother in law, Edwin David, attempted to rape and kill her when no such incident occurred she misrepresented herself as psychiatrist to her obstetrician and told other friends she graduated w/ a degree in psychology she claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with a recording company (blackgold) invented friends named Babes Santos and Via mArquez and under those names sent lengthy letters to petitioner represented herself as a person of greater means, she altered her pay slip to make it appear that she earned a higher income she exhibited insecurities and jealousies over him to the extent of calling up his officemates to monitor his whereabouts he presented Dr. Dante Herrera Abcede and Dr. Arnulfio Lopez, clinical psychologist- presented that based on tests petitioner was normal introspective person but they observed that respondents persistent and constant lying was abnormal or pathological . extreme jealousy of respondent was laso pathological reaching the point of paranoia- respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform that her essential marital obligations

7)

RESPONDENTs CLAIMS: 1) she performed her marital obligations by attending to all the needs of her husband

2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

no truth to allegations that she fabricated stories and told lies invented personalities she concealed child due to fear that she might lose her husband rape= because of davids touching and ogling her from head top foot BS Banking and Finance graduate and teaching psychology at the pasig Catholic School for 2 years She was a free-lance talent of Aris de las Alas producer of chanel 9 and did commercials She vowed hat the letters sent to petitioner were not written by her and writers were not fictitious She called an officemate of her husband but only asked in a diplomatic matter of she was asking for chocolates fro petitioner and to monitor husband whereabouts

9) She belied the allegation she spent lavishly as she supported almost ten people from her monthly budget of P 7000 10) Dr. Antonio Efren Reyes a psychiatrist refute the allegations anent her psychological conditionrespondent was not
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations (but contested he was not the one who administered the psychological evaluation and he made use of only one instrument called CPRS which was not reliable because a good liar can fake the result of such test RTC: credence to petitioners evidence and held that respondents propensity tonlying aboyut almostv anything had been duly established

she is living in world of make-believepsychologically incapacitated and incapable of giving meaning to her marriage declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila annulled the catholic marriage of parties on the ground of lack of due discretion of the part of the aprties This was affirmed with modification by the NAtionall Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal and was upheld by the Roman Rota of the Vatican

CA: held that the totality of the evidence presented was insufficient to establish respondents psychological incapacity DECISION OF SC: REVERSE and AFFIRM instead the RTC ISSUE: WON the state of facts as presented by petitioner sufficiently meets the standards set for the declaration of nullity of a marriage under Art 36 of FC DECISION OF SC: credence accorded to RTC; the petition is GRANTED. The decision of RTC dated 10 August 1995 declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent Null and Void under Art 36 of the FC is REINSTATED. REASONS:

1) 2)
a) b) c)

settled principle of civil procedure that the conclusions of th4 TC regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect from appellate courts since they had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while giving their testimonies Court is guided by the fact that the CA did not dispute the veracity of the evidence presented concluded that evidence was not sufficient to establish the psychological incapacity of respondent Legal guides to understanding Art 36 of FC Justice Vitug: psychological incapacity should refer not only to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basis marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage Jurisprudence: is a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is abut to assume To be interpreted in case-to case basis ---- Canon Law is persuasive although not binding on civil courts

MOLINA GUIDLEINES: 1) the burdens of proof to show nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity

2) 3) 4) 5)
6) 7)

the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: a) medically and clinically identified; b) allege din the complaint; c) sufficiently proven by experts; d) clearly explained in the decision the incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage such incapacity must also be shown to be medially or clinically permanent or incurable Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage Marital obligations must be those embraced by Art 68 up to 71 of the FC as regards to husband and wife and Arts 220, 221 and 225 FC in regard to parents and their children Interpretations given by the national Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the PHils while not controlling or decisive be given great respect by our courts SG issue a certification stating his reasons for his agreement or opposition to the petition- to prevent collusion between parties present case sufficiently satisfies the guidelines in Molina first petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of his spouse (own testimony, certification from Blackgold Phil Village Hotel Pavilion) 2 experts in the field of psychology who testified root cause of respondents psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven y experts and clearly explained in the TCs decision Third, respondents psychological incapacity was established to have clearly exists at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage The gravity of respondents psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as embraced in Art 68 ton71 living together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual help and support The CA clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact that the marriage of the parties was annulled by the Catholic Church -- deliberate ignorance The final point of contention us the requirement in Molina that such psychological incapacity be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurablepetitioner tried to come back to wife after a month of separation but wife remained unchangedcontinued to lie and fabricate storiesincurability of respondents incapacity Conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for declaration of nullity under Art 36 of FC. The RTC correctly ruled and the CA erred in reversing the TC

8)
-

AMOR-CATALAN vs. CA ZAMORA vs. CA FERRARIS vs. FERRARIS