8. Ty vs.

CA
Facts: In this case, petitioner Ofelia Ty is defending the validity of the her
marriage with private respondent Edgardo Reyes, which was nullified by the
RTC and affirmed by the CA on the ground that their marriage was
solemnized before the issuance of the judicial decree of nullity of marriage of
private respondents first marriage with Anna Maria Villanueva (Ty and Reyes
were married on 1979 whereas Reyes first marriage was nullified only on
1980).
Issue: Whether petitioner and private respondents marriage is valid;
Whether a Judicial Decree of Nullity of Marriage is required in order to
establish the nullity of petitioner and private respondents marriage.
Held. The marriage is valid. (In deciding the case, the SC explained the
various jurisprudence affecting the issue).
OLD RULE No Judicial Decree is necessary to establish the nullity of a void
marriage. (People v. Mendoza (1954); People vs. Aragon (1957); Odayat v.
Amante (1977) )
NEW RULE Art. 40, FC expressly required a judicial declaration of nullity of
marriage embodying the doctrines enunciated under the cases of Gomez vs.
Lipana (1970), Consuegra vs. GSIS (1971) and Wiegel vs. Sempio Diy
(1986).
Notwithstanding the New Rule, the SC applied the Old Rule in Apiag vs.
Cantero which was decided in 1997 because of the peculiarity of the case. In
such case, the first and second marriages were solemnized before the
promulgation of the Weigel case and before the effectivity of the FC. Thus,
they applied the old rule. Similarly in the present case, the second marriage
of private respondent was entered into in 1979, before Weigel and the family
code; thus, no Judicial Decree is necessary to establish the nullity of the first
void marriage. Hence, private respondents marriage is valid.
Moreover, SC found that the provisions of the FC cannot be retroactively
applied to the present case, for to do so would prejudice the vested rights of
petitioner and of her children. In the present case, that impairment of vested
rights of petitioner and the children is patent. (Children would lose their
legitimate status).