Mallion v Alcantara – GR No.

141528 – October 31, 2016

I. Topic Requisites of Marriage
II. Short Discussion Art. 2, FC: Essential Requisites of Marriage
a. Legal capacity of parties – MUST be male and female
b. Consent freely given in presence of solemnizing officer

Art. 3, FC: Formal Requisites of Marriage

a. Authority of solemnizing officer
b. Valid marriage license (exceptions provided)
c. Marriage ceremony – presence of contracting parties; solemnizing officer; personal declarations; 2
witnesses of legal age

Art. 4, FC: Lack or Defect in Requisites – Effect on Validity of Marriage

1. Essential Requisites
a. Absence – void ab initio
b. Defect – voidable (valid until annulled)
2. Formal Requisites
a. Absence – void ab inition
b. Irregularity – no effect on validity; party at fault liable (1) civilly, (2) criminally, (3) administratively

Art. 36, FC: Effect of Psychological Incapacity of One Party

Marriage where one party is psychologically incapacitated (at time of celebration) to comply with essential
marital obligations shall be VOID. Even if incapacity manifests only after solemnization.
a. Incapacity exists at time of marriage
b. Incapacity pertains to inability to comply with essential marital obligations, i.e.
● Live together
● Observe mutual love, respect and fidelity
● Render mutual help and support
c. Even if incapacity is manifested after solemnization: still valid ground to declare nullity
III. Parties Petitioner:
Oscar P. Mallion (husband)
Respondent:
Editha Alcantara (wife)
IV. Nature of Action Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals
V. Subject Matter Declaration of nullity of marriage: separate civil actions on different grounds: (1) psychological incapacity [Art. 36,
FC], (2) lack of valid marriage license [Art. 4, FC]
VI. Facts Antecedent ● FIRST PETITION: Mallion filed petition seeking nullity of marriage on ground of psychological incapacity [Art.
36, FC]
● RTC denied (1995): no preponderance of evidence
● CA dismissed (1998): failure to pay fees within prescribed period
● SECOND PETITION: Another petition initiated by Mallion to declare nullity of marriage on ground of absence
of valid marriage license [Art. 4, FC]
● RTC dismissed (1999): Forum Shopping and Multiplicity of Suits

Thus, this petition:

VII. Case at Bar: Petitioner:
Arguments ● Distinct cause of action – different operative facts; different evidence required to sustain
Respondent:
● Same issue: validity of marriage [forum shopping]
● Same remedy: declaration of nullity [forum shopping]
● Ground in second petition could have been raised in first [multiplicity of suits]
VIII. Case at Bar: Issue Should the invalidity of marriage on ground of absence of requisite, i.e. valid license [Art. 4] be raised in the same
for Court proceeding where validity of marriage is questioned on ground of psychological incapacity of a party [Art. 36]?
Resolution
IX. Case at Bar: Yes. Second petition is barred by final judgement on the first petition, under the doctrine of res judicata.
Ruling/Rationale
Res judicata
● Matter adjudged
● Thing judicially decided
Res judicata (con’t)
● Rule that a final judgement on merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit
● Embodied in Sec. 47(b) and (c) in Rule 39A of the Rules of Court

Rule 39A: Dual aspect of res judicata*

● Aspect 1: Sec. 47(b): bar by prior judgement* [applicable to this case]
The effect of judgement as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or
cause of action.
Requisites:
1. Former judgement is final – not disputed
2. Rendered by court with jurisdiction (subject matter and parties) – not disputed
3. Judgement on the merits (based on the ultimate facts or substance of the case rather than technical
or procedural infirmities) – not disputed
4. On first and second case – (1) identity of parties, (2) of subject matter, (3) and of cause of action –
disputed (No. 3 – cause of action different)

● Aspect 2. Sec. 47(c): conclusiveness of judgement*

Issues resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving
a different cause of action.

Application of res judicata as bar by prior judgement (Aspect 1) – 4th requisite above: test to determine if cause of
action are identical:
● Will same evidence sustain both actions?
● Is there identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of two actions?

Petitioner contends that evidence necessary to maintain first and second petitions were different.
 Court ruled:
1. The cause of action is the same, only based on different grounds.
● Cause of action – act or omission by which one party violates the right of another
● Cause of action on both cases – declaration of nullity
● The grounds presented merely splits the main issue to various aspects
2. Petitioner is bound by previous admission of the solemnity and celebration of marriage in accordance with
law.
● By his failure to raise the issue of marriage license in first petition, he impliedly admitted the validity of
marriage
● Decision rendered bounds the parties not only with respect to matters presented but also by those
admissible matters that might have been presented which may affect the cases’ judgement (parties are
bound by both their actions and inactions)
3. A lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal. [additional point cited]
● Plaintiff should have presented every ground relevant for relief sought at first petition
● He doesn’t reserve right to bring a second action only because the first one presented limited theories
● Wasteful of time, effort, resources
● End of litigation is of interest to the State as matter of public policy and necessity
● Individual shall not be vexed twice for same cause
X. Wherefore Petition denied for lack of merit.