1. Manzano vs. Sanchez
Bayadog
Facts:
Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano avers that
she was the lawful wife of the late David
Manzano, having been married to him on 21 May
1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish, Araneta
Avenue, Caloocan City. Four children were born
out of that marriage. On 22 March 1993,
however, her husband contracted another
marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before
respondent Judge. When respondent Judge
solemnized said marriage, he knew or ought to
know that the same was void and bigamous, as
the marriage contract clearly stated that both
contracting parties were “separated.”
Respondent Judge, on the other hand, claims in
his Comment that when he officiated the
marriage between Manzano and Payao he did
not know that Manzano was legally married.
What he knew was that the two had been living
together as husband and wife for seven years
already without the benefit of marriage, as
manifested in their joint affidavit. According to
him, had he known that the late Manzano was
married, he would have advised the latter not to
marry again; otherwise, Manzano could be
charged with bigamy. He then prayed that the
complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and for
being designed merely to harass him.
Issue:
Is the reason of the respondent Judge in
solemnizing the marriage valid?
Ruling:
No. In Article 34 of the Family Code provides “No
license shall be necessary for the marriage of a
man and a woman who have lived together as
husband and wife for at least five years and
without any legal impediment (hindrance) to
marry each other. Respondent Judge cannot take
refuge on the Joint Affidavit of David Manzano
and Luzviminda Payao stating that they had been
cohabiting as husband and wife for seven years.
2. Niñal vs.
Facts:
Pepito Niñal was married with Teodulfa Bellones.
They had 3 children namely Babyline, Ingrid and
Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by
Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24,
1985 leaving the children under the guardianship
of Engrace Niñal. 1 year and 8 months later,
Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without
any marriage license. They instituted an affidavit
stating that they had lived together for at least 5
years exempting from securing the marriage
license. Pepito died in a car accident on February
19, 1977. After his death, petitioners filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage
of Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage
was void for lack of marriage license.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito
was void?
2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may
file for the declaration of the nullity of Pepito’s
marriage after his death?
Ruling:
The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for
absence of the marriage license. They cannot be
exempted even though they instituted an
affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at
least 5 years because from the time of Pepito’s
first marriage was dissolved to the time of his
marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had
elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had
separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and
Norma had started living with each other that has
already lasted for five years, the fact remains that
their five-year period cohabitation was not the
cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his
marriage to Norma is still void.
 3. Louel Santos vs CA
Facts:
Leouel, a First Lieutenant of the Philippine Army,
married Julia in a municipal trial court and
thereafter, in a church. She gave birth to a baby
boy and was named Leouel Jr. Occasionally, the
couple quarreled over a lot of things including
the interference of Julia's parents into their
family affairs.
Julia went to US to work as a nurse and promised
husband that she will return once her contract
will expired. She never did. Leouel tried to find
her in the US but somehow failed to contact her
or get in touch with her.
Leouel filed a petition to have their marriage
declared null and void, citing Article 36 of the
Family Code. He argued that Julia's failure to
return home and communicating with him for
more than 5 years constitute psychological
incapacity.
Issue:
Whether or not their marriage can be considered
void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Ruling:
No. Julia's failure to return to her husband and
communication with him do not constitute
psychological incapacity. The intendment of the
law has been to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases
of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage. This
psychological condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated.
4. Republic v. Quintero-Hamano
Facts:
Lolita and Toshio started a common-law
relationship in Japan in October 1986. They later
lived in the Philippines for a month. Thereafter,
Toshio went back to Japan and stayed there for
half of 1987. On November 16, 1987, she gave
birth to their child. They were married with MTC
of Bacoor, Cavite. One month after their
marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised
to return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays
with his family. After sending money to
respondent for two months, Toshio stopped
giving financial support. She wrote him several
times but he never responded. Sometime in
1991, respondent learned from her friends that
Toshio visited the Philippines but he did not
bother to see her and their child. Hence, she filed
for a declaration of nullity of their marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC
declared their marriage null and void because he
failed to fulfill his obligations as husband of the
petitioner and father to his daughter. CA affirmed
RTC’s ruling.
Issue:
W/N abandonment by one spouse tantamount to
psychological incapacity
Ruling:
Mere abandonment by Toshio of his family and
his insensitivity to them did not automatically
constitute psychological incapacity. His behavior
merely indicated simple inadequacy in the
personality of a spouse falling short of reasonable
expectations. Respondent failed to prove any
severe and incurable personality disorder on the
part of Toshio, in accordance with the guidelines
set in Molina.
5. Leonilo Antonio vs Marie Ivonne Reyes
Facts:
In 1990, Leonilo Antonio married Marie Ivonne
Reyes, who was ten years older than Leonilo. In
1993, Leo filed a petition to annul their marriage
due to the alleged psychological incapacity of
Reyes. Leonilo claimed that Marie persistently
lied about herself, the people around her, her
occupation, income, educational attainment and
other events or things. She would claim that she
is a psychologist but she is not. She’d claim she is
a singer with the company Blackgold and that she
is the latter’s number 1 money maker but she’s
not. She’d also spend lavishly as opposed to her
monthly income. She fabricates things and
people only to serve her make-believe world.
Leonilo presented an expert who testified to
Reyes’s psychological incapacity. Reyes denied all
of Leonilo’s allegations and she also presented an
expert to prove her case. The RTC ruled against
Reyes and declared their marriage void.
Meanwhile, The Matrimonial Tribunal of the
church also annulled the marriage and was even
affirmed by the Vatican’s Roman Rata. However,
the Court of Appeals reversed the decision hence
the appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not Marie Ivonne Reyes is
psychologically incapacitated.
Ruling:
Yes, Reyes was proven to be psychologically
incapacitated. In Psychological Incapacity, the
misrepresentation done by Reyes points to her
inadequacy to cope with her marital obligations,
kindred to psychological incapacity. Her
misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate
Leonilo’s consent to marry her. Her
misrepresentations are evidence that Marie
cannot simply distinguish fiction/fantasy from
reality which is so grave and it falls under the
fourth guideline laid down in the Molina Case.
6. Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA
Facts:
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in
1988. After the celebration of their wedding,
they proceed to the house of defendant’s
mother. There was no sexual intercourse
between them during their first night and same
thing happened until their fourth night. In an
effort to have their honeymoon in a private place,
they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went
with them. Again, there was no sexual
intercourse since the defendant avoided by
taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a
rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988
until March 1989 they slept together in the same
bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse
between them. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examination to a
urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989.
The result of the physical examination of Gina
was disclosed, while that of the husband was
kept confidential even the medicine prescribed.
There were allegations that the reason why Chi
Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency
status here in the country. Gina does not want to
reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their
marriage declared void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the
latter does not want to have their marriage
annulled because he loves her very much, he has
no defect on his part and is physically and
psychologically capable and since their
relationship is still young, they can still overcome
their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted
himself to another physical examination and the
result was there is not evidence of impotency
and he is capable of erection.
Issue:
Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual
intercourse with his wife constitutes
psychological incapacity.
Ruling:
The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to
consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of
a serious personality disorder which to the mind
of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance tot the marriage within the meaning
of Article 36 of the Family Code.
7. Armida Perez Ferraris vs Brix Ferrris
Facts:
Armida and Brix are showbiz couple. The couple’s
relationship before the marriage and even during
their brief union (for well about a year or so) was
not all bad. During that relatively short period of
time, Armida was happy and contented with her
life in the company of Brix. Armida even admits
that Brix was a responsible and loving husband.
Their problems began when Armida started
doubting Brix’ fidelity. It was only when they
started fighting about the calls from women that
Brix began to withdraw into his shell and corner,
and failed to perform his so-called marital
obligations. Brix could not understand Armida’s
lack of trust in him and her constant naggings.
He thought her suspicions irrational. Brix could
not relate to her anger, temper and jealousy.
Armida presented a psychological expert (Dr.
Dayan) who finds Brix to be a schizoid and a
dependent and avoidant type. This is evidenced
by Brix’s
“leaving-the-house” attitude whenever they
quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic
attacks, the sexual infidelity, the abandonment
and lack of support, and his preference to spend
more time with his band mates than his family.
Issue:
Whether or not PI is attendant in the case at bar.
Ruling:
The SC upheld the decision of the lower courts.
The alleged mixed personality disorder, the
“leaving-the-house” attitude whenever they
quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic
attacks, the sexual infidelity, the abandonment
and lack of support, and his preference to spend
more time with his band mates than his family,
are not rooted on some debilitating psychological
condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to
assume the essential obligations of marriage and
these do not constitute PI. Further, the expert
was not able to prove her findings. Notably, when
asked as to the root cause of respondent’s
alleged psychological incapacity, Dr. Dayan’s
answer was vague, evasive and inconclusive. She
replied that such disorder “can be part of his
family upbringing” She stated that there was a
history of Brix’s parents having difficulties in their
relationship- this is of course inconclusive for
such has no direct bearing to the case at bar.
8. Narciso Navarro vs Cynthia Navarro
Facts:
Petitioner and respondent were college
sweethearts. At the time of their marriage they
were already awaiting their first child. Since both
are still student of medicine and pharmacy
(respectively) they lived with Narciso’s parents
who they depend financially. They had four
children.
Mr. Narciso filed a petition for nullification of
their marriage when he found out that their
eldest child had is not his.
A marriage counselor concluded from meetings
with the petitioner that the marriage was
dysfunctional, destructive, and reconciliation was
out of the question since he claims he would go
insane if he were to go back to his wife.
She concluded that respondent was also
psychologically incapacitated to perform the
marital obligations because she knew, from the
start, that her husband was going to be a doctor,
yet she did not give him the support and
understanding that was expected of a doctor’s
wife.
A housemaid also testified that the couple was
always quarreling because respondent was
always jealous of petitioner’s classmates.
The petitioner underwent a psychiatric test that
showed he is a perfectionist, short tempered,
critical, argumentative and irritable when people
do not meet his expectations.
The respondent refused to submit to the
examination and claimed that their marital
problems began when she caught the petitioner
illicit affait with a certain Dr. Lucila Posadas, to
which the petitioner denied the affair.
The RTC held that both are psychologically
incapacitated to perform obligations and
declared their marriage as null and void.
The respondent filed an appeal to which the
court of appeals reversed the decision of the trial
court and declared that the marriage still
subsists.
Issue:
Whether the parties are psychological
incapacitated to declare marriage null and void.
Ruling:
No. The court stated that in the present case, the
spouse’s frequent squabbles and respondent’s
refusal to sleep with petitioner and be supportive
to him do not constitute psychological incapacity.
The records show that petitioner and respondent
were living in harmony in the first few years of
their marriage, which bore them four children.
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a
difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of
some marital obligations, it is essential that they
must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due
to some psychological illness existing at the time
of the celebration of the marriage.
9. David Dedel vs CA & Sharon Dedel
Facts:
In 1966, David and Sharon married each other.
They’ve had four children since then. David then
found out that Sharon is irresponsible as a wife
and as a mother because during the marriage
Sharon had extra-marital affairs with various
other guys particularly with one Mustafa Ibrahim,
a Jordanian, with whom she had 2 children. She
even married Ibrahim. David averred that Sharon
is psychologically incapacitated and David
submitted the findings of Dr. Dayan which shows
that Sharon is indeed psychologically
incapacitated. Dr. Dayan declared that Sharon
was suffering from Anti-Social Personality
Disorder exhibited by her blatant display of
infidelity; that she committed several
indiscretions and had no capacity for remorse,
even bringing with her the two children of
Mustafa Ibrahim to live with petitioner. Such
immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the
marriage like her repeated acts of infidelity and
abandonment of her family are indications of
Anti-Social Personality Disorder amounting to
psychological incapacity to perform the essential
obligations of marriage.
Issue:
Whether or not PI has been proven.
Held:
PI is not proven in court in this case. The
evidence is not sufficient. PI is intended to the
most serious cases of personality disorders which
make one be incapable of performing the
essential marital obligations. Sharon’s sexual
infidelity does not constitute PI nor does it
constitute the other forms of psychoses which if
existing at the inception of marriage, like the
state of a party being of unsound mind or
concealment of drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely
renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant
to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction,
habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality
should occur only during the marriage, they
become mere grounds for legal separation under
Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions,
however, do not necessarily preclude the
possibility of these various circumstances being
themselves, depending on the degree and
severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological
incapacity. Sexual infidelity is not one of those
contemplated in law. Until further statutory or
jurisprudential parameters are set or established,
SI cannot be appreciated in favor of the
dissolution of marriage.
10. Marcos vs. Marcos
Facts:
Plaintiff Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson
Marcos in 1982 and they had five children.
Alleging that the husband failed to provide
material support to the family and have resorted
to physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed
a case for the nullity of the marriage for
psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the
marriage null and void under Art. 36 which was
however reversed by CA.
Issues:
Whether personal medical or psychological
examination of the respondent by a physician is a
requirement for a declaration of psychological
incapacity.
Whether the totality of evidence presented in
this case show psychological incapacity.
Held:
Psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring
the nullity of a marriage, may be established by
the totality of evidence presented. There is no
requirement, however that the respondent be
examined by a physician or a psychologist as a
condition sine qua non for such declaration.
Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that
respondent failed to provide material support to
the family and may have resorted to physical
abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts
does not lead to a conclusion of psychological
incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no
showing that his “defects” were already present
at the inception of the marriage or that they are
incurable. In sum, this Court cannot declare the
dissolution of the marriage for failure of the
petitioner to show that the alleged psychological
incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurabilty and for her failure to
observe the guidelines as outline in Republic v.
CA and Molina.
11. Republic of the Phils. vs. Crasus Iyoy
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari the
decision of the Court of Appeals.
Crasus Iyoy was married to Fely Iyoy in 1961 and
this marriage gave birth to five children. Fely Iyoy
eventually left for the States to provide for their
family in 1984 and in less than a year sent Crasus
documents to sign with regard to a divorce that
she applied for. Crasus eventually found out that
Fely married Stephen Micklus in 1985 and their
relationship has conceived of a child. Crasus
eventually questioned the validity of Fely’s
subsequent marriage. The Court of Appeals in
deciding this case sided with Fely.
Issue:
Whether or not a divorce decree acquired by a
Filipino from the United States is valid and
recognized in the Philippines.
Ruling:
The court decided in the negative and reversed
the Appellate Court’s decision. Basing from the
facts, Fely only became a citizen in 1988 and
acquired the divorce in 1984, marrying Micklus a
year after. This means that paragraph two of
Article 26 cannot be applied in such a way that,
Fely is not yet considered an alien at the time the
divorce was acquired and therefore she does not
have the capacity to remarry and the marriage is
still considered as subsisting. The Civil Code also
provides that Filipino Citizen, with regard to
family laws and status are governed by Philippine
laws regardless of where they are. Fely, being a
Filipino Citizen then, is not permitted by our laws
to acquire a divorce decree since such is not
recognized in the Philippines.
12. Leni Choa vs. Alfonso Choa
Facts:
Leni Choa, petitioner, and Alfonso Choa,
respondent, were married on March 15, 1981.
Out of this union, two children were born. On
October 27, 1993, respondent filed a complaint
for the annulment of his marriage to petitioner.
Also filed an amended complaint for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage based on
her alleged psychological incapacity. The case
went on trial with the respondent presenting his
evidence. However, petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss the evidence. RTC denied petitioner’s
demurrer to evidence on the ground that
petitioner must controvert the established
quantum evidence of respondent. Petitioner
elevated the case to CA after the motion of
reconsideration was denied. CA held that denial
of the demurrer was merely interlocutory and
petitioner in her defense must present evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s obligated to present
her evidence despite the inadequate evidence of
respondent in the annulment of marriage case
grounded on psychological incapacity.
Ruling:
The petition is meritorious. However, the
evidence against petitioner is grossly insufficient
to support any finding of psychological incapacity
that would warrant a declaration of nullity of the
parties’ marriage.
Respondent claims that the filing by petitioner of
a series of charges against him are proof of the
latter’s psychological incapacity to comply with
the essential obligations of marriage. These
charges included Complaints for perjury, false
testimony, concubinage and deportation. The
documents presented by respondent during the
trial do not in any way show the alleged
psychological incapacity of his wife.
13. Juanita Carating-Siyangco vs. Manuel
Siyangco
Facts:
Petitioner Juanita and respondent Manuel were
married at civil rites on 27 June 1973 and before
the Catholic Church on August 11 1973. After
discovering that they could not have a child of
their own, the couple decided to adopt a baby
boy in 1977, who they named Jeremy.
Manuel Siayngco filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Juanita
Siayngco on the ground of the latter's
psychological incapacity. In her answer, Juanita
contended that it was respondent Manuel who
was remiss in his marital and family obligations
and that she supported Manuel in all his
endeavors despite his philandering. The RTC
dismissed Manuel's petition. The CA reversed the
RTC decision.
Issue:
Whether or not Juanita/Manuel is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with marital obligations.
Ruling:
No. What emerges from the psychological report
is that the only essential marital obligation which
Manuel was not able to fulfill, if any, is the
obligation of fidelity. Sexual infidelity, per se,
however, does not constitute psychological
incapacity within the contemplation of the Family
Code.
14. Hernandez vs CA
Facts:
Lucita and Marcio met in Philippine Christian
University in Dasmarinas when lucita was
Marcio’s teacher for two consecutive semesters.
Lucita was 5 years older than Marcio. They later
on became sweethearts and eventually got
married. They also had a child. Lucita supported
the family as her husband continued studying,
supported by his parents. The first few years of
their marriage went okay. But this eventually
changed. Marcio had an extra-marital relation
with another student who was also married.
When Lucita discovered this, he asked Lucio to
end it. He promised to but did not fulfill it and left
their conjugal home and child. After some time,
he returned to Lucita and she accepted him.
However, his attitude worsened when he got
employed to Reynold Philippines, Inc. He
engaged in extreme promiscuous conduct during
the latter part of 1986. As a result, private
respondent contracted gonorrhea and infected
petitioner. Petitioner averred that on one
occasion of a heated argument, private
respondent hit their eldest child who was then
barely a year old. Private respondent is not close
to any of their children as he was never
affectionate and hardly spent time with them. On
July 10, 1992, petitioner filed before the RTC a
petition seeking the annulment of her marriage
to private respondent on the ground of
psychological incapacity. RTC and CA denied the
petition. Hence, this case.
Issue:
W/N Marcio is psychologically incapacitated to
fulfill his marital obligations
Ruling:
The psychological incapacity of a spouse, as a
ground for declaration of nullity of marriage,
must exist at the time of the celebration of
marriage. More so, chronic sexual infidelity,
abandonment, gambling and use of prohibited
drugs are not grounds per se, of psychological
incapacity of a spouse. Certainly, petitioner-
appellant’s declaration that at the time of their
marriage her respondent-husband’s character
was on the “borderline between a responsible
person and the happy-go-lucky,” could not
constitute the psychological incapacity in
contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code.
15. Lorna Guillen-Pesca vs. Zosimo Pesca
Facts:
Lorna and Zosimo were married and had four
children. Lorna filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of their marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity on the part of her
husband. She alleged that he is emotionally
immature and irresponsible. He was cruel and
violent also a habitual drinker. Whenever she tells
him to stop or at least minimize his drinking, her
husband would hurt her. There was even a time
when she was chased by a loaded shotgun and
threatened to kill her in the presence of their
children he was also convicted of slight physical
injuries. The children also suffered physical
violence. Lorna with their children left him.
Issue:
Whether the actions of Zosimo to his wife and
children constitutes psychological incapacity.
W/N the guidelines for psychological incapacity in
the case of Republic vs CA & Molina should be
taken in consideration in deciding in this case.
Ruling:
No, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility
cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.
Yes. In the Molina case, guidelines were laid
down by the SC before a case would fall under
the category of psychological incapacity to
declare a marriage null and void. This decision
has force and effect of a law. These guidelines are
mandatory in nature. Petition denied.
16. Roberto Domingo vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Roberto Domingo married Delia Soledad in 1976
while being married with Emerlina dela Paz.
He has been unemployed and completely
dependent upon Delia, who has been working in
Saudi Arabia, for support and subsistence.
Delia only found out about the prior marriage
when Emerlina sued them for bigamy in 1983.
In 1989, she found out that Roberto was
cohabiting with another woman and he was
disposing of some of her properties without her
knowledge and consent.
In May 1991, Delia filed a petition for judicial
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Roberto
and separation of property.
Issue:
Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration
of a void marriage is necessary. If in affirmative,
whether the same should be filed only for
purpose of remarriage.
Ruling:
Yes. A declaration of the absolute nullity of
marriage is now explicitly required either as a
cause of action or a ground for defense. Where
the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is
sought to be invoked for purpose of contracting a
second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law
for the said projected marriage be free from legal
infirmity is a final judgment declaring the
previous marriage void.
17. Lucio Morigo vs. People
Facts:
Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates
in Bohol. They lost contacts for a while but after
receiving a card from Barrete and various
exchanges of letters, they became sweethearts.
They got married in 1990. Barrete went back to
Canada for work and in 1991 she filed petition for
divorce in Ontario Canada, which was granted. In
1992, Morigo married Lumbago. He
subsequently filed a complaint for judicial
declaration of nullity on the ground that there
was no marriage ceremony. Morigo was then
charged with bigamy and moved for a suspension
of arraignment since the civil case pending posed
a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. Morigo
pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with
Barrete was void ab initio. Petitioner contented
he contracted second marriage in good faith.
Issue:
Whether Morigo must have filed declaration for
the nullity of his marriage with Barrete before his
second marriage in order to be free from the
bigamy case.
Ruling:
Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio
considering that there was no actual marriage
ceremony performed between them by a
solemnizing officer instead they just merely
signed a marriage contract. The petitioner does
not need to file declaration of the nullity of his
marriage when he contracted his second
marriage with Lumbago. Hence, he did not
commit bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed.
18. Lilia Oliva Weigel vs. The Honorable
Alicia Sempio- Diy and Karl Wiegel
Facts:
Karl Heinz Weigel asked for the declaration of
Nullity of his marriage with Lilia Oliva Weigel on
the ground that the latter has existing marriage
with Eduardo A. Maxion.
Lilia claimed that prior marriage was null and
void because she and Eduardo were forced to
enter said marital union. She likewise alleged that
Eduardo was married to someone else.
Issue:
Whether or not Karl's marriage with Lilia is void.
Ruling:
Yes. It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that
her first marriage was vitiated with force because
it will not be void but merely voidable(Art. 85,
Civil Code). Such marriage is valid until annulled.
Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear
that when she married Karl, she is still validly
married to her first husband. Consequently, her
marriage to Karl is void.
19. Dorothy B. Terre vs. Atty. Jordan Terre
Facts:
On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B.
Terre charged respondent Jordan Terre, a
member of the Philippine Bar with “grossly
immoral conduct,” consisting of contracting a
second marriage and living with another woman
other than complainant, while his prior marriage
with complainant remained subsisting No judicial
action having been initiated or any judicial
declaration obtained as to the nullity of such
prior marriage of respondent with complainant.
Respondent was charged with abandonment of
minor and bigamy by complainant. Dorothy Terre
was then married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo
her first cousin, with this fact, Atty. Jordan Terre
succesfully convinced complainant that her
marriage was void ab initio and they are free to
contract marriage. In their marriage license,
despite her objection, he wrote “single” as her
status. After getting the complainant pregnant,
Atty. Terre abandoned them and subsequently
contracted another marriage to Helina Malicdem
believing again that her previous marriage was
also void ab initio.
Issue:
Whether or not a judicial declaration of nullity is
needed to enter into a subsequent marriage.
Ruling:
Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part of
respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In
the first place, respondent has not rebutted
complainant’s evidence as to the basic fact which
underscores that bad faith of respondent Terre.
In the second place, the pretended defense is the
same argument by which he inveigled
complainant into believing that her prior
marriage or Merlito A. Bercenilla being
incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and
Merlito being allegedly first cousins to each
other), she was free to contract a second
marriage with the respondent.
20. Antonio Valdes vs. RTC Br. 106 Quezon
City and Consuelo M. Gomez-Valdez
Facts:
Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were
married in 1971 and begotten 5 children. Valdez
filed a petition in 1992 for a declaration of nullity
of their marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the
family Code, which was granted hence, marriage
is null and void on the ground of their mutual
psychological incapacity. Stella and Joaquin are
placed under the custody of their mother while
the other 3 siblings are free to choose which they
prefer. Gomez sought a clarification of that
portion in the decision regarding the procedure
for the liquidation of common property in unions
without marriage. During the hearing on the
motion, the children fled a joint affidavit
expressing desire to stay with their father.
Issue:
Whether or not the property regime should be
based on co-ownership.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage,
regardless of the cause thereof, the property
relations of the parties are governed by the rules
on co-ownership. Any property acquired during
the union is prima facie presumed to have been
obtained through their joint efforts. A party who
did not participate in the acquisition of the
property shall be considered as having
contributed thereto jointly if said party’s efforts
consisted in the care and maintenance of the
family.
21. People of the Phils vs. Proceso S. Aragon
Facts:
Proceso Rosima contracted marriage with Gorrea.
While his marriage with the latter subsists, he
contracted a canonical marriage with Faicol.
Gorrea is staying in Cebu while Faicol is in Iloilo.
He was a traveling salesman thus, he commuted
between Iloilo and Cebu. When Gorrea died, he
brought Faicol to Cebu where the latter worked
as teacher-nurse. She later on suffered injuries in
her eyes caused by physical maltreatment of
Rosima and was sent to Iloilo to undergo
treatment. While she was in Iloilo, Rosima
contracted a third marriage with Maglasang. CFI-
Cebu found him guilty of bigamy.
Issue:
Whether or not the third marriage is null and
void.
Ruling:
The action was instituted upon the complaint of
the second wife whose marriage with Rosima was
not renewed after the death of the first wife and
before the third marriage was entered into.
Hence, the last marriage was a valid one and
prosecution against Rosima for contracting
marriage cannot prosper.
22. Dr. Vincent Mercado vs. Consuelo Tan
Facts:
Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with
Thelma Oliva in 1976 before he contracted
marriage with Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the
latter claims she did not know. Tan filed bigamy
against Mercado and after a month the latter
filed an action for declaration of nullity of
marriage against Oliva. The decision in 1993
declared marriage between Mercado and Oliva
null and void.
Issue:
Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of
filing the declaration of nullity of the former
marriage.
Ruling:
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage is necessary before a subsequent one
can be legally contracted. One who enters into a
subsequent marriage without first obtaining such
judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This
principle applies even if the earlier union is
characterized by statute as “void.”
In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva
right after Tan filed bigamy case. Hence, by then,
the crime had already been consummated. He
contracted second marriage without the judicial
declaration of the nullity. The fact that the first
marriage is void from the beginning is not a
defense in a bigamy charge.
23. Imelda Marbella Bobis vs. Isagani Bobis
Facts:
On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani Bobis
contracted a first marriage with Ma. Dulce Javier.
With said marriage not yet annulled, nullified nor
terminated, he contracted a second marriage
with herein petitioner Imelda Marbella (on Jan.
25, 1996), and a third marriage with certain Julia
Hernandez, thereafter.
Petitioner then filed a case of bigamy against
respondent on Feb. 25, 1998, at the RTC of
Quezon City. Thereafter, respondent initiated a
civil action for the declaration of absolute nullity
of his first marriage license. He then filed a
motion to suspend the criminal proceeding for
bigamy invoking the civil case for nullity of the
first marriage as a prejudicial question to the
criminal case. The RTC granted the motion, while
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the subsequent filing of a civil
action for declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a
criminal case for bigamy.
Ruling:
Any decision in the civil case the fact that
respondent entered into a second marriage
during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a
decision in the civil case is not essential to the
determination of the criminal charge. It is
therefore not a prejudicial question. Respondent
cannot be permitted to use his malfeasance to
defeat the criminal action against him.
A prejudicial question is one which arises in a
case the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein. It is a
question based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but so intimately connected with
it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
24. Republic vs. Nolasco
Facts:
Gregorio Nolasco is a seaman. He met Janet
Parker, a British, in bar in England. After that,
Janet started living with Nolasco in his ship for six
months. It lasted until the contract of Nolasco
expired then he brought her to his hometown in
Antique. They got married in January 1982. Due
to another contract, Nolasco left the province. In
1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother
informing him that his son had been born but 15
days after, Janet left. Nolasco went home and cut
short his contract to find Janet’s whereabouts.
He did so by securing another seaman’s contract
going to London. He wrote several letters to the
bar where they first met but it was all returned.
Gregorio petitioned in 1988 for a declaration of
presumptive death of Janet.
Issue:
Whether or not Nolasco had a well-founded
belief that his wife, Janet, is already dead?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Nolasco’s efforts to
locate Janet were not persistent to show that he
has a well-founded belief that his wife was
already dead because instead of seeking
assistance of local authorities and the British
Embassy, he even secured another contract.
More so, while he was in London, he did not even
try to solicit help of the authorities to find his
wife.
25. Lukban vs. Republic of the Phils.
Facts:
Lourdes G. Lukban, Petitioner herein, contracted
marriage with Francisco Chuidian on December
10, 1933 at the Paco Catholic Church, Manila. On
December 27, of the same year, Francisco left
Lourdes after a violent quarrel and since then he
has not been heard from despite diligent search
made by her. She also inquired about him from
his parents and friends but no one was able to
indicate his whereabouts. She has no knowledge
if he is still alive, his last known address being
Calle Merced, Paco, Manila. She believes that he
is already dead because he had been absent for
more than twenty years, and because she intends
to marry again, she desires that her civil status be
defined in order that she may be relieved of any
liability under the law.
Issue:
Whether or not, Lourdes G. Lukban needs to
secure declaration of presumptive death before
she can remarry.
Ruling:
No. The court ruled that Lukban does not need to
secure declaration of presumptive death of her
husband because Civil Code prevails during their
marriage in 1933. It provides that “for the
purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not
necessary to have the former spouse judicially
declared an absentee. The declaration of absence
made in accordance with the provisions of the
Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the
taking of the necessary precautions for the
administration of the estate of the absentee. For
the celebration of civil marriage, however, the
law only requires that the former spouse has
been absent for seven consecutive years at the
time of the second marriage, that the spouse
present does not know his or her former spouse
to be living, that each former spouse is generally
reputed to be dead and the spouse present so
believes at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.