WIEGEL V.

SEMPIO-DIY Lilia Olivia Wiegel got married to Karl Heinz Wiegel on July, 1978 at the Holy Catholic Apostolic Christian Church in Makati. Karl, upon learning that Lilia had a subsisting marriage, filed for a declaration of nullity of their marriage. Lilia contracted her first marriage with Eduardo Maxion on June 25, 1972. She claims that the first marriage is not valid because they were forced to enter the union and Maxion was married to someone else at that time. ISSUE: WON Lilias first marriage is void? HELD: No. Its voidable. Petition dismissed. RATIO: 1. Presence of force only makes a marriage voidable, not void. (CC ART. 85) It is valid until annulled and since there was no annulment, marriage is still valid. 2. Even if marriage is void, judicial declaration of nullity is still needed especially for purposes of remarriage. TERRE V. TERRE Dorothy Terre first met Jordan Terre when they were 4th year high school classmates in Cadiz City High School. She was then married to Merlito Bercenilla. Jordan courted her and this continued when they moved to Manila to pursue their education. Jordan, then a freshman law student, told Dorothy that her marriage with Bercenilla was void ab initio because they are first cousins. Believing in Jordan and with the consent of her mother and ex-in-laws, she married Jordan on June 14, 1977. Jordan wrote single as Dorothys civil status despite latters protests. Jordan said it didnt matter because marriage was void to begin with. After their marriage, Dorothy supported Jordan because he was still studying then. They had a son, Jason, who was born on June 25, 1981. Shortly after she gave birth, Jordan disappeared. She learned that he married Vilma Malicdem. Dorothy filed charges for abandonment of minor, bigamy and grossly immoral conduct. Jordan was already a member of the Bar then. Jordan claimed that he was unaware of Dorothys first marriage and that she sent her out of the house when he confronted her about it. He contracted the second marriage, believing that his marriage to Dorothy was void ab initio because of her prior subsisting marriage. ISSUE: WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent marriage? HELD: Yes. Jordan Terre disbarred. RATIO: 1. Jordan failed to rebut evidence presented by Dorothy. 2. As a law student, he should have known that even if Dorothys first marriage was void ab initio, she still needed a judicial declaration before she can contract another marriage. (GOMEZ V. LIPANA; FC ART. 40) 3. Jordan has displayed a deeply flawed moral character. Dorothy supported him, he got her pregnant then he abandoned her. He made a mockery of the institution of marriage. Thus, not worthy to be a member of the Bar. CASE DIGEST ON DOMINGO V. CA [226 SCRA 572 (1993)] - A spouse may petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage for a purpose other than her remarriage. F: Delia Domingo filed a pet. for decl. of nullity of her marriage w/ Roberto Domingo, on the ground that, unknown to her, he was previously married at the time of their

marriage. She prays that their marriage be declared null and void and, as a consequence, to declare that she is the exclusive owner of all properties she acquired during the marriage and to recover them from him. Roberto moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the marriage being void ab initio, the petition for decl. of nullity is unnecessary citing Peo. v. Aragon and Peo. v. Mendoza. Roberto claims that decl of nullity is necessary under Art. 40, FC only for the purpose of remarriage. The lower court denied the motion. CA affirmed the denial. HELD: The Declaration of nullity of a marriage under Art. 40 may be resorted to even for a purpose other than remarriage. Crucial to the proper interpretation of Art. 40 is the position of the word "solely." xxx. As it is placed, it is meant to qualify "final judgment." Had the provision been stated as follows: "The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked solely for purposes of remarriage...," the word "solely" will qualify "for purposes of remarriage" and the husband would have been correct. That Art. 40 as finally formulated included the significant clause denotes that such final judgment declaring the previous marriage void need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage. ATIENZA V. BRILLANTES JR. Lupo Atienza lived together with Yolanda de Castro with whom he has two children. He purchased a house in Bel-Air, Makati where his family stayed. He stays there too whenever hes in Manila. In Dec., 1991, he was surprised to see Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Francisco Brillantes sleeping on his bed. Their boy informed him that Brillantes had been cohabiting with de Castro. Later on, Brillantes prevented him from visiting his children. He claims that Brillantes is married to Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has five children. Atienza filed a complaint for Gross Immorality & Appearance of Impropriety against Brillantes. Brillantes claims that his marriage to Ongkiko is not valid because of lack of marriage license. According to him, Ongkiko abandoned him 19 years ago leaving their children with him. He claims that he believed that he was single when he married de Castro because his first marriage was void. ISSUE: WON Brillantes can contract a second marriage without a judicial declaration of nullity? HELD: No. Dismissed from service. RATIO: 1. FC Art. 40: judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage is needed before one can enter into a second marriage. Rule has retroactive effect thus applicable to Brillantes even if he got married under the Civil Code. 2. Bad faith and sinister motives of Brillantes proven by his marriage to Ongkiko. They underwent two ceremonies however he never got a license. Then, he immorally and illegally cohabited with de Castro. Not fit for the judiciary. Valdes vs. RTC 260 SCRA 221 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 filed a joint affidavit expressing desire to stay with their father. ISSUE: Whether or not the property regime should be based on co-ownership.

Issues: 1. WON gross misconduct is applicable? 2. WON first marriage is valid? 3. WON judge is liable? Held: 1.) NO. Misconduct in office should include only those acts which affect ones performance of his duties as an officer, not as a private individual. Prove that it is a transgression of an established and definite rule of action. Involved here are personal acts, not official. 2.) NO. However, old law will apply to Cantero because it is more favorable for him. Ruling in Odayat v Amante will apply: No judicial decree of nullity is needed to establish the invalidity of void marriages. Thus, he was free to contract second marriage without court declaration of the nullity of first marriage. New law requires declaration of nullity before one remarries. Falsification accusation fails. 3.) YES. He will be administratively liable. Hes expected to maintain high ethical principles and free from appearance of impropriety including his personal behavior. But since this is his only wrongdoing throughout the 32 years that he has served the government and the Court saw his sincerity to repent and reform, hell be dealt with leniency. He should have been fined but since he passed away already, case will just be dismissed. Te vs CA

HELD: Carino vs carino 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 partys efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family. Article 40 In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Carino married Susan Nicdao Carino. He had 2 children with her. In 1992, SPO4 contracted a second marriage, this time with Susan Yee Carino. In 1988, prior to his second marriage, SPO4 is already bedridden and he was under the care of Yee. In 1992, he died 13 days after his marriage with Yee. Thereafter, the spouses went on to claim the benefits of SPO4. Nicdao was able to claim a total of P140,000.00 while Yee was able to collect a total of P21,000.00. In 1993, Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao. She wanted to have half of the P140k. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4 and Nicdao but the said marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as certified by the local civil registrar. Yee also claimed that she only found out about the previous marriage on SPO4s funeral. ISSUE: Whether or not the absolute nullity of marriage may be invoked to claim presumptive legitimes. HELD: The marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due the absence of a valid marriage license. The marriage between Yee and SPO4 is likewise null and void for the same has been solemnized without the judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage between Nicdao and SPO4. Under Article 40 of the FC, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Meaning, where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law, for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to the determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for

Void Marriages\Grounds\Psychological Incapacity Apiag v Cantero Facts: Maria Apiag and Esmeraldo Cantero were married on August 11, 1947. They had two children: Teresita and Glicerio. Cantero left his family without any apparent cause and left Maria to raise the family on her own. According to Cantero, their marriage was a drama marriage set-up by their parents and that they never lived together as husband wife. Several years after, Cantero went to Hinundayan, Southern Leyte where Apiag and her children were staying. They begged for support but he ignored them. They sent him a letter demanding support which was also ignored. They learned that he was already married to Nievas Ygay with whom he has 5 children. Apiag along with her 2 children, Teresita & Glicerio, filed charge of gross misconduct for committing bigamy and falsification of public documents against Cantero. Cantero claims that he got married without any annulment or declaration of nullity of his first marriage because he believed that it was void ab initio thus nothing was to be voided. Apiag was living with another man with whom she has one child. The parties entered into a compromise agreement. Cantero agreed to give of his GSIS retirement to Teresita & Glicerio. He likewise included them as his beneficiaries, appointed them as heirs to his property inherited from his parents, authorized them to receive P4,000.00 monthly allowance on the condition that they will withdraw the charges. They started receiving the allowance but they still pushed through with the case. Found guilty by lower court. Cantero died while case was pending.

that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. In such instances, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity. These need not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void. The SC ruled that Yee has no right to the benefits earned by SPO4 as a policeman for their marriage is void due to bigamy; she is only entitled to properties, money etc owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. Wages and salaries earned by each party shall belong to him or her exclusively (Art. 148 of FC). Nicdao is entitled to the full benefits earned by SPO4 as a cop even if their marriage is likewise void. This is because the two were capacitated to marry each other for there were no impediments but their marriage was void due to the lack of a marriage license; in their situation, their property relations is governed by Art 147 of the FC which provides that everything they earned during their cohabitation is presumed to have been equally contributed by each party this includes salaries and wages earned by each party notwithstanding the fact that the other may not have contributed at all. Victoria S. Jarillo vs. People of the Philippines Bigamy; nullity of previous marriage. Petitioners conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioners two marriages to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy. The moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage, petitioners marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of petitioners marriage to Uy make any difference. As held in Tenebro, [s]ince a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. x x x A plain reading of [Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code], therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Case: Antone VS Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010 Facts: On 12 March 2007, herein petitioner Myrna P. Antone executed an AffidavitComplaint for Bigamy against Leo R. Beronilla before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. She alleged that her marriage with respondent in 1978 had not yet been legally dissolved when the latter contracted a second marriage with one Cecile Maguillo in 1991.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in finding that the first essential element of bigamy, which is a first valid marriage contracted by private respondent is wanting. Arguments: Petitioner: Petitioner maintained that the respondent committed an act which has all the essential requisites of bigamy. The prosecution pointed out that the marriage of petitioner and respondent on 18 November 1978 has not yet been severed when he contracted a second marriage on 16 February 1991, for which reason, bigamy has already been committed before the court declared the first marriage null and void on 27 April 2007 Respondent: Respondent moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. He informed the court that his marriage with petitioner was declared null and void by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran on 26 April 2007; that the decision became final and executory on 15 May 200[7]; and that such decree has already been registered with the Municipal Civil Registrar on 12 June 2007. He argued that since the marriage had been declared null and void from the beginning, there was actually no first marriage to speak of. Absent a first valid marriage, the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute the crime of bigamy. Supreme Court Ruling: All considered, Supreme Court finds that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. ART. 40 of the Family Code states that: The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final... VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO A.K.A. VINCENT G. MERCADO VS. CONSUELO TAN Facts:Dr. Vincent Mercado and Ma. Consuelo Tan got married on June 27, 1991 civilly of which aMarriage Contract was duly executed and signed by the parties. As entered in said document, thestatus of petitioner was single. At the time of the celebration of the wedding, petitioner wasactually married to Ma. Thelma Oliva. This fact was known to the respondent, Consuelo Tan. On October 5, 1992, a letter-complaint for bigamy was filed by respondent through counselwith the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. On November 13, 1992, or more than a month after thebigamy case was lodged in the Prosecutors Office, petitoner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Ma. Thelma V. Oliva in RTC-Br. 22, Cebu City, and in a Decision datedMay 6, 1993 the marriage between Vincent G. Mercado and Ma. Thelma V. Oliva was declared nulland void. Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals in affirmingthe ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 13848, whichconvicted herein petitioner of bigamy. Issue:Whether or not the petitioner can still be convicted of bigamy even if the previous marriagewas already declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Ruling:Numerous rulings have been rendered on cases like the one at hand. Petitioner contendsthat he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage under Article 36 of the FamilyCode, thereby rendering it void ab initio. Unlike voidable marriages which are considered valid untilset aside by a competent court, he argues that a void marriage is deemed never to have taken placeat all. Thus, he concludes that there is no first marriage to speak of. Petitioner also quotes thecommentaries of former Justice Luis Reyes that it is now settled that if the first marriage is voidfrom the beginning, it is a defense in a bigamy charge. But if the first marriage is voidable, it is not adefense. Respondent, on the other hand, admits that the first marriage was declared null and voidunder Article 36 of the Family Code, but she points out that that declaration came only after theInformation had been filed. Hence, by then, the crime had already been consummated. She arguesthat a judicial declaration of nullity of a void previous marriage must be obtained before a personcan marry for a subsequent time. The Court agrees with the respondent and affirmed the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals and enumerated the elements of the crime of bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised PenalCode: (1) That the offender has been legally married; (2) That the marriage has not been legallydissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; (4) Thatthe second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity