Article 3 Manzano vs Sanchez 354 SCRA 1 Fact of the Case: In a sworn Complaint Affidavit filed with the Office

of the Court Administrator on May 12, 1999, complainant respondent Herminia Borja-Manzano charges Judge Roque Sanchez with gross

previous marriage is diriment impediment, which would make the subsequent marriage null and void. The recommendation of the Court of

Administrator is adopted with modification that the fine of P2,000 is increased to P20,000

ignorance of the law for solemnizing a marriage between her husband and other women, who were both bound by a prior existing marriage. Respondent Judge on his Comment claims 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. Also in their affidavits, Manzano and Payao expressly stated the fact of their prior existing marriage. Their marriage contract indicated that both were separated. That their prior marriage had been marked by constant quarrels, they had both left their families and had never cohabited or communicated with their spouses anymore. Judge Sanchez alleges that on the basis of those affidavits, he agreed to solemnize the

Article 4 Atienza v Brillantes, Jr. 243 SCRA 32 Topic: Retroactive effects of law SF: An administrative case was filed by herein complainant against Judge Brilliantes of MTC, Manila. Complainant alleges that he has two children with De Castro who stays in Makati, Manila in the house he bought and stayed while he is in Manila. Sometime in 1991 he saw Respondent Judge sleeping on his bed, upon inquiry, he was told by the houseboy that respondent was cohabiting with De Castro. Complainant further alleged that respondent was married to a certain Zenaida Ongkiko and begot five children. In reply respondent alleged that the complainant was not married to De Castro, he also denied having been married to Zenaida Ongkiko, however admitted having five children with her. He stated that the marriage between him and Ongkiko was not valid since there was no marriage license and further claimed that when he married De Castro he believed in all good faith of its intent and purpose. I: Whether or not Article 40 of the Family Code that

marriage. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and for being designed merely to harass him. The Court Administrator recommended that respondent Judge be found guilty and ordered to pay a fine P2,000 with a warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Judge reiterate his plea for the dismissal of the complaint. Issue: Whether or not the complaint of Borja-Manzano valid. Held: Yes. The Judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized avoid and bigamous marriage. Marital cohabitation for a long period of time are merely exemption from marriage license. It could not sever as a justification for respondent Judge to solemnize a subsequent marriage vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing marriage. A Judge ought to know that a subsisting

required nullity of previous marriage for purpose of remarriage shall apply? H: As a general rule provided in Article 4 of the NCC: Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. R: Article 40 of the Family Code provides that a Judicial Declaration of Nullity is required before a party can enter into second marriage however the said Code took effect only on August 3, 1988 and the marriages that respondent contracted was 1965 and 1991 however the provisions of this code

shall apply regardless of the date of the marriage, besides under Article 256 of the Family Code, said Article is given retroactive effects in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws this is particularly true with Article 40 which is a rule of Procedure, herein respondent has not shown any vested rights that was impaired by the application of Article 40 ti his case.

11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code. Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the marriage. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution. The Rule extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse. But the Rule never intended to deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their successional rights.

Carlos vs Sandoval December 16, 2008 FACTS: Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos were brothers who each have three parcels of land by virtue of inheritance. Later Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad Sandoval and their son, Teofilo Carlos II. Upon Teofilos death, two parcels of land were registered in the name of Felicidad and Teofilo II. In August 1995, Carlos commenced an action against respondents before the court a quo. In his complaint, Carlos asserted that the marriage between his late brother and Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage license. He likewise maintained that his deceased brother was neither the natural nor the adoptive father of Teofilo Carlos II. He argued that the properties covered by such certificates of title, including the sums received by respondents as proceeds, should be reconveyed to him. ISSUE: HELD: The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be proved. Neither judgment judgment on is the pleadings So is nor summary of allowed. confession

While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 is prospective in its application.

judgment disallowed. Carlos argues that the CA should have applied Rule 35 of the Rules of Court governing summary judgment, instead of the rule on judgment on the pleadings. Petitioner is misguided. Whether it is based on judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, the CA was correct in reversing the summary judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and summary judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in annulment of marriage. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-

Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case against respondent Felicidad in 1995. The marriage in controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law would govern depends upon when the marriage took place. The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage? True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or even in the Family Code,there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however, only a party who can demonstrate proper interest can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of action. Thus, in Nial v. Badayog, the Court held that the children have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.