VOID MARRIAGE: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

FORMULATED BAR QUESTION QUESTION Mr X, the brother of Mr. Y filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage between Mr. Y and Mrs. Z. Mr. Y and Mrs. Z were married on December 26, 1949. Mr. X alleged that the marriage was contracted without valid license rendering the marriage void ab initio. Mr. X further contended that he is a real party in interest being the surviving heir and as such he stands to be benefited from the judgment of the case since his brother Mr. Y died without issue. Is Mr. X a real party in interest? SUGGESTED ANSWER Yes,Mr. X is a real party in interest in this case. The validity of a marriage is tested according to the law in force at the time the marriage is contracted. Considering that the marriage between Mr.Y and Mrs. Z was contracted on December 26, 1949, the applicable law was the old Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Hence, the rule on the exclusivity of the parties to the marriage as having the right to initiate the action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which took effect March 15, 2003, had absolutely no application to Mr. X. It is clarified, that the absence of provision in the old and new Civil Codes cannot be construed as giving a license to just any person to bring an action to declare the absolute nullity of a marriage. The plaintiff must be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. Thus, only the party who can demonstrate a "proper interest" can file the action. Here, Mr. X, the petitioner alleged himself to be the late Mr. Ys brother and surviving heir. Assuming that the petitioner was as he claimed himself to be, then he has a material interest in the estate of Mr. Y that will be adversely affected by any judgment in the suit. Indeed, a brother like the petitioner, albeit not a compulsory heir under the laws of succession, has the right to succeed to the estate of a deceased brother under the conditions stated in Article 1001 and Article 1003 of the Civil Code. Pursuant to these provisions, the presence of descendants, ascendants, or illegitimate children of the deceased excludes collateral relatives like the petitioner from succeeding to the deceaseds estate. Necessarily, therefore, the right of the petitioner to bring the action hinges upon a prior determination of whether Mr. Y had any descendants, ascendants, or children (legitimate or illegitimate), and of whether the petitioner was the late Mr. Ys surviving heir. Such prior determination must be made by the trial c ourt, for the inquiry thereon involves questions of fact .(Ablaza vs. Republic, G.R.NO. 158298, August 11, 2010

CASE DIGEST

ISIDRO ABLAZA vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R.NO. 158298, August 11, 2010 The absence of a provision in the old and new Civil Codes cannot be construed as giving a license to just any person to bring an action to declare the absolute nullity of a marriage. The plaintiff must be a party who stands to be benefited by the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. Thus, only the party who can demonstrate a proper interest can file the action. FACTS On October 17, 2000, the petitioner Isidro Ablazafiled in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cataingan, Masbate a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage contracted on December 26, 1949 between his late brother CresencianoAblaza and LeonilaHonato, alleging that the marriage is void ab initio for being celebrated without a marriage license. As a surviving brother of Cresenciano who died without any issue, the petitioner argued to be a real party in interest who stands to benefit the real properties acquired by his brother, Cresenciano. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition and also denied the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which likewise dismissed the petition. Both Courts argued that the petitioner is not a proper party in interest for such petition must be filed only by any parties to the marriage.Hence, this appeal. ISSUE Whether or not the PetitionerAblaza, not being a party to the marriage, has the right to bring an action for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage of his deceased brother solemnized under the regime of the old Civil Code.

HELD YES. A valid marriage is essential in order to create the relation of husband and wife and to give rise to the mutual rights, duties, and liabilities arising out of such relation. The law prescribes the requisites of a valid marriage. Hence, the validity of a marriage is tested according to the law in force at the time the marriage is contracted. As a general rule, the nature of the marriage already celebrated cannot be changed by a subsequent amendment of the governing law.

The old and new Civil Codes contain no provision on who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage, and when. However, Section 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-1110-SC(Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), which took effect on March 15, 2003, explicitly provides the limitation that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Such limitation demarcates a line to distinguish between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the regime of the Civil Code. Specifically, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC extends only to marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, but, being a procedural rule that is prospective in application, is confined only to proceedings commenced after March 15, 2003. Considering that the marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila was contracted on December 26, 1949, the applicable law was the old Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Hence, the rule on the exclusivity of the parties to the marriage as having the right to initiate the action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had absolutely no application to the petitioner. It is clarified, however, that the absence of a provision in the old and new Civil Codes cannot be construed as giving a license to just any person to bring an action to declare the absolute nullity of a marriage. According to the case of Carlos vs. Sandoval,the plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest.Thus, only the party who can demonstrate a " proper interest" can file the action. Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest, or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere incidental interest. One having no material interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action. Here, the petitioner alleged himself to be the late Cresencianos brother and surviving heir. Assuming that the petitioner was as he claimed himself to be, then he has a material interest in the estate of Cresenciano that will be adversely affected by any judgment in the suit. Indeed, a brother like the petitioner, albeit not a compulsory heir under the laws of succession, has the right to succeed to the estate of a deceased brother under the conditions stated in Article 1001 and Article 1003 of the Civil Code. Pursuant to these provisions, the presence of descendants, ascendants, or illegitimate children of the deceased excludes collateral relatives like the petitioner from succeeding to the deceaseds estate. Necessarily, therefore, the right of the petitioner to bring the action hinges upon a prior determination of whether Cresenciano had any descendants, ascendants, or children (legitimate or illegitimate), and of whether the petitioner was the late Cresencianos surviving heir. Such prior determination must be made by the trial court, for the inquiry thereon involves questions of fact. The petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The decision rendered by the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside.

VOID MARRIAGE: ABSENCE OF VALID MARRIAGE LICENSE

FORMULATED BAR QUESTION QUESTION Mr.X, filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage toMrs. Y, alleging that the marriage is void abinitio due to absence of a valid marriage license. The Marriage Contract of Mr. X and Mrs. Y stated that Marriage License No. 9969967 issued at Carmona, Cavite on January 8, 1993, was presented to the solemnizing officer. Testimonies of the witnesses and documentary evidence show that there was a marriage license secured for the couple, a wedding ceremony then took place at the residence of the bride on January 9, 1993 and a marriage contract was signed by the parties. But, in a certification issued by the Municipal Registrar, it stated that the Marriage License No. 9969967 appearing in the marriage contractofMr.X and Mrs.Y was the number of another marriage license issued to a certain Mr.A and Mrs.B and further certified that no marriage license was issued to Mr. X and Mrs. Y on January 8, 1993. Was there a valid marriage license issued to Mr. X and Mrs. Y?

SUGGESTED ANSWER No valid marriage license was issued to the couple. The certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license. The case of Cario v. Cario further held that the presumed validity of the marriage of the parties had been overcome, and that it became the burden of the party alleging a valid marriage to prove that the marriage was valid, and that the required marriage license had been secured. In this case, Mrs. Y has failed to discharge that burden, and the only conclusion that can be reached is that no valid marriage license was issued. It cannot be said that there was a simple irregularity in the marriage license that would not affect the validity of the marriage, as no license was presented by the respondent. No marriage license was proven to have been issued to Mr. X and Mrs. Y, based on the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite and Mrs. Ys failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage license. All the evidence to show that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license. Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when it says, "The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void abinitio, except as stated in Article 35(2)." Article 35(3) of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void from the beginning, except those exempt from the license requirement under Articles 27 to 34, Chapter 2, Title I of the same Code. Again, this marriage cannot be characterized as among the exemptions, and thus, having been solemnized without a marriage license, is void ab initio. (Abbas vs. Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013

CASE DIGEST

SYED AZHAR ABBAS vs. GLORIA GOO ABBAS G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013 A certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license. All the evidence to show that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license. FACTS Syed Azhar Abbas filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of his marriage to Gloria Goo-Abbas alleging that the marriage was void abinito due toabsence of marriage license. The Marriage Contract of Gloria and Syed stated that Marriage License No. 9969967 issued at Carmona, Cavite on January 8, 1993, was presented to the solemnizing officer.Testimonies of the witnesses and documentary evidence show that there was a marriage license secured for the couple, a wedding ceremony then took placeat the residence of the bride on January 9, 1993 and a marriage contract was signed by the parties. However, uponrequest, the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite issued a certification to the effect that the Marriage License No. 9969967 appearing in the marriage contract was the number of another marriage license issued to a certain ArlindoGetalado and Myra Mabilangan and further certified that no marriage license has been issued in favor of Syed and Gloria on January 8, 1993. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision annulling the marriage of Syed and Gloria. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court. It held that the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar failed to categorically state that a diligent search for the marriage license of Gloria and Syed was conducted, and thus held that said certification could not be accorded probative value. It ruled that there was sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence that Gloria and Syed had been validly married and that there was compliance with all the requisites laid down by law. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE Whether or not there was a valid marriage license issued for Syed and Gloria. HELD No valid marriage license was issued to the couple. As the marriage of Gloria and Syed was solemnized on January 9, 1993, the Family Code of the Philippines is the applicable law. Under the law, a valid marriage license as a formal requisite is required for a marriage to be valid; otherwise, its absence renders the marriage void abinitio.

In the case of Cario v. Cario, it was held that the certification of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the nonissuance of said license. The case of Cario further held that the presumed validity of the marriage of the parties had been overcome, and that it became the burden of the party alleging a valid marriage to prove that the marriage was valid, and that the required marriage license had been secured. In this case, Gloria has failed to discharge that burden, and the only conclusion that can be reached is that no valid marriage license was issued. It cannot be said that there was a simple irregularity in the marriage license that would not affect the validity of the marriage, as no license was presented by the respondent. No marriage license was proven to have been issued to Gloria and Syed, based on the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite and Glorias failure to produce a copy of the alleged marriage license. All the evidence cited by the Court of Appeals to show that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license. Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when it says, "The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void abinitio, except as stated in Article 35(2)." Article 35(3) of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void from the beginning, except those exempt from the license requirement under Articles 27 to 34, Chapter 2, Title I of the same Code. Again, this marriage cannot be characterized as among the exemptions, and thus, having been solemnized without a marriage license, is void abinitio. The petition is GRANTED.

PREPARED BY: JEAN CHARITY C. BALABA