Domingo vs CA

Domingo vs. CA
226 SCRA 572

FACTS:
Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto
Domingo in 1976, filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage and separation
of property. She did not know that Domingo had
been previously married to Emerlinda dela Paz
in 1969. She came to know the previous
marriage when the latter filed a suit of bigamy
against her. Furthermore, when she came home
from Saudi during her one-month leave from
work, she discovered that Roberto cohabited
with another woman and had been disposing
some of her properties which is administered by
Roberto. The latter claims that because their
marriage was void ab initio, the declaration of
such voidance is unnecessary and superfluous.
On the other hand, Soledad insists the
declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the
purpose of remarriage, but in order to provide a
basis for the separation and distribution of
properties acquired during the marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial
declaration should only be filed for purposes of
remarriage.
HELD:
The declaration of the nullity of marriage is
indeed required for purposed of remarriage.
However, it is also necessary for the protection
of the subsequent spouse who believed in good
faith that his or her partner was not lawfully
married marries the same. With this, the said
person is freed from being charged with bigamy.
When a marriage is declared void ab initio, law
states that final judgment shall provide for the
liquidation, partition and distribution of the
properties of the spouses, the custody and
support of the common children and the delivery
of their presumptive legitimes, unless such
matters had been adjudicated in previous
judicial proceedings. Soledads prayer for
separation of property will simply be the
necessary consequence of the judicial

declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage.

Hence, the petitioners suggestion that for their
properties be separated, an ordinary civil action
has to be instituted for that purpose is baseless.
The Family Code has clearly provided the
effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage,
one of which is the separation of property
according to the regime of property relations
governing them.

MARCOS V. 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. Verily, the behavior of respondent can
be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job
and was not gainfully employed for a period of
more than six years. It was during this period
that he became intermittently drunk, failed to
give material and moral support, and even left

the family home. Thus, his alleged psychological

illness was traced only to said period and not to
the inception of the marriage. Equally important,
there is no evidence showing that his condition
is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully
employed as a taxi driver. 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.

CArino vs Carino
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 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.