CALISTERIO vs.

CALISTERIO

G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000

Facts: On 24 April 1992, Teodorico Calisterio died intestate, leaving several parcels of land
with an estimated value of P604,750.00. Teodorico was survived by his wife, Marietta
Calisterio. Teodorico was the second husband of Marietta who had previously been married
to James William Bounds. James Bounds disappeared without a trace on 11 February 1947.
Teodorico and Marietta were married eleven years later, or on 08 May 1958, without Marietta
having priorly secured a court declaration that James was presumptively dead.
On 09 October 1992, Antonia Armas y Calisterio, a surviving sister of Teodorico, filed with
the Regional Trial Court a petition entitled, "In the Matter of Intestate Estate of the Deceased
Teodorico Calisterio y Cacabelos, Antonia Armas claiming to be the sole surviving heir of
Teodorico Calisterio, and that the marriage between the latter and Marietta Espinosa
Calisterio being allegedly bigamous and thereby null and void. Marietta opposed the
petition. Marietta stated that her first marriage with James Bounds had been dissolved due
to the latter's absence, his whereabouts being unknown, for more than eleven years before
she contracted her second marriage with Teodorico. Contending to be the surviving spouse
of Teodorico, she sought priority in the administration of the estate of the decedent.
On 17 January 1996, the lower court handed down its decision in favor of petitioner Antonia
and declared the latter as the sole heir of the estate of Teodorico Calisterio y Cacabelos.
Respondent Marietta appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals which
ruled in her favor.
Issue: Whether or not the second marriage, having been contracted during the regime of
the Civil Code, should be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of a judicial declaration
of presumptive death of James Bounds.
Held: The marriage between the deceased Teodorico and Marietta was solemnized on 08
May 1958. The law in force at that time was the Civil Code, not the Family Code which took
effect only on 03 August 1988. Article 256 of the Family Code itself limited its retroactive
governance only to cases where it thereby would not prejudice or impair vested or acquired
rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Verily, the applicable specific
provision in the instant controversy is Article 83 (2) of the New Civil Code which provides:
Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first
spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void
from its performance, unless: (2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive
years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the
absentee being alive, or if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven
years, is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the
time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead
according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the
three cases until declared null and void by a competent court. Under the foregoing
provisions a judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not necessary as long
as the prescribed period of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy that the marriage in
these exceptional cases are, by the explicit mandate of Article 83, to be deemed valid "until
declared null and void by a competent court." It follows that the burden of proof would be, in
these cases, on the party assailing the second marriage. Therefore, it remained undisputed
that Mariettas first husband, James Bounds, had been absent or had disappeared for more
than eleven years before she entered into a second marriage in 1958 with the deceased
Theodorico Calisterio. This second marriage, having been contracted during the regime of
the civil code should thus be deemed valid.