Atienza v Brillantes, Jr.

243 SCRA 32

Topic:
Retroactive effects of law

Facts:
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 it’s
intent and purpose.

Issue:
Whether or not Article 40 of the Family Code that required nullity of previous marriage for
purpose of remarriage shall apply?

Held:
As a general rule provided in Article 4 of the NCC: Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless
the contrary is provided.

Ruling:
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 Art. 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code
in 1988 regardless of date of the first marriage. Besides, Art. 256 of the Family Code said Art. 15
is given “retroactive effect” insofar as it does prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with Civil Code or other laws.

The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may
feel that he is adversely affected. Respondent is the last person allowed to invoke good faith.
He made a mockery of the institution of marriage and employed deceit to be able to cohabit with
a woman.

ANALYSIS/APPLICATION:
Taking into consideration Article 256 of the Family code, stating therein that the article is given
retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the civil code or other laws, respondent’s initial marriage to one Ongkiko is
governed by the family code despite having taken place before its enactment. With regards to
the second issue, respondent, being a member of the Philippine bar as well as a Metropolitan
Trial Judge, was given no excuse as to his failure to acquire a marriage license and therefore
mocks the institution of marriage. The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a
judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to his performance of his
judicial duties but also as to his behavior as a private individual.
LAWS/PROVISIONS:
Executive Order No. 209 or the Family Code
Article 40 - The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for the purposes of
remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
Article 256 - This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws

FACTS:

This case is a complaint against Judge Brillantes for Gross Immorality and
Appearance of Impropriety. Judge Brillantes became a lawyer in 1963. He
married Zenaida Ongkiko in 1965, albeit without marriage license. In