Tuazon vs.
CA • The facts in the case at bar do not call for
• Wife filed for an annulment from her
husband, with whom she has 2 kids, due to
the series of physical abuse against her,
the husband’s use of prohibited drugs,
cohabitating with three women, leaving
the conjugal home and giving minimal child
support, abuse of conjugal property use
and incurring of bank debts without her
consent.
• Husband filed a petition against it,
disputing his wife’s claims.
• Due to husband’s non-attendance in
hearings, the marriage was annulled and
custody granted to the wife.
Supreme Court Ruling
• Husband alleges breach of due process.
He further alleges that if he were able to
present his evidence, he could have
testified that he was not psychologically
incapacitated at the time of the marriage
• Petitioner also insists that he has
meritorious defense. He cites the Family
Code which provides that in actions for
annulment of marriage or legal separation,
the prosecuting officer should intervene
for the state.
• The RTC and CA dismissed the case.
the strict application of Articles 48 and 60
of the Family Code. For one, husband
actively participated in the proceedings
below by filing several pleadings and
cross-examining the witnesses of private
Respondent. It is crystal clear that every
stage of the litigation was characterized by
a no-holds barred contest and not by
collusion.
• Suffice it to state that the finding of the
trial court as to the existence or
non-existence of petitioner’s psychological
incapacity at the time of the marriage is
final and binding on us. Petitioner has not
sufficiently shown that the trial
court’s factual findings and evaluation of
the testimonies of private respondent’s
witnesses vis-a-vis petitioner’s defenses
are clearly and manifestly erroneous.
• The petition was denied and the ruling
was affirmed
Sin vs. Sin
• A Filipina and Portuguese got married.
• Later, the Filipina wife filed a complaint
for "declaration of nullity of marriage"
against her husband.
• Having so ruled, we decline to rule on the
Supreme Court Ruling
• The state did not actively participate in
the trial as the fiscal was silent throughout
the trial.
• Citing Article 48 of the Family Code, the
Supreme Court held that the lack of
participation of the State was not cured
by the fact that the evil sought to be
prevented did not come about when the
lower court dismissed the petition. The
task of protecting marriage as an inviolable
social institution requires vigilant and
zealous participation and not mere
pro-forma compliance. The protection of
marriage as a sacred institution requires
not just the defense of a true and genuine
union but the exposure of an invalid one as
well.
• In Republic of the Philippines vs. Erlinda
Matias Dagdag, while we upheld the
validity of the marriage, we nevertheless
characterized the decision of the trial court
as “prematurely rendered” since the
investigating prosecutor was not given an
opportunity to present controverting
evidence before the judgment was
rendered. This stresses the importance of
the participation of the State.
factual disputes of the case. The CA
dismissal was set aside and the case was
remanded back to the RTC for proper
retrial.
Ancheta vs. Ancheta
• Husband and wife separated and their
properties were settled and divided
through compromise agreement where the
wife got among others a resort in Cavite
• The husband wanted to marry again so
he filed for the declaration of nullity of
their marriage on the ground of his
wife’s PI.
• Although he knew that his wife was
already residing at the resort in Cavite, he
alleged in his petition that the she was
residing at Las Piñas, Metro Manila, such
that summons never reached her.
• Nevertheless, substituted service was
rendered to their son at his residence in
Cavite. The wife was then declared in
default for failing to answer the said
petition. Just over a month after
it was filed, the trial court granted the
petition and declared the marriage of the
parties void ab initio which became final.
• Later, the wife challenged the trial
court’s order declaring as void ab initio her
marriage with respondent Rodolfo, citing
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over
her person, among others. She alleged that
the husband lied, hence depriving her of
her right to be heard. The Court of Appeals
dismissed her petition so she now comes
to the Supreme Court for review on
certiorari.
Supreme Court Ruling
• The trial court and the public prosecutor
defied Article 48 of the Family Code and
the Rules of Court.
• Rule 18, Section 6 of the 1985 Rules of
Court (now Rule 9, Section 3[e] of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure) which provides:
“Sec. 6. No defaults in actions for
annulment of marriage or for legal
separation. — If the defendant in
an action for annulment of marriage or for
legal separation fails to answer, the court
shall order the prosecuting attorney to
investigate whether or not a collusion
between the parties exits, and if there is no
collusion, to intervene for the State in
order to see to it that the evidence
submitted is not fabricated.”
• Here, the trial court immediately
received the evidence of the respondent
ex-parte and rendered judgment against
the wife “without a whimper of protest
from the public prosecutor who even did
not challenge the motion to declare
petitioner in default.”
• “The task of protecting marriage as an
inviolable social institution requires vigilant
and zealous participation and not
mere pro-forma compliance. The
protection of marriage as a sacred
institution requires not just the defense of
a true and genuine union but the exposure
of an invalid one as well.”
• The case was remanded back to the CA.
De Castro vs. De Castro Jr.
• The husband filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of their marriage
before the RTC of Manila.
• The husband alleged that he was
impulsive and reckless in his youth; that
while still in school, he impregnated his
wife, and they got married so as not to
expose both their families to further
embarrassment; that their quarrels
intensified during the marriage; that due to
immaturity and inability to cope with
their problems, he abandoned his family
many times and became involved in affairs
with different women. He further
alleged that they tried to save their unavailability. Because of this, the wife was
marriage through counseling, but to no said to have waived her right to produce
avail. In 1992, he left the family home further evidence.
for good, and lived with another woman
with whom he had three illegitimate
• The wife appealed claiming that in effect,
children.
she was declared in default, which is
violative of the state policy on marriage as
a social institution and the due process
• The wife failed to file her Answer to the
clause of the Constitution.
petition and upon motion of the husband,
the case was set for hearing and the
husband testified. Further, he presented Supreme Court Ruling
psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia Albaran, as an
• It is the basic duty of a litigant to move
expert witness. He then rested his case,
for postponement before the day of the
with no opposition from the public hearing, so that the court could order its
prosecutor. resetting and timely inform the adverse
party of the new date. This was not the
case at bar for the subject motion was
• The RTC annulled the marriage and
presented only on the day of the trial
declared both parties PI.
without any justification. We thus hold
• Later, the wife filed a petition seeking a that the trial court did not abuse its
new trial or reconsideration. She alleged discretion in denying the motion for
that she was misled and prevented from
postponement.
participating in the annulment case by
her husband because of his promise of
continuous adequate support for the • The wife, who was present in court
children, and the transfer of title during the August 20, 2003 hearing and did
not register any objection to the trial
to their three children of their family home
court's order nor move to strike out
and another piece of real property in
petitioner's testimony from the
Tagaytay.
records, is deemed to have waived her
right to cross-examine petitioner.
• The wife’s petition was granted. However,
during the course of the hearing, the date
was reset 12 times due to the wife’s
• Thus, petitioner's testimony is not
rendered worthless. The waiver will not
expunge the testimony of petitioner
off the records. The trial court will still
weigh the evidence presented by
petitioner vis - à-vis that of private
respondent's. The situation is not akin to
default at all, where, for failure of
defendant to file his responsive pleading
and after evidence for the plaintiff
has been received ex parte, the court
renders a judgment by default on the basis
of such evidence.
Macadangdang vs. CA
• Husband and wife married in 1946 after
having lived together for two years and
had 6 children.
• They started a buy and sell business and
sari-sari store in Davao City. Through hard
work and good fortune, their business
grew and expanded into merchandising,
trucking, transportation, rice and corn mill
business, abaca stripping, real estate etc.
• Their relationship became complicated
and both indulged in extramarital relations.
Married life became intolerable so they
separated in 1965 when the wife left for
Cebu for good.
• When she returned in Davao in 1971, she
learned of the illicit affairs of her estranged
husband. She then decided to take the
initial action. In April 1971, she instituted a
complaint for legal separation.
• The legal separation was granted. After,
the husband died.
Supreme Court Ruling
• The death of a spouse after a final decree
of legal separation has no effect on the
legal separation. When the decree itself is
issued, the finality of the separation is
complete after the lapse of the period to
appeal the decision to a higher court even
if the effects, such as the liquidation of the
property, have not yet been commenced
nor terminated.
• The law clearly spells out the effect of a
final decree of legal separation on the
conjugal property. Therefore, upon the
liquidation and distribution conformably
with the effects of such final decree, the
law on intestate succession should take
over the disposition of whatever remaining
properties have been allocated to the
deceased spouse.
• Such dissolution and liquidation are
necessary consequences of the final decree.
Article 106 of the Civil Code, now Article
63 of the Family Code provides the effects
of the decree of legal separation. These
legal effects ipso facto or automatically
follows, as an inevitable incident of the
judgment decreeing legal separation, for
the purpose of determining the share of
each spouse in the conjugal assets.
Ledesma vs Intestate Heirs of Pedrosa
• The marriage between husband and wife
was annulled. The Court ordered that the
properties acquired by the parties at the
time they were living together as common
law husband and wife are owned by them
as co-owners.
• With respect to the properties acquired
by them during marriage which was
subsequently annulled by the Court, they
will form part of the conjugal partnership
of the spouses, to be dissolved and
liquidated in accordance with the provision
of the Civil Code.
• Pending the order of inventory of the
properties, the husband died leaving a last
will and testament. A separate petition for
probate of the said will was filed. Nelson
Jimena was named executor in the said
proceeding and substituted the deceased
in the partition proceeding with regard to
the annulled marriage of the latter.
• The judge considered the supplemental
action for partition (after annulment of the
marriage) TERMINATED due to the death
of one of the spouses (Pedrosa) and the
pendency of intestate proceedings over his
estate.
• The wife argues that respondent judge
reneged in the performance of a lawful
duty when she refrained from rendering a
decision in the partition case (RE:
dissolution and distribution of conjugal
properties) andconsidered the same closed
and terminated, due to the pendency of
intestate proceedings over the deceased
husband's estate.
Supreme Court Ruling
• The Court cited the case of
Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, where
a similar issue was involved — the husband
also died after the legal separation of the
spouses had been finally decreed but
before the actual liquidation of their
community of properties.
• In the said case, the Court ruled that
upon the finality of the decree of legal
separation, the absolute conjugal
community property of the spouses shall
be dissolved and liquidated.
• Upon the liquidation and distribution
conformably with the law governing the
effects of the final decree of legal
separation, the law on intestate succession
should take over in the disposition of
whatever remaining properties have been
allocated to petitioner. This procedure
involves details which properly pertain to
the lower court.
• The Macadangdang decision involved
legal separation but the doctrine
enunciated therein should be applied
to a marriage annulment which is the
situation at bar.
• The respondent presiding judge is
directed to decide the partition (liquidation)
case and determine which of the
properties of the conjugal partnership
should be adjudicated to the husband and
the wife. Any properties that may be
adjudicated to the deceased husband can
then be distributed in accordance with his
last will and testament in the special
proceedings involving his estate.
Domingo vs. CA
• The 2nd wife filed for the declaration of
nullity of marriage when she found out
that her husband had a valid prior
marriage when the 1st wife then sued
them for bigamy.
• She then prayed for a separation of
property and turned over
the administration of her properties from
her husband to her brother on account of
the nullity of their marriage, but her
husband refused.
• The husband argues that a declaration of
nullity of their marriage is not required as
it is only required for remarriage. He also
denied improperly administering
properties of his 2nd wife.
Supreme Court Ruling
• A person can conceive of other instances
other than remarriage, such as in case of
an action for liquidation, partition,
distribution and separation of property
between the spouses, as well as an action
for the custody and support of their
common children and the delivery of the
latters' presumptive legitimes. In such
cases, however, one is required by law to
show proof that the previous one was an
absolute nullity.
• The wife's ultimate prayer for separation
of property will simply be one of the
necessary consequences of the judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of their
marriage. Thus, her suggestion that in
order for their properties to 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. It
stands to reason that the lower court
before whom the issue of nullity of
a first marriage is brought is likewise
clothed with jurisdiction to decide the
incidental questions regarding the couple's
properties. Accordingly, the respondent
court committed no reversible error in
finding that the lower court committed no
grave abuse of discretion in denying
petitioner's motion to dismiss SP No.
1989-J.
Carlos vs. Sandoval
• There are two brother who owned
parcels of land. Later one of them died
intestate. He was survived by his wife and
son.
• Upon the death of one of the brothers,
two parcels of land were registered in the
name of his wife and son.
• In August 1995, the surviving brother
filed a complaint asserting that the
marriage of late brother was a nullity in
view of the absence of the required
marriage license.
• He also said that his deceased brother
was neither the natural nor the adoptive
father of the supposed son. He argued that
the properties covered by such certificates
of title, including the sums received by the
surviving spouse and son as proceeds,
should be reconveyed to him.
• The wife denies the allegations of her
brother-in-law. She also claimed that the
son was an illegitimate son of her late
husband with another woman.
Supreme Court Ruling
• The grounds for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage must be proved.
Neither judgment on the pleadings nor
summary judgment is allowed. So is
confession of judgment disallowed. The
brother 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. He
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.
02-11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated
during the effectivity of the Civil
Code. The nullity and annulment of a
marriage cannot be declared in a judgment
on the pleadings, summary judgment,
or confession of judgment.
• 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 unripe 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.
• 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.The brother commenced the
nullity of marriage case against respondent
Felicidad in 1995. The marriage in
controversy was celebrated on May 14,
1962.
• The civil code is the applicable law. There
is no specific provision as to who can file a
• On October 18, 2000, the RTC dismissed
petition to declare the nullity of marriage;
the petition on the ground that petition is
however, only a party who can
filed out of time and that petitioner is
demonstrate “proper interest” can file the
same. A petition to declare the nullity of not a party to marriage. The Court of
marriage, like any other actions, must be Appeals affirmed the dismissal order of the
prosecuted or defended in the name of the RTC.
real partyin-interest and must be based on
a cause of action.
Supreme Court Ruling
• The applicable law when marriage was
• The case was remanded back to the RTC
contracted between is the Civil Code.
to determine the status of the marriage
Hence, the rule on the exclusivity of the
and the son.
parties to the marriage as having the right
to initiate the action for declaration of
Ablaza vs. Republic nullity of the marriage under A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC had absolutelyapplication to
• The brother filed a petition for the
the petitioner.
declaration of the absolute nullity of the
marriage contracted on December 26,
1949 between his late brother and his wife.
He alleged that the marriage had been • The case was reinstated and its records
returned to the RTC for further
celebrated without a marriage license, due
proceedings.
to such license being issued only on
January 9, 1950.
• The AM cannot apply retroactively.
• He insisted that his being the surviving
brother of his brother entitled him to
Bolos vs. Bolos
one-half of the real properties acquired by
the latter before his death, thereby making • The wife filed for a petition for the
him a real party in interest; and that any declaration of nullity of her marriage on
person, himself included, could impugn the the ground of PI. The RTC granted the
validity of the marriage at any time, even petition.
after the death of his brother, due to the
marriage being void ab initio.
• Later, the timely filed the Notice of
Appeal after receiving the
order.
• The RTC denied due course to the appeal
for the husband’s failure to file the
required motion for reconsideration or
new trial, in violation of Section 20 of the
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages. Thereafter, the RTC issued the
order declaring its decision declaring the
marriage null and void as final and
executory and granting the Motion for
Entry of Judgment filed by Cynthia.
• The husband then filed with the CA a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65
seeking to annul the orders of the RTC as
they were rendered with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction.
• He also prayed that he be declared
psychologically capacitated to render the
essential marital obligations to Cynthia,
who should be declared guilty of
abandoning him, the family home
and their children.
• The CA granted the petition and reversed
and set aside the assailed orders of the
RTC declaring the nullity of marriage as
final and executory. The appellate court
stated that the requirement of a motion
for reconsideration as a prerequisite to
appeal under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did
not apply in this case as the marriage
between Cynthia and Danilo was
solemnized on February 14, 1980 before
the Family Code took effect.
• The wife argues that A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC is also applicable to marriages
solemnized before the effectivity of the
Family Code. According to petitioner, the
phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC refers to the word “petitions”
rather than to the word “marriages.” Such
that petitions filed after the effectivity of
the Family Code are governed by the A.M.
No. even if the marriage was solemnized
before the same.
• The husband counters that A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC is not applicable because his
marriage with Cynthia was solemnized on
February 14, 1980, years before its
effectivity.
Supreme Court Ruling
• The Rule on Declaration of Absolute appeal and denying petitioner’s motion for
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment extension of time to file a motion for
of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. reconsideration
No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court
promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit
in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule, in fact,
reads: “Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall
govern petitions for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriages and
annulment of voidable marriages under
the Family Codeof the Philippines.”
• The categorical language of A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The
coverage extends only to those marriages
entered into during the effectivity of the
Family Code which took effect on August 3,
1988.7 The rule sets a demarcation line
between marriages covered by the
Family Code and those solemnized under
the Civil Code.
• The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe
to petitioner’s interpretation that the
phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the word
“petitions” rather than to the word
“marriages.”
• In fine, the CA committed no reversible
error in setting aside the RTC decision
which denied due course to respondent’s