Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    G.R. No. 158298

    Uploaded by

    Noel Christopher G. Belleza
    1) The petitioner, Isidro Ablaza, filed a petition to nullify the marriage of his late brother Cresenciano Ablaza claiming it was void as it occurred without a marriage license. 2) Both the RTC and CA dismissed the petition, finding it was filed too late and that the petitioner was not a party to the marriage. 3) The Supreme Court held that as the late brother's surviving heir, the petitioner had a material interest in the estate that could be affected and thus was a real party in interest, remanding the case back to determine facts around heirship.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 158298

    Uploaded by

    Noel Christopher G. Belleza
    176 views2 pages
    1) The petitioner, Isidro Ablaza, filed a petition to nullify the marriage of his late brother Cresenciano Ablaza claiming it was void as it occurred without a marriage license. 2) Both the RTC and CA dismissed the petition, finding it was filed too late and that the petitioner was not a party to the marriage. 3) The Supreme Court held that as the late brother's surviving heir, the petitioner had a material interest in the estate that could be affected and thus was a real party in interest, remanding the case back to determine facts around heirship.

    Original Description:

    hh

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner, Isidro Ablaza, filed a petition to nullify the marriage of his late brother Cresenciano Ablaza claiming it was void as it occurred without a marriage license. 2) Both the RTC and CA dismissed the petition, finding it was filed too late and that the petitioner was not a party to the marriage. 3) The Supreme Court held that as the late brother's surviving heir, the petitioner had a material interest in the estate that could be affected and thus was a real party in interest, remanding the case back to determine facts around heirship.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    176 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 158298

    Uploaded by

    Noel Christopher G. Belleza
    1) The petitioner, Isidro Ablaza, filed a petition to nullify the marriage of his late brother Cresenciano Ablaza claiming it was void as it occurred without a marriage license. 2) Both the RTC and CA dismissed the petition, finding it was filed too late and that the petitioner was not a party to the marriage. 3) The Supreme Court held that as the late brother's surviving heir, the petitioner had a material interest in the estate that could be affected and thus was a real party in interest, remanding the case back to determine facts around heirship.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    158298 August 11, 2010

    ISIDRO ABLAZA, Petitioner,


    vs.
    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

    FACTS:

    On October 17, 2000, the petitioner filed 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 Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila
    Honato. The case was docketed as Special Case No. 117 entitled In Re: Petition for
    Nullification of Marriage Contract between Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Honato;
    Isidro Ablaza, petitioner.

    The petitioner alleged that the marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila had been
    celebrated without a marriage license, due to such license being issued only on January
    9, 1950, thereby rendering the marriage void ab initio for having been solemnized without
    a marriage license. He insisted that his being the surviving brother of Cresenciano who
    had died without any issue entitled him to one-half of the real properties acquired by
    Cresenciano before his death, thereby making him a real party in interest; and that any
    person, himself included, could impugn the validity of the marriage between Cresenciano
    and Leonila at any time, even after the death of Cresenciano, due to the marriage being
    void ab initio.

    On October 18, 2000, the RTC dismissed the petition, stating:

    Considering the petition for annulment of marriage filed, the Court hereby resolved to
    DISMISS the petition for the following reasons: 1) petition is filed out of time (action had
    long prescribed) and 2) petitioner is not a party to the marriage (contracted between
    Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Nonato on December 26, 1949 and solemnized by Rev.
    Fr. Eusebio B. Calolot).

    The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA affirmed the dismissal order
    of the RTC

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not petitioner is a real party in interest in the action to seek the declaration
    of nullity of the marriage of his deceased brother.

    HELD:

    The petition is meritorious.


    Here, the petitioner alleged himself to be the late Cresenciano’s 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, as follows:

    Article 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow
    or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one half of the inheritance and the brothers
    and sisters or their children to the other half.

    Article 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a


    surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the
    deceased in accordance with the following articles.

    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 deceased’s 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 Cresenciano’s surviving heir. Such prior determination must be made by the trial
    court, for the inquiry thereon involves questions of fact.

    As can be seen, both the RTC and the CA erroneously resolved the issue presented in
    this case. We reverse their error, in order that the substantial right of the petitioner, if any,
    may not be prejudiced.

    You might also like