Suntay V Cojuanco

Suntay vs. Suntay GR No.
132524
FACTS:
The suit stemmed from the following:
On July 9, 1958, Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay (son of petitioner Federico Suntay) and Isabel Cojuangco-
Suntay were married in the Portuguese Colony of Macao. Out of this marriage, three children were
born namely: Margarita Guadalupe, Isabel Aguinaldo and Emilio Aguinaldo all surnamed Cojuangco
Suntay. After 4 years, the marriage soured so that in 1962, Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay filed a criminal
case against her husband Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay. In retaliation, Emilio Aguinaldo filed before the
1
then Court of First Instance (CFI) a complaint for legal separation against his wife, charging her,
2
among others, with infidelity and praying for the custody and care of their children who were living
with their mother.
From February 1965 thru December 1965 plaintiff was confined in the Veterans Memorial Hospital.
Although at the time of the trial of parricide case (September 8, 1967) the patient was already out of
the hospital he continued to be under observation and treatment.
It is the opinion of Dr. Aramil that the symptoms of the plaintiffs mental aberration classified as
schizophernia (sic) had made themselves manifest even as early as 1955; that the disease
worsened with time, until 1965 when he was actually placed under expert neuro-psychiatrist (sic)
treatment; that even if the subject has shown marked progress, the remains bereft of adequate
understanding of right and wrong.
There is no controversy that the marriage between the parties was effected on July 9, 1958, years
after plaintiffs mental illness had set in.
Petitioner Federico is the oppositor to respondent Isabel’s Petition for Letters of Administration over the
estate of Cristina A. Suntay who had died without leaving a will. The decedent is the wife of Federico and
the grandmother of Isabel. Isabel’s father Emilio, had predeceased his mother Cristina.
The marriage of Isabel’s parents had previously been decalred by the CFI as “null and void.” Federico
anchors his oppostion on this fact, alleging based on Art. 992 of the CC which states that “An illegitimate
child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother;
nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child.”. Federico insists
that Isabel has no right to succeed by right of representation as she is an illegitimate child. The trial court
had denied Federico’s Motion to Dismiss, hence this petition for certiorari. Federico contends that, inter
alia, that the dispositive portion of the the decision declaring the marriage of Isabel’s parents “null and
void” be upheld.
ISSUE:
In case of conflict between the body of the decision and the dispostive portion thereof, which should
prevail? Related thereto, was the marriage of Isabel’s parents a case of a void or voidable marriage?
Whether or not Isabel is an legitimate child?
HELD:
Petition dismissed
Art. 10 of the Civil Code states that in case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. This is also applicable and
binding upon courts in relation to its judgment. While the dispositive portion of the CFI decision states that
the marriage be “declared null and void,” the body had shown that the legal basis was par. 3 Art. 85 of the
Civil Code, which was in effect at the time. Art. 85 enumerates the causes for which a marriage may be
annulled. As such the conflict between the body and the dispositive portion of the decision may be
reconcilable as noted by the Supreme Court. The fundamental distinction between void and voidable
marriages is that void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all. The effects of void marriages,
with respect to property relations of the spouses are provided for under Article 144 of the Civil Code.
Children born of such marriages who are called natural children by legal fiction have the same status,
rights and obligations as acknowledged natural children under Article 89 irrespective of whether or not the
parties to the void marriage are in good faith or in bad faith. On the other hand, a voidable marriage, is
considered valid and produces all its civil effects, until it is set aside by final judgment of a competent
court in an action for annulment. Juridically, the
annulment of a marriage dissolves the special contract as if it had never been entered into but the law
makes express provisions to prevent the effects of the marriage from being totally wiped out.
The status of children born in voidable marriages is governed by the second paragraph of Article 89 which
provides that:
Children conceived of voidable marriages before the decree of annulment shall be considered legitimate;
and children conceived thereafter shall have the same status, rights and obligations as acknowledged
natural children, and are also called natural children by legal fiction. In view thereof, the status of Isabel
would be covered by the second paragraph of Article 89 of the Civil Code which provides that “ children
conceived of voidable marriages before the decree of annulment shall be considered legitimate.”

Suntay V Cojuanco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suntay V Cojuanco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suntay V Cojuanco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suntay vs. Suntay GR No.

The suit stemmed from the following:

You might also like