SECOND DIVISION

July 12, 2017

G.R. No. 214529

JERRYSUS L. TILAR, Petitioner
vs.
ELIZABETH A. TILAR and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a direct recourse from the Decision  dated June 3, 2014 and the Order  dated August
1 2

19, 2014, both issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay City, (RTC)in Special
Proceeding (SP) No. B-10-11-39 dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and denying reconsideration thereof,
respectively.

The factual antecedents are as follows:

On November 4, 2010, petitioner filed with the RTC a petition  for declaration of nullity of marriage on
3

the ground of private respondent's (respondent) psychological incapacity based on Article 36 of the
Family Code. He alleged that he and respondent were married on June 29, 1996 in a Catholic
Church in Poro, Poro Camotes, Cebu with Rev. Fr. Vicente Igot as the solemnizing officer; that a son
was born of their marriage; that their marriage went well in the first few months but respondent later
became an extremely jealous, violent person which resulted to frequent quarrels and petitioner being
threatened and physically harmed; that she is a happy-golucky and extravagant type of person and a
gambler; that they eventually separated in 2002; and, that respondent is now living with another man
in Cebu City. Petitioner consulted a clinical psychologist and respondent was said to be suffering
from "aggressive personality disorder as well as histrionic personality disorder" which made her
psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.

Respondent failed to file her Answer despite being served with summons. The RTC then required
the Public Prosecutor to conduct an investigation whether collusion existed. In his Manifestation and
Compliance, the Public Prosecutor certified as to the absence of collusion between the
parties.  Trial, thereafter, ensued with petitioner and his witness testifying.
4

On June 3, 2014, the RTC issued its assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this case is ORDERED DISMISSED for lack of

In so ruling, the RTC ratiocinated in this wise:

x x x the lingering issue that confronts this Court, whether it can validly [pass] upon the validity of
church marriage in the light of the separation of the Church and the State as enunciated in Section 6
of Art. (sic) of the 1987 Constitution. Withal, marriage is a sacrament according to the teaching of the
Catholic Church. Being a sacrament, the same is purely religious. Declaration of nullity, which is
commonly called an annulment in the Catholic Church, is a judgment rendered by an ecclesiastical
tribunal determining that the sacrament of marriage was invalidly contracted. The procedure is
governed by the Church's Canon Law not by the civil law observed by the State in nullity cases
involving civil marriages. Ergo, the principle of separation of Church and State finds application in
this case. x x x

xxxx

Clearly, the State cannot encroach into the domain of the Church, thus, resolving the validity of the
church marriage is outside the province of its authority. Although the Family Code did not categorize
the marriage subject of the petition for nullity or annulment, the Constitution as the fundamental law
of the State laid down the principle of separation, ergo, it is beyond cavil that nullity of a church
marriage cannot be taken out of the church jurisdiction. The court being an entity of the State is
bereft of any jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case.

As the second issue hinges on the affirmative resolution on the jurisdiction of this Court, the same
becomes moot due to the non-affirmance of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. 6

Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order dated August 19,
2014. 1âwphi1

In denying the motion for reconsideration, the RTC said:

Marriages solemnized and celebrated by the Church are [per se] governed by its Canon Law.
Although the Family Code provides for some regulations, the same does not follow that the State is
authorized to inquire to its validity, The Constitution is supreme to the Family Code. Under the
doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the Constitution is written in all laws, acts and transactions,
hence, the same must be upheld. 7

Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on the sole ground that:

The Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the case on the ground that the validity of church
marriage is outside of the province of its authority.8

Petitioner contends that the RTC had rendered judgment principally on the ground that the validity of
church marriage is outside the province of its authority, however, it is the civil law, particularly the
Family Code, which principally governs the marriage of the contracting parties.

The Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment on the petition for review arguing that
the courts have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of marriage pursuant to the provision of the Family
Code, and that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving contracts of marriage and
marital relations.

We find merit in this petition.

Section 2 of Article XV of the Constitution provides:

Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the State.
Our Constitution clearly gives value to the sanctity of marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not
only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution the maintenance of which the public is
deeply interested.  Thus, the State is mandated to protect marriage, being the foundation of the
9

family, which in turn is the foundation of the nation.  The State has surrounded marriage with
10

safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The security and stability of the State
are largely dependent upon it. It is the interest of each and every member of the community to
prevent the bringing about of a condition that would shake its foundation and ultimately lead to its
destruction. 11

Our law on marriage, particularly the Family Code, restates the constitutional provision to protect the
inviolability of marriage and the family relations. In one of the whereas clauses of the Family Code, it
is stated:

Whereas, there is a need to implement policies embodied in the New Constitution that strengthen
marriage and the family as a basic social institution and ensure equality between men and women.

Accordingly, Article 1 of the Family Code pertinently provides:

Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into
in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the
family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed
by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations
during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.

As marriage is a special contract, their terms and conditions are not merely subject to the
stipulations of the contracting parties but are governed by law. The Family Code provides for the
essential  as well as formal  requisites for the validity of marriage. The absence of any of the
12 13

essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35
(2). A defect in any of the essential requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party
or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.  No
14

prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be
necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer
and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as
husband and wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be
signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer. A
marriage license shall be issued by the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either
contracting party habitually resides, except in marriages where no license is required.  The rationale
15

for the compulsory character of a marriage license is that it is the authority granted by the State to
the contracting parties, after the proper government official has inquired into their capacity to
contract marriage. 16

The Family Code also provides on who may solemnize and how marriage may be solemnized, thus:

Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:

xxxx

(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church
or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the written
authority granted by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting
parties belongs to the solemnizing officer's church or religious sect;
xxxx

Article. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in
the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the
case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in
remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of the parties request the
solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place
designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.

Thus, the contract of marriage is entered into by complying with the requirements and formalities
prescribed by law. The marriage of petitioner and respondent which was solemnized by a Catholic
priest and was held in a church was in accordance with the above-quoted provisions. Although,
marriage is considered a sacrament in the Catholic church, it has civil and legal consequences
which are governed by the Family Code. As petitioner correctly pointed out, the instant petition only
seeks to nullify the marriage contract between the parties as postulated in the Family Code of the
Philippines; and the declaration of nullity of the parties' marriage in the religious and ecclesiastical
aspect is another matter.  Notably, the proceedings for church annulment which is in accordance
17

with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the couple is still considered married
to each other in the eyes of the civil law. Thus, the principle of separation of the church and state
finds no application in this case.

As marriage is a lifetime commitment which the parties cannot just dissolve at whim, the Family
Code has provided for the grounds  for the termination of marriage. These grounds may be invoked
18

and proved in a petition for annulment of voidable marriage or in a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage, which can be decided upon only by the court exercising jurisdiction over the matter.
Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, otherwise known as the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980 provides:

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction:

xxxx

(15) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;

Hence, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which petitioner filed before the RTC of
Baybay City, falls within its exclusive jurisdiction; thus, the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for
lack of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certjorari is GRANTED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch

SO ORDERED.