G.R. No.

137110 August 1, 2000

VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO a.k.a. VINCENT G. MERCADO, petitioner,

vs.
CONSUELO TAN, respondent.

FACTS:

On April 10, 1976, Petitioner Dr. Vincent Paul G. Mercado married Ma. Thelma G. Oliva in Cebu City. On
June 27, 1991, Mercado entered into a second marriage with Respondent Ma. Consuelo Tan in Bacolod City
without obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity for his first marriage.

On October 5, 1992, Tan filed a complaint for bigamy against Mercado before the City Prosecutor's Office
in Bacolod City. On March 1, 1993, an information for bigamy was filed before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 22 of Cebu City.

On November 13, 1992, Mercado filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Oliva, which
was granted on May 6, 1993. Despite the nullity declaration, the RTC of Bacolod City convicted Mercado of
bigamy, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Mercado petitioned the Supreme Court, questioning the presence of a previous legal marriage as an element
of bigamy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of nullity of his
marriage.

RULING:

Yes, The Supreme Court ruled that Article 40 of the Family Code expressly requires a judicial declaration of
nullity of the previous marriage, "Article 40. The absolute nullity of a previous, , marriage may be invoked
for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such marriage void."

A declaration of nullity of marriage is now necessary before one can contract a second marriage. Absent that
declaration, one may be charged with and convicted of bigamy. Such declaration is also necessary even if
the earlier marriage is characterized by statute “void."

In the case at bar, Mercado was already married to Tan but did not file a declaration of nullity of marriage
with Oliva until Tan filed bigamy case. The crime had already been consummated by then. To file a petition
to have his first marriage void after Tan charge him with bigamy is not a defense in a bigamy charge.
G.R. No. 173614 September 28, 2007

LOLITA D. ENRICO, Petitioner,

vs.
HEIRS OF SPS. EULOGIO B. MEDINACELI AND TRINIDAD CATLI-MEDINACELI,
REPRESENTED BY VILMA M. ARTICULO, Respondents.

FACTS:

Respondents were the heirs of Eulogio and his first wife, Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli. Eulogio and Trinidad
married on June 14, 1962, and had seven children.
Trinidad died on May 1, 2004; Eulogio married Lolita on August 26, 2004. Eulogio passed away on
February 10, 2005.
Respondents claimed the marriage between Eulogio and Lolita was void due to the absence of a marriage
license and the impracticality of a marriage ceremony given Eulogio's severe illness. They argued that
Article 34 of the Family Code, which exempts couples cohabiting for at least five years from obtaining a
marriage license, did not apply.
Lolita contended she and Eulogio had lived together for 21 years and had two children. The RTC initially
dismissed the complaint, stating only the husband or wife could file for a declaration of nullity of marriage.
Upon reconsideration, the RTC reinstated the complaint, referencing Ni al v. Bayadog, which allowed heirs
to question the validity of a marriage posthumously.
ISSUE:
Whether the heirs of a deceased spouse have the legal standing to file a petition for the declaration of nullity
of marriage under the Family Code of the Philippines.
RULING:
The Court held that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies because it is the law that governs petitions for the
declaration of nullity of marriage celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code. The marriage of
petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August 2004.
While it is true that Nial allowed therein petitioners to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of their
father’s marriage to therein respondent after the death of their father, we cannot, however, apply its ruling
for the reason that the impugned marriage therein was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code. The Court in Nial recognized that the applicable law to determine the validity of the two marriages
involved therein is the Civil Code, which was the law in effect at the time of their celebration. What we have
before us belongs to a different milieu, i.e., the marriage sought to be declared void was entered into during
the effectivity of the Family Code. As can be gleaned from the facts, petitioners marriage to Eulogio was
celebrated in 2004.
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 3 August
1988. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took effect on 15 March 2003. Thus, contrary to the opinion of the RTC, there
is no need to reconcile the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC with the ruling in Nial, because they vary in
scope and application. As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under the Family
Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application.
G.R. No. 179922 December 16, 2008
JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS, petitioner,
vs.
FELICIDAD SANDOVAL, also known as FELICIDAD S. VDA. DE CARLOS or FELICIDAD
SANDOVAL CARLOS or FELICIDAD SANDOVAL VDA. DE CARLOS, and TEOFILO CARLOS
II, respondents.
FACTS:
Spouses Felix Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. They left six parcels of land to their compulsory
heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by
respondents Felicidad and their son. Upon Teofilo’s death, Parcel Nos. 5 & 6 (registered in the name of
Teofilo) were registered in the name of respondent Felicidad.
In August 1995, petitioner commenced an action against respondents for the declaration of nullity of
marriage. Petitioner asserted that the marriage between his late brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was
a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage license. On the grounds of lack of cause of action
and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, respondents prayed for the dismissal of the case before the
trial court. But before the parties could even proceed to pre-trial, respondents moved for summary
judgment.
Petitioner opposed the motion for summary judgment and lodged his own motion for summary
judgment. RTC rendered judgment: defendants (respondents) Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby
denied. Plaintiffs (petitioners) Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted and summary
judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff as follows: Declaring the marriage between defendant
Felicidad Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos null and void ab initio for lack of the requisite marriage license.
In the appeal, respondents argued that the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering
summary judgment annulling the marriage of Teofilo, Sr. and Felicidad. CA reversed and set aside
the RTC ruling.
ISSUES:
Whether one who is not a spouse may bring an action for nullity of marriage. Yes if the marriage was
celebrated prior to the effectivity of the Family code and the plaintiff is a real party-in-interest.
RULING:
Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages, the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside
of the marriage. The Rule made it exclusively a right of the spouses [Sec. 2(a)]. The innovation
incorporated in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC sets forth a demarcation line between marriages covered by the
Family Code and those solemnized under the Civil Code. The Rule extends only to marriages entered into
during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. The advent of the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the end of the right of the heirs of
the deceased spouse to bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse.
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, 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.

G.R. No. 189607

RENATO A. CASTILLO, Petitioner,
vs.
LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO, Respondent.
FACTS:
The case involves Renato A. Castillo (petitioner) and Lea P. De Leon Castillo (respondent). On May 25,
1972, Lea married Benjamin Bautista. On January 6, 1979, Lea subsequently married Renato. On May 28,
2001, Renato filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch
84.
Renato claimed the marriage was void due to Lea's subsisting marriage to Bautista and her psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC granted the petition on March 23, 2007, declaring
the marriage null and void ab initio on the ground of bigamy.
Lea opposed, arguing her first marriage to Bautista was null and void due to the absence of a marriage
license and the fact that neither she nor Bautista was a member of the denomination to which the
solemnizing officer belonged. On January 3, 2002, Lea filed an action to declare her first marriage void.
On January 22, 2003, the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 260, declared her first marriage null and void ab
initio. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision on April 20, 2009, ruling that under the Civil
Code, a judicial decree was not necessary to establish the nullity of a marriage.
Renato's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on September 16, 2009, leading to this Petition
for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Was the Court of Appeals correct in holding that a judicial decree of nullity was not necessary to establish
the invalidity of Lea's first marriage, thereby reversing the RTC's declaration of nullity of the second
marriage?
RULING:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the validity of a marriage and its incidents must be determined
according to the law in effect at the time of its celebration. The Civil Code was the applicable law since both
marriages were solemnized before the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988.
Under the Civil Code, a void marriage is considered nonexistent from the beginning and does not require a
judicial decree to establish its invalidity. The Court cited previous rulings in People v. Mendoza, People v.
Aragon, and Odayat v. Amante, which held that no judicial declaration was necessary to establish the
invalidity of void marriages under the Civil Code.
The requirement for a judicial declaration of nullity, as mandated by the Family Code, applies only to
marriages celebrated after its effectivity. Since Lea's first marriage was void due to the absence of a marriage
license, her subsequent marriage to Renato was valid. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of her
first marriage only served to reinforce this conclusion. The Court found no reason to disturb the CA's ruling,
which correctly applied the Civil Code and upheld the validity of the marriage between Renato and Lea.
G.R. No. 133778 March 14, 2000
ENGRACE NIÑAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the minors BABYLINE NIÑAL,
INGRID NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL & PEPITO NIÑAL, JR., petitioners,
vs.
NORMA BAYADOG, respondent.
FACTS:
This case arose from the marriage of Pepito Niñal to Norma Bayadog on December 11, 1986, without a
marriage license, claiming exemption due to living together as husband and wife for at least five years.
Pepito’s previous marriage to Teodulfa Bellones, with whom he had children (the petitioners), was
terminated by her death on April 24, 1985, following an incident of domestic violence. Pepito thereafter died
in a car accident on February 19, 1997. The petitioners then sought to declare Pepito’s marriage to Norma
void ab initio due to lack of a marriage license, asserting their succession rights were affected. Norma
countered, asserting the petitioners lacked standing, referencing Article 47 of the Family Code, which did
not include them among individuals eligible to file for annulment of marriage.
The Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Cebu, dismissed the case, suggesting that the petitioners should
have sought relief before Pepito’s death and expressing ambiguity in applying the Family Code to their
circumstances. The petitioners’ initial appeal was dismissed due to procedural errors, but upon motion, the
dismissal was reconsidered, re-instating their petition for review before the Supreme Court
ISSUES:
The marriage between Pepito and Norma was void due to the absence of a marriage license.
The cohabitation period cited by Pepito and Norma satisfied the exemption requirements under the Civil
Code for marriage without a license.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the second marriage between Pepito and Norma was void ab initio due to the
absence of a marriage license, as required under Article 53 of the Civil Code. The Court clarified that the
five-year cohabitation period for exempting a couple from obtaining a marriage license must be a legal
union, marked by exclusivity and continuity, without third-party involvement.
Since Pepito had a subsisting marriage with Teodulfa during part of the claimed cohabitation period, his
cohabitation with Norma did not meet the legal requirements. The Court held that void marriages can be
attacked collaterally and can be questioned even after the death of either party.Article 47 of the Family
Code, which deals with annulment suits, does not apply to petitions for the declaration of nullity of
marriage.
A void marriage is considered never to have taken place and can be challenged by any interested party at any
time.Therefore, the petitioners had legal standing to file the petition to declare their father's marriage void
even after his death. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and reinstated the petition for the
declaration of nullity of the marriage.
This case solidifies the distinction between void and voidable marriages within Philippine legal
jurisprudence. For void marriages, any interested party can challenge the marriage’s validity at any time, as
such a marriage is deemed never to have occurred. This contrasts with voidable marriages, where actions for
annulment must be brought during the lifetimes of the parties involved. The decision reiterates that the
declaration of a marriage’s nullity does not require a judicial decree when the purpose is other than
remarriage, but such a declaration is necessary for purposes like determination of heirship or property
division.