The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No

02-11-10-SC is explicit in its scope declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines.

4. There is no ambiguity in the Rule. Absolute sententil expositore non indiget. When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required. Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.

5. Respondents clearly have no cause of action before the court a quo 149. Carlos vs. Sandoval

December 16, 2008 – J. R.T. Reyes Facts:

1. Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. They left six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos.

2. During the lifetime of Felix Carlos, he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo in order to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to deliver and turn over the share of the other legal heir, petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos.

3. Eventually, the first three (3) parcels of land were transferred and registered in the name of Teofilo.

4. Parcel No. 4 was registered in the name of Juan.

5. In 1992, Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad and Teofilo II, son of Teofilo with another woman. Upon Teofilo’s death, Parcel Nos. 5 & 6 were registered in the name of Felicidad and Teofilo II.

6. In 1994, petitioner Juan instituted a suit against respondents. The parties submitted and caused the approval of a partial compromise agreement, of which the parties acknowledged their respective shares in the proceeds from the sale of a portion of the first parcel of land. This includes the remaining 6,691-square-meter portion of said land.

7. Petitioner and respondents entered into two more contracts in August 1994. Under the contracts, the parties equally divided between them the third and fourth parcels of land.

8. In the same year, the parties executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, dividing the remaining land of the first parcel between them.

9. In August 1995, Juan filed a complaint. Aside from seeking the avoidance of contracts he entered with Felicidad with respect to the subject real properties, he asserted that the marriage between his late brother Teofilo and Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage license. He likewise maintained that his deceased brother was neither the natural nor the adoptive father of respondent Teofilo Carlos II.

10. The respondents denied the material averments of petitioner’s complaint. They contended that the dearth of details regarding the requisite marriage license did not invalidate Felicidad’s marriage to Teofilo. Respondents declared that Teofilo II was the illegitimate child of the deceased Teofilo Carlos with another woman.

11. But before the parties could even proceed to pre-trial, respondents moved for summary judgment. Attached to the motion was the affidavit of the justice of the peace who solemnized the marriage. Respondents also submitted the Certificate of Live Birth of respondent Teofilo II. In the certificate, the late Teofilo Carlos and respondent Felicidad were designated as parents.

12. Juan opposed the motion for summary judgment on the ground of irregularity of the contract evidencing the marriage. He also lodged his own motion for summary judgment. Petitioner presented a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Calumpit, Bulacan, certifying that there is no record of birth of respondent Teofilo II.

13. RTC: Declaring the marriage between defendant Felicidad Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos solemnized at Silang, Cavite on May 14, 1962, evidenced by the Marriage Certificate submitted in this case, null and void ab initio for lack of the requisite marriage license; Declaring that the defendant minor, Teofilo S. Carlos II, is not the natural, illegitimate, or legally adopted child of the late Teofilo E. Carlos; Declaring plaintiff as the sole and exclusive owner of a parcel of land

14. CA reversed.

Issue: Can a marriage be declared void ab initio through a judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment and without the benefit of a trial?

Held: NO.

Ruling:

1. 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.

With the advent of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, known as “Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,” the question on the application of summary judgments or even judgment on the pleadings in cases of

nullity or annulment of marriage has been stamped with clarity. The significant principle is found in Section 17.

Likewise instructive is the Court’s pronouncement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan. In that case, we excluded actions for nullity or annulment of marriage from the application of summary judgments.

2. 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 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. But the Rule never intended to deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their successional rights.

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.

The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the marriage void. But this does not mean that any person can bring an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage. The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license. It is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest.

3. The case must be remanded to determine whether or not petitioner is a real-party-in-interest to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage in controversy.

Clearly, a brother is not among those considered as compulsory heirs. But although a collateral relative, such as a brother, does not fall within the ambit of a compulsory heir, he still has a right to succeed to the estate in pursuit of NCC 1001 and 1003. The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased precludes succession by collateral relatives. Conversely, if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the decedent.

If respondent Teofilo II is declared and finally proven not to be the legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo, petitioner would then have a personality to seek the nullity of marriage of his deceased brother with respondent Felicidad.

The records reveal that Teofilo was predeceased by his parents. He had no other siblings but petitioner. Thus, if Teofilo II is finally found and proven to be not a legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo, petitioner succeeds to the other half of the estate of his brother, the first half being allotted to the widow. If the subject marriage is found to be void ab initio, petitioner succeeds to the entire estate.

150. Marietta Ancheta v. Rodolfo Ancheta 2004 - CALLEJO, SR., J.:

Facts:

1. Wife (Marietta) and husband (Rodolfo) got married March 5, 1959

2. in 1992 husband left the conjugal home and abandoned the petitioner and their children.

3. in 1994 petitioner Marietta filed a petition for the dissolution of their conjugal partnership and judicial separation of property 4. Rodolfo intended to marry again. On June 5, 1995, he filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with the petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity

5. Although Rodolfo knew where Marietta was residing, he, nevertheless, alleged in his petition a different address "where she may be served with summons." The clerk of court issued summons to the petitioner at the address stated in the petition.

6. Sheriff submitted a Return of Service to the court stating that the summons and a copy of the petition were served on the Marietta through her son

7. Marietta "failed" answer. RTC declared marriage null and void.

8. On February 14, 1998, Valentine’s Day, Rodolfo and Teresita H. Rodil were married

9. Marietta filed a petition opposing RTC's jugment; she was attacking Rodolfo's misrepresentations; she said that husband did it to

deprive her of her right to be heard in the said case, and ultimately secure a favorable judgment without any opposition; She further contended that there was no factual basis for the trial court’s finding that she was suffering from psychological incapacity.

Issue: Was the RTC Decision valid?

Held: No Ruling:

1. The actuations of the trial court and the public prosecutor are in defiance of Article 48 of the Family Code, which reads:

Article 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

2. The trial court and the public prosecutor also ignored 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.

3. In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals,37 this Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 48 of the Family Code, one of which concerns the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State:

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.

4. A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the danger of collusion. Hence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing any collusion between the parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. If the defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists between the parties. The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated.

151. Salmingo vs. Rubica 9 Jul 2007 – J. Carpio-Morales Facts:

1. On 9 Jan 2003, Atty. Rodney Rubica filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Liza Jane Estaño. Summons was served by publication in the Visayan Post, a weekly newspaper of general circulation in Negros Occidental, since Liza was not found at her given address.

2. On 23 May 2003, the trial court declared the marriage null and void as the evidence showed that Liza had a previous valid and existing marriage.

3. On 27 Sep 2004, Ignacio Salmingo filed a disbarment case against Atty. Rubica. He alleged that Atty. Rubica deliberately

concealed Liza’s address so that summons may not be served and that Atty. Rubica failed to follow the procedural requirements in the declaration of nullity case i.e. to serve copies of the petition on the OSG or the City or Provincial Prosecutor.

4. The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation. The IBP investigating commissioner recommended that Atty. Rubica be suspended for three months for gross misconduct.

5. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to dismiss the case for lack of sufficient evidence.

Issue: Should the declaration of nullity of marriage be reversed due to the failure of the City Prosecutor to participate?

Held: No.

Ruling:

1. The requirement that the trial court order the prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists is addressed to the court, not to the parties to the case nor to their counsel. Atty. Rubica cannot be faulted therefor.

2. The requirements in the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages took effect only on 15 Mar 2003 after Atty.

Rubica filed the case on 9 Jan 2003.

3. At the time of his petition, what applied was the Rules of Court. Atty. Rubica complied with the procedure in the Rules of Court.

He was not required to serve copies of the petition to the OSG.

4. Salmingo was not even a real party in interest to the case. By law, it is the prosecuting attorney or fiscal or the Solicitor General who represents the interest of the State in proceedings for the annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage.

5. For lack of evidence, the Court upheld the decision of the IBP Board of Governors and dismissed the case.

152. Jocson vs. Robles

February 10, 1968 - Reyes J.B.L.

Facts:

1. Ricardo Reyes was married to Josefina Fausto (his first wife) on May 27, 1958.

2. Gloria G Jocson (his second wife) is the current petitioner filing a case of bigamy against Robles.

3. Robles assails the validity of his marriage with Jocson on the grounds that he was compelled to marry her because of threat and intimidation from her parents, even if they knew he was a married man.

4. The lower court denied the plea Robles' plea of force and intimidation because the court found indications of collusion between the parties in their attempt to secure the nullification of their marriage.

Issue:

1. Did the CA make a mistake in denying the motion for summary judgment? Held: No 2. Did Robles file his appeal notice within the reglamentary period? Held: No

Ruling:

1. There is no indication or certification or proof that the filing of the appeal notice, bond and record on appeal were made within the reglamentary period as required by the rules of court.

2. The record on appeal must contain the full names of all the parties to the proceedings, as well as the pleadings, petitions, motions, and orders related to the order or judgment subject of the appeal and which are necessary for the proper understanding of the issue, [AND] such date as will show that the appeal was perfected on time.

3. Court of Domestic Relations correctly denied the motion for summary judgment in view of Articles 88 and 1011 of the Civil Code of the Philippines that expressly prohibit the rendition of a decree of annulment of a marriage upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment. The affidavits annexed to the petition for summary judgment practically amount to these methods not countenanced by the civil code.

153. Tolentino vs. Villanueva March 15, 1974 - MAKASIAR Facts:

1. H&W: Romulo Tolentino and Helen Villanueva

2. On April 26, 1962, petitioner Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of his marriage to private respondent Helen Villanueva, alleging that his consent was obtained through fraud because immediately after the marriage celebration, he discovered that private respondent was pregnant despite the fact that he had no sexual relations with her prior to the marriage ceremony; and that they did not live as husband and wife as immediately after the marriage celebration,

3. Helen Villanueva left his house and her whereabouts remained unknown to him until January, 1962 when he discovered that she is residing in San Francisco, Cebu.

4. Helen failed to file a responsive pleading, for which reason petitioner filed on June 13, 1962 a motion to declare her in default and to set the date for the presentation of his evidence.

5. In an order dated June 28, 1962, respondent Judge declared private respondent in default, but, pursuant to the provision of Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, referred the case to the City Fiscal of Manila for investigation to determine whether collusion exists between the parties

6. Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines expressly prohibit the rendition of a decision in suits for annulment of