No

other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall

constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. (86a)

B. VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

Art. 47. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and
within the periods indicated herein:
(1) For causes mentioned in number 1 of Article 45 by the party whose parent or
guardian did not give his or her consent, within five years after attaining the age of
twenty-one, or by the parent or guardian or person having legal charge of the
minor, at any time before such party has reached the age of twenty-one;

1. GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT

Family Code of the Philippines
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of
the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was
eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was
solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having
substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the
age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived
together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to
reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue
influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter
freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with
the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be
serious and appears to be incurable. (85a)
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of
the preceding Article:
(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a
crime involving moral turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was
pregnant by a man other than her husband;

(2) For causes mentioned in number 2 of Article 45, by the same spouse, who had
no knowledge of the other's insanity; or by any relative or guardian or person
having legal charge of the insane, at any time before the death of either party, or
by the insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity;
(3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Articles 45, by the injured party, within
five years after the discovery of the fraud;
(4) For causes mentioned in number 4 of Article 45, by the injured party, within five
years from the time the force, intimidation or undue influence disappeared or
ceased;
(5) For causes mentioned in number 5 and 6 of Article 45, by the injured party,
within five years after the marriage. (87a)
Art. 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.
In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a
stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. (88a)

Revised Penal Code

Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and
acts of lasciviousness. The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty
parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the
offenders.

(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing

at the time of the marriage; or

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or
guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named
persons, as the case may be.

(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or

lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.

In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the
offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty

Isabel Guidote

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan

already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the
co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.

Presidential Decree No. 612 (The Insurance Code)

Sec. 11. The insured shall have the right to change the beneficiary he designated in the
policy, unless he has expressly waived this right in said policy.

Moe v. Dinkins (1981)

533 F. Supp. 623
P: Maria Moe, Raoul Roe, Ricardo Roe (infant), all other persons similarly situated
R: David Dinkins (City Clerk of NYC), all town/city clerks of NY, David Axelrod (NY State
Commissioner of Health)

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the NY Domestic Relations Law

o Sec. 15.2: Males 16-18 and females 14-18 written consent of both parents
o Sec. 15.3: Females 14-16 judicial approval of the marriage + above

Raoul was 18 and Maria, 15 when they instituted this action

o 1978: Marias pregnancy
o 1979, April: Moved in together

Mrs. Moe refused to consent to their marriage continue receiving welfare benefits for
Maria

Marriage will cement their relationship; their child will not have the stigma of
illegitimacy
The statute unlawfully deprives the petitioners of the liberty guaranteed by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
o State concerned with the unique position of minors
o Constitutional rights adults
1. Vulnerability
2. Inability to make decisions
3. Importance of parental role in child-rearing
o Rational Basis Test
Compelling state interest

Protection from immature decision-making, promote

welfare, prevent unstable marriages

Right of parents to act in what they perceive to be their

childrens best interests
Means employed

Statute merely delays marriage

Minors whose parents consent to the marriage are not

barred from getting married

Illegitimate character of child an incidental consequence,

temporary, may be legitimized by a subsequent marriage

HELD: Constitutional. Plaintiffs are not irretrievably foreclosed from marrying. No

constitutional rights are offended.
Isabel Guidote

Katipunan v. Tenorio (1937)

38 O.G. 172
P: Marcos Katipunan
R: Rita Tenorio

Petitioner filed for annulment on the basis of respondents mental incapacity; Ursula Paz
(mother of respondent) was appointed as guardian ad litem

P & R were married in 1919. R suffered a mental ailment in 1926.

o She was brought to the San Lazaro Hospital, then the governments psychiatric
hospital

Children David and Jose currently under the care of Ps sister, Leonora Katipunan

Counterclaim:
o Childrens status would be reduced to that of natural children
o She would be unjustly and inhumanely abandoned
o She has no means to support herself
o Monthly pension of P300, attorneys fees of P500

Decision of the Trial Court: dismissed with costs against plaintiff

CA: determine WoN R was mentally sound at the time of the marriage
o Sec. 10, G.O. No. 68 Sec. 30, Act No. 3613 partys mental incapacity must
have existed at the time of the marriage
o Burden of proof on the one making the allegation
Petitioner
Respondent
Married after four days of
Rs mother: making love for two
courtship
years
Faustina de la Cruz: R uttered
Faustina was expecting, she
incoherent words
found delight in hearing them
o Additional testimonies in favor of R:

P admitted that he only noticed Rs insanity several days after their

marriage

Testimonies of Magdalena Santiago and Ps mother show that she

was mentally sound at the time of the marriage

P & R cohabited continuously for more than 7 years

P admitted to Rs lucid intervals

No evidence was adduced to show that between 1919 and 1926, she
was already suffering from insanity

HELD: Petition dismissed. Insanity after marriage is not a ground for its annulment.

Suntay v. Cojuanco-Suntay (1998)

300 SCRA 760
P: Federico Suntay
R: Isabel Cojuanco-Suntay

Federico and Cristina Aguinaldo Emilio and Isabel Cojuanco Isabel Cojuanco-Suntay
o Emilio and Isabel were married in 1958, later annulled in 1967
o Emilio died in 1979
o Cristina died in 1990, no will

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan

Emilio and Isabels annulment (CFI, Rizal)

o Pending criminal case (parricide)
o Emilio sought custody of children
o Judgement rendered in his favor (decree of annulment)
o Ratio of CFI:

Schizophrenia

Bereft of adequate understanding of right and wrong

Art. 85(3), CC: either party of unsound mind, at the time of marriage

Emilios schizo dated back to 1955

Respondents petition before the RTC Bulacan
o Issuance of Letters of Administration of the Intestate Estate of Cristina
o Legitimate grandchild appointed as administratix
Petitioners opposition:
o He is the surviving spouse
o Respondent has been alienated from family > 30 years
o He has been managing their conjugal properties
o Art. 992, CC: illegitimate children have to right to succeed by right of
representation
o Motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration denied
Motion to dismiss was timely filed
o Sec. 1, Rule 16, Rules of Civil Procedure: motion to dismiss should be filed
before answer
o Filed two years after presentation of evidence by R
Dispositive portion of decisionNULL and VOID = void marriage
o Ambiguity in the decision is reconcilable
o Clearly stated that the legal basis is Art. 85 of the CC which refers to voidable
marriages
R is an illegitimate child
o Since the marriage was voidable, children born prior to the decree of
annulment are considered legitimate (Art. 89(2), CC)
o ANNULMENT (voidable marriages) = subsists but ceases to have legal effect
upon termination through a court order
o NULLITY (void marriages) = acknowledges the fact that there was never a
marriage
Disposition controls WoN Rs parents marriage was void or voidable
o No conflict between body and disposition
o Rule only applies when the disposition is definite, clear, and unequivocal
o There is a need to harmonize the whole body of the decision
HELD: R is a legitimate grandchild and may invoke her successional right of
representation in her grandmothers estate. The court does not pass upon WoN the
letters of administration should be granted in her favor.

Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat (1941)

72 Phil 19
P: Godofredo Buccat
R: Luida Mangonon de Buccat

Isabel Guidote

P and R met in March 1938, they were married in September and November of that year
After 89 days of living together as husband and wife, R gave birth
P petitioned for annulment in 1939, claiming that he was defrauded into thinking that R
was a virgin at the time he married her
CFI Baguio rendered judgment in favor of R
Marriage should be annulled on the grounds of fraud
o It is improbable that the petitioner was unaware of his wifes pregnancy
o P is a law student (assumes that he knows what the valid grounds for
annulment are)
o Marriage is a sacred institution; for it to be annulled he must be able to prove
the presence of a valid ground
HELD: Judgment affirmed. Not a valid ground for annulment.

Aquino v. Delizo (1960)

109 Phil 21
P: Fernando Aquino
R: Conchita Delizo

P filed for annulment against R before CFI Rizal, dismissed (1955)

o Based on the ground of fraud (concealment of pregnancy by another man)
o They were married on December 27, 1954
o She gave birth in April 1955 (four months later)
o CFI: no birth certificate was shown to prove that the child was born within 180
days after the marriage
o Petition to reopen the case was denied

CA
o Trial court erred in denying the motion to present additional evidence
o It was not impossible for P & R to have had sex before their marriage
o P did not notice the pregnancy = UNBELIEVABLE
o 1959: Motion for Reconsideration

Evidence (birth certificates, affidavits) proving paternity of Rs

children (Cesar Aquino, her brother-in-law and Ps brother)

Motion denied

Buccat v. Buccat does not apply to the present case

o R is four months pregnant in the present case
o She is naturally plump or FAT; P might not have been able to tell that she was
pregnant

On CAs claim that they couldve had sex toopurely conjectural, no support

HELD: Assailed decision is set aside. Case remanded for new trial.

Anaya v. Palaroan (1970)

36 SCRA 97
P: Aurora Anaya
R: Fernando Palaroan

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan

R filed for annulment against P (CFI Manila, 1954)

o His consent was allegedly obtained through force and intimidation
o Case dismissed, but Ps counterclaim granted
o During negotiations, P revealed that he had a pre-marital relationship with a
close relative of his
P filed for annulment R (Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Manila, 1966)
o Ps allegation of fraud was legally insufficient to invalidate her marriage
o She also claimed that R married her in an attempt to evade marrying his close
relative
Rs non-disclosure of his pre-marital relationship constitutes fraud and is therefore a
valid ground for annulment
o Art. 85, CC contemplates the various grounds for annulment
o Art. 86 thereof specifically enumerates the fraud to be considered in the
application of Art. 85
o If the legislators intended for it to apply to all kinds of fraud, they would not
have included Art. 86
o Congress therefore, intended to exclude all other kinds of fraud as grounds for
annulment (No other misrepresentation or deceit x x x shall constitute fraud
as will give grounds for action of the annulment of marriage)
Rs negligence of marital duties (cohabitation) is a valid ground for annulment
o This is a separate allegation raised only in Ps reply
o P is not permitted to amend her complaint in a reply
o She should have discovered it within four years after the marriagedeclared
barred
HELD: Judgment appealed from is affirmed, there being no error committed by the CA.

Ruiz v. Atienza (1941)

40 O.G. 1903
P: Jose Ruiz
R: Pelagia Atienza

P filed for annulment against R (CFI Manila, 1938)

o P alleged that he was forced into wedlock

R had just given birth to their baby

Rs father, Jose Atienza, Atty. Villavicencio (Rs cousin-in-law) and

three others visited him at his house

After some discussion, he was convinced to marry R

o Dramatization by his counsel:

Mr. Atienza threatened P with a balisong

Atty. Villavicencio told him he would be rejected admission to the

bar as many others have been on the basis of immorality

Atty. Villavicencio promised his safety if P went with them

Mr. Atienza threatened Ps life, he was therefore forced and intimidated into marrying R
o P made a statement that he is already married
o Jose Atienza: So you mean to fool my daughter?!
o No showing of any balisong
o Not sufficiently established that his life was threatened
Isabel Guidote

o Only a 1 inch knife was found by the policeman

Atty. Villavicencio threatened to obstruct Ps admission to the Bar
o It is not such a duress as to constitute a reason for annulling the marriage
o A man cannot invoke the invalidity of a marriage on the grounds of duress to
avoid prosecution for seduction or bastardy
Atty. Villavicencio threatened Ps safety by telling him he would be safe IF he went with
them
o It cannot be concluded that the opposite would be true if he didnt
o He was not kidnapped!!

There were other people there (it was a boarding house)

He could have asked the policeman for help

Evidence does not warrant a pronouncement that Ps consent to the marriage was
obtained through force or intimidation
Sec. 30, Act. No. 3613 considers the above as valid ground for annulment, if the force or
intimidation employed is within the contemplation of Art. 1267 of the Civil Code
HELD: Judgment affirmed. Neither violence nor duress attended the marriage
celebration.

Jimenez v. Republic (1960)

109 Phil 273
P: Joel Jimenez
R: Remedios Caizares, Republic of the Philippines (Intervenor)

P filed an action for annulment of his marriage to R (CIF Zamboanga, 1955)

o They couldnt have sex because her vagina was too small
o It existed at the time of their marriage and still continues to exist
o Court ordered for her to be examined, R didnt show up
o Deemed as lack of interest Judgment will be rendered in favor of P
o Marriage was annulled on 11 April 1957

City attorney filed a motion for reconsideration (15 days later)

o Rs impotency has not been sufficiently established (she refused)
o Court should have:

Held her in contempt

Compelled her to undergo the exam

o Assailed decree will set a dangerous precedent couples who want to get
annulments will just allege the impotency of one of the parties
o Motion was denied
Ps testimony was sufficient to prove Rs impotency and is therefore a valid ground for
annulment
o Rs indifference to the suit is merely a presumption
o She may just be embarrassed or ashamed to undergo the exam unless she is
compelled to by the court
o The presumption is in favor of potency

HELD: Decree appealed from is set aside. Case remanded. Ps testimony not sufficient to
prove Rs incapability of engaging in sexual intercourse.

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan

Sarao v. Guevara (1940)

40 O.G. 15 Supp. 263
P: Sarao
R: Pilar Guevara

P filed for annulment against R on the grounds of impotency (CFI Laguna)

o Case was dismissed

P & R married on 3 June 1936

o Afternoon: he tried to have sex with her
o Evening: he tried to have sex with her AGAIN

The opening of her vagina was too large for his penis

She complained of pains

Rs ovaries and uterus were surgically removed on 7 August 1936

o Rendered R incapable of procreation
o Did not incapacitate her for copulation
o P lost all desire to engage in carnal knowledge with her

Par. F, Sec. 30, Act No. 3613: Marriage may be annulled if either party was at the time
of the marriage, incapable of entering into the marriage state, and such incapacity
continues and appears to be incurable
Incapable of entering into the married state = incapacity to procreate
o American jurisprudence: IMPOTENCY does not refer to the incapacity to
PROCREATE, but the incapacity to COPULATE
o The defect (inability to copulate) must be permanent and lasting
R was impotent at the time of the marriage
o Existence of a fibrous tissue did not render her incapable of copulation or even
of procreation
o Sterile unfit for sex
The marriage was not consummated because of Ps own voluntary desistance
o First experience unpleasant wala nang gana!
o No more disease wala pa ring gana!
Consent to the marriage was procured through fraud
o Non-disclosure of disease to P not a grounds for fraud

Not alleged in the complaint

Not proved at the trial

HELD: Judgment affirmed

2. MARRIAGE WHEN ONE SPOUSE IS ABSENT

Family Code of the Philippines
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall
be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse
had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief
that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of
Isabel Guidote

death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an
absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the
spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse. (83a)
Art. 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically
terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless
there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio.
A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the
civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any
interested person, with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without
prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is
disputed. (n)
Art. 43. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall
produce the following effects:
(1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall
be considered legitimate;
(2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case
may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said
marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property
or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children
or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in
default of children, the innocent spouse;
(3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except that if the donee
contracted the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are
revoked by operation of law;
(4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted
in bad faith as beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be
stipulated as irrevocable; and
(5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be
disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate
succession. (n)
Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be
void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by
one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. (n)

Revised Penal Code

Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who
shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan

dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a
judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.

Jones v. Hortigela (1937)

64 Phil 179
P: Angelita Jones
R: Felix Hortigela

P seeks to invalidate her mothers marriage to R for the purposes of assuming sole
ownership of her late mothers intestate estate

1914, Dec.: Marciana Escao married Arthur Jones (1914), they had one child (Angelita
Jones)

1918, 10 Jan.: Arthur left for abroad and was never heard from again

1919, 25 Oct.: Arthur judicially declared an absentee (subject to Art. 186, CC; six months
after publication)

1920, 23 Apr.: taking effect of the declaration of absence

1927, 6 May: Marciana married Respondent Felix Hortigela

P alleges:
o Declaration of absence made on 23 Apr. 1920 and not 25 Oct. 1919
o 7 years would not have elapsed by 6 May 1927
o Marriage between her mother and R is void
o She is therefore her mothers sole heir for purposes of succession

Par. 2, Sec. III G.O. No. 68: for purposes of remarriage, all that is required is:
o Absence for 7 years
o No knowledge that the spouse is still alive
o General presumption of death

Civil Marriage Law does not require judicial declaration of a spouse as absent
o Arthurs absence can be counted from 10 Jan. 1918
o This would have made him absent for >9 years
o Marriage between Marciana Escao and R is lawful and valid

Sec. 23, No. 24, Code of Civil Procedure: a person not heard from in seven years is
presumed to be dead

Consequences of the valid marriage between Marciana and Felix:

o Right to inherit in usufruct in both testate and intestate succession
o R is a valid heir (in addition to Angelita)
o His appointment as administrator of the estate is lawful (P was a minor then)

HELD: Appealed order reversed

o Order approving final account and the project of partition UPHELD
o Appointment of Angelitas husband as administrator DENIED
o Order relative to the declaration of heirs UPHELD
o Order relative to administrators fees UPHELD
o Determination of paraphernal and conjugal property HELD AS UNWARRANTED
(left to the parties)

SSS v. de Bailon (2006)

Isabel Guidote

485 SCRA 376

P: Social Security System
R: Teresita Jarque Vda. de Bailon

Clemente G. Bailon was said to have married thrice:

1. Alice P. Diaz 25 Apr. 1955
2. Elisa Jayona (cohabited) 1958
o Cecilia
o Norma
3. Teresita Jarque 8 Aug. 1983

He died on 30 Jan. 1998 (SSS Member, Retiree Pensioner since 94)

o Funeral benefits claimed by R P12,000
o Additional claim for death benefits claimed by R

Cecilia and Norma contested the granting of benefits

o Their mother was allegedly married to Clemente
o They paid for the hospital and funeral expenses
o Alice is still alive and she never even disappeared in the first place

The Social Service Commission (SSC) declared R as just a common-law wife, therefore
not entitled to any benefits
o The declaration of presumptive death of Alice was fraudulently obtained
o Their marriage was never dissolved
o Alice is the rightful beneficiary of Clementes pension

CA reversed SSC decision

o SSC cannot re-evaluate RTCs findings (on the declaration of presumptive
death)
o Art. 87, CC: only a competent court can nullify a marriage
o SSS does not have the authority to declare the second marriage void

Under the CC, no judicial declaration is required for the purpose of remarriage
o Remarriage when one spouse is presumed to be dead is merely voidable
o Terminated by final judgment of annulment
o Art. 87(2), CC: action for annulment only during the lifetime of any one of
the parties
The reappearance of the missing Alice renders Clementes marriage to R void
o Art. 42, FC: marriage terminated upon recording of the affidavit of
reappearance with due notice to the subsequent spouse
o No steps taken to annul the subsequent marriage
o Presumption of death continues until marriage is terminated by law

Therefore, presumption is also towards the validity of the second

marriage

Tolentino: burden is on the person invalidating the second marriage

to prove that the first marriage is still subsisting
The marriage between R and Clemente can still be assailed
o Cannot be collaterally attacked
o Action must be made during the lifetime of the parties
o Upon Clementes death, the marriage was made good ab initio

HELD: Petition denied. R is the rightful dependent spouse-beneficiary of Bailon.

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan

Valdez v. Republic (2009)

598 SCRA 646
P: Angelita Valdez
R: Republic of the Philippines

P married Sofio Polborosa on 11 Jan. 1971

o She gave birth to a daughter, Nancy on 13 Dec. 1971
o He left their home in March 1972; was not heard from for three years
o Showed up at Ps parents house, they agreed to separate

P contracted a subsequent marriage with Virgilio Reyes on 20 Jun. 1985

o She believed Sofio was already dead
o He was denied naturalization as a US citizen because of the subsisting
marriage between P and Sofio

P filed for the declaration of presumptive death of Sofio (RTC Tarlac, 29 Mar. 2007)
o P admitted she did not try to find her husband
o Nancy was likewise prevented for looking for her dad
o RTC denied the petition for non-compliance with Art. 41, FC

Not able to prove the well-founded belief

Must be the result of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and

efforts

P moved for reconsideration (10 Dec. 2007)

o Marriage in 1971; CC must be the governing law
o Arts. 834 & 390, CC governed the declaration of absence and presumption of
death not expressly repealed by the Family Code

Intervention of the OSG

o Art. 41 of the FC should not apply because it was not yet in existence when P
contracted her second marriage with Virgilio
o Art. 390, CC was not repealed by Art. 41, FC

Art. 256, FC: no retroactivity if its application will impair vested

rights
The RTC erred in applying the FC provision (Art. 41), holding that there was a need for a
declaration of presumptive death
o Both marriages were celebrated under the CC
o Art. 83, CC merely requires absence for seven years for the spouse to be
presumed dead (Art. 390, CC)
o Sofio presumed dead starting October 1982
The declaration of presumptive death cannot be made the subject of an independent
special proceeding
o The presumption of death is established by law, a judicial announcement
serves as a prima facie presumption

Unnecessary

Disputable
o Petitions for judicial declarations of presumptive death were not entertained
under the CC because such proceedings are not authorized by law
Art. 41, FC cannot be retroactively applied
o It will invalidate a marriage that was valid when it was contracted

HELD: Petition dismissed

Isabel Guidote

A judicial declaration of presumptive death cannot be granted under the CC,

the same is established by operation of law
There being no legal impediment to Ps subsequent marriage to Virgilio at the
time it was contracted, their marriage is VALID

3. EFFECTS OF PENDING ACTION/DECREE

Family Code of the Philippines
Art. 49. During the pendency of the action and in the absence of adequate provisions in a
written agreement between the spouses, the Court shall provide for the support of the
spouses and the custody and support of their common children. The Court shall give
paramount consideration to the moral and material welfare of said children and their choice
of the parent with whom they wish to remain as provided to in Title IX. It shall also provide
for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. (n)
Art. 50. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by
Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared ab initio or
annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.
The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of
the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the
delivery of third presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous
judicial proceedings.
All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership
shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation.
In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated
in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.
Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children,
computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash,
property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved,
had already provided for such matters.
The children or their guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of
the judgment.
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the
ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either of both of the
parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or
absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime. (n)
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and
distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children's presumptive
legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property;
otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons. (n)

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan

Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the
requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall
be null and void.
Art. 54. Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of
the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate.
Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be
legitimate.

Civil Code of the Philippines

Art. 369. Children conceived before the decree annulling a voidable marriage shall principally
use the surname of the father.
Art. 371. In case of annulment of marriage, and the wife is the guilty party, she shall resume
her maiden name and surname. If she is the innocent spouse, she may resume her maiden
name and surname. However, she may choose to continue employing her former husband's
surname, unless:

(1) The court decrees otherwise, or

(2) She or the former husband is married again to another person.

Yu v. Yu (2006)
484 SCRA 485
P: Eric Jonathan Yu
R: Caroline T. Yu

(A) 2002, Jan. 11: P filed for habeas corpus before the CA
o R unlawfully withheld from him the custody of their child, Bianca
o Sole custody

(B) 2002, Mar. 3: R filed for annulment before the Pasig RTC
o Dissolution of absolute community of property
o Sole custody

2002, Mar. 21: P awarded sole custody, case still bending

2002, Apr. 18: An Interim Visitation Agreement (IVA) was entered into
o R moved to modify the agreement
o P opposed, saying that Ps filing for annulment before the Pasig RTC
constituted forum shopping
o R modified her petition with the RTC insofar as the custody aspect is
concerned, and she later had the case dismissed

(C) 2003, Jun. 12: P filed for annulment before the Pasig RTC
o Dissolution of absolute community of property
o Sole custody

2003, Jul. 3: (A) was dismissed for being moot and academic

(D) 2003, Jul. 24: R filed for habeas corpus before the Pasay RTC
o Enforcement of IVA
o Sole custody
Isabel Guidote

Both Pasay and Pasig RTC asserted their jurisdiction over the issue of Biancas custody
The elements of litis pendentia have been established in the present case
o Identity of parties
o Identity of rights asserted and reliefs sought, relief founded on the same facts
o Judgment rendered in the pending case would amount to res judicata in the
other
The Pasig RTC lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the custody issue
o Art. 49, FC: pending actions for annulment court provides for custody
o Art. 50, FC: final judgment of annulment provides for custody unless the
matter has been previously adjudicated
o By filing (C), P automatically submitted the custody issue to the jurisdiction of
the Pasig RTC

Sec. 21, Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages

and Annulment of Voidable Marriages: Court decides custody of
children (pursuant to Arts. 50, 51, FC) (1) when a final judgment has
been rendered, and (2) upon motion of either party
The case pending before the Pasig RTC (C) is the appropriate venue to litigate the
custody of Bianca
o A separate action for custody was not necessary since it was deemed pleaded
by the action for annulment
o The express provisions in the FC make the annulment case before the Pasig
RTC the appropriate case
o The pending habeas corpus case (D) before the Pasay RTC must be dismissed
to avoid multiplicity of suits
HELD: Petition dismissed. CA decision reversed. Pending habeas corpus case (D) before
the Pasay RTC set aside. Further proceedings in annulment case (C) before Pasig RTC

4. JURISDICTION
Tamano v. Ortiz (1998)
291 SCRA 584
P: Estrellita Tamano
R: Haja Putri Zorayda Tamano, Adib A. Tamano, CA

Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano allegedly contracted two marriages:

o With R, which remained subsisting until his death in 1994
o With P, on 2 June 1993

R filed for the declaration of nullity of Sen. Tamanos marriage with P (23 Nov. 1994)
o Bigamous
o Misrepresented themselves as divorced and single

P questioned the jurisdiction of the QC RTC

o They were allegedly married under civil and Muslim rites
o The fact that they were married under Muslim was only raised in the Motion
for Reconsideration

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan

Courts jurisdiction can only be made to depend on allegations in the

COMPLAINT
The jurisdiction of Sharia courts is exclusive, the marriage being solemnized under
Muslim laws
o Art. 13(2), P.D. No. 1083: marriages not solemnized in accordance with
Muslim laws shall be governed by the CC
o Since the marriage in question was also celebrated under the CC, the QC RTC
has proper jurisdiction
o Exclusive jurisdiction of Sharia courts for marriages celebrated ONLY under
Muslim rites
o Exclusive jurisdiction of RTCs for marriages celebrated BOTH under Muslim
AND civil rites

Par. 6, Sec. 19, B.P. Blg. 129: exclusive jurisdiction over cases not
within the exclusive jurisdiction of other courts
HELD: Petition denied. CA and RTC decisions affirmed. Case remanded to court a quo for
further proceedings

Isabel Guidote

Persons and Family Relations E.A. Pangalanan