Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

In 1998, Danny married Sharon.

In 1999, while Sharon was in the hospital to give birth to


Shaina, Danny packed his bags, left their conjugal house, transferred domicile to Mindanao,
without asking permission from Sharon and without any particular reason.
For 6 years Sharon looked for him, published notices of loss in the newspapers, radio, and
television, but in vain.
In 2005, Sharon fell in love with Piolo.
She then filed a Petition for the Summary Judicial Declaration of Presumptive Death, which the
court granted.
In 2006 Sharon and Piolo got married.
In 2007, Danny for no apparent reason came back and he learned about Sharon and Piolo’s
wedding.
He vehemently refused to execute an Affidavit of Reappearance.
Sharon, upon learning of Danny’s return, also refused to execute an Affidavit of
Reappearance, since she did not want her marriage with Piolo hampered.
You are Sharon’s longtime neighbor and you want Sharon’s marriage with Piolo dissolved.
What is an effective option to dissolve it?

Suggested answer: (Please correct lang ha; if sayop ni – I got my ideas from UST Golden
Notes)

The effective way to dissolve the marriage of Sharon and Piolo is to convince Danny to execute
an affidavit of appearance.
Under the law, a valid ground for the termination of the declaration of presumptive death is
upon 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. The effect of such
affidavit reappearance does not automatically terminate the subsequent marriage. To cause
the termination of the subsequent marriage, the reappearance must be made in an affidavit of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
In the instant case, absent of the fact that the marriage between Sharon and Danny was
annulled or declared void ab initio, the remedy for dissolving such marriage is to execute an
affidavit of reappearance.
Another effective way is to convince Danny to file a case questioning the validity of Sharon and
Danny’s marriage. In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs Alan B. Alegro (GR 159614), the
Court has laid down the requisites for a valid subsequent marriage:

Article 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines reads:


Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the 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 had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger 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.[25]

The spouse present is, thus, burdened to prove that his spouse has been absent and that he has
a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead before the present spouse may
contract a subsequent marriage. The law does not define what is meant by a well-grounded
belief.

Belief is a state of the mind or condition prompting the doing of an overt act. It may be
proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence which may tend, even in a slight degree, to
elucidate the inquiry or assist to a determination probably founded in truth. Any fact or
circumstance relating to the character, habits, conditions, attachments, prosperity and objects
of life which usually control the conduct of men, and are the motives of their actions, was, so far
as it tends to explain or characterize their disappearance or throw light on their
intentions, competence evidence on the ultimate question of his death.

The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest to goodness
inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent
spouse is still alive or is already dead. Whether or not the spouse present acted on a well-founded
belief of death of the absent spouse depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many
circumstances occurring before and after the disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature
and extent of the inquiries made by present spouse.

Although testimonial evidence may suffice to prove the well-founded belief of the present spouse
that the absent spouse is already dead, in Republic v. Nolasco, the Court warned against collusion
between the parties when they find it impossible to dissolve the marital bonds through existing
legal means. It is also the maxim that men readily believe what they wish to be true.

In this case, the respondent failed to present a witness other than Barangay Captain Juan Magat.
The respondent even failed to present Janeth Bautista or Nelson Abaenza or any other person
from whom he allegedly made inquiries about Lea to corroborate his testimony. On the other
hand, the respondent admitted that when he returned to the house of his parents-in-law on
February 14, 1995, his father-in-law told him that Lea had just been there but that she left
without notice.

The respondent declared that Lea left their abode on February 7, 1995 after he chided her for
coming home late and for being always out of their house, and told her that it would be better
for her to go home to her parents if she enjoyed the life of a single person. Lea, thus, left their
conjugal abode and never returned. Neither did she communicate with the respondent after
leaving the conjugal abode because of her resentment to the chastisement she received from
him barely a month after their marriage. What is so worrisome is that, the respondent failed to
make inquiries from his parents-in-law regarding Leas whereabouts before filing his petition in
the RTC. It could have enhanced the credibility of the respondent had he made inquiries from his
parents-in-law about Leas whereabouts considering that Leas father was the owner of Radio
DYMS.

The respondent did report and seek the help of the local police authorities and the NBI to locate
Lea, but it was only an afterthought. He did so only after the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his
petition in the RTC.
In sum, the Court finds and so holds that the respondent failed to prove that he had a
well-founded belief, before he filed his petition in the RTC, that his spouse Rosalia (Lea) Julaton
was already dead.
The case presented falls squarely on the cases decided by the Supreme Court.
However, these actions may only be instituted by Danny as a third party cannot attack the
marriage of other parties of whom he is not a real party in interest.

S-ar putea să vă placă și