Estrellita Llave V.

Republic of the Philippines

Facts:

 In May 1993, Mamintal A.J. Tamano (a former senator) married Estrellita
Juliano-Llave under a civil ceremony. In June 1993, both got married
again to each other but this time under Muslim rites. Unfortunately, in
less than a year, Tamano died.
 In November 1994, mother and son Haja Putri Zorayda Tamano and Adib
Ahmad Tamano filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of
marriage between Estrellita and Tamano for being bigamous. It appears
that Zorayda and Tamano were already married in 1958 under civil rites and
Muslim rites.
 In her defense, Estrellita averred that Tamano was already divorced when
he married Estrellita in 1993. This was evidenced by Tamano’s declared
status of “divorced” at the time of their marriage in 1993.
 RTC: Marital rights between Sen. Tamano and Zorayda were never severed.
HELD:
 The Muslim Code did not automatically cover all Muslim marriages already
existing at the time of its enactment. Further, the Muslim Code finds no
application to marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim rites only
purely Muslim rites. Further still, the Muslim Code did not provide for
retroactive application. It cannot retroactively override the Civil Code which
already bestowed certain rights on the marriage of Tamano and Zorayda.
 Thus, the law applicable on the marriage between Tamano and Zorayda is the
Civil Code and nowhere in the Civil Code is divorce allowed. The
declaration of Tamano that he was divorced is therefore without effect as to
the validity of his earlier marriage with Zorayda. Hence, the ruling of the
RTC and the CA is correct – the marriage between Tamano and Estrellita in
1993 is void for being bigamous.

 CA: Estrellita's marriage to Sen. Tamano is void ab initio for being

bigamous, reasoning that the marriage of Zorayda and Sen. Tamano is
governed by the Civil Code, which does not provide for an absolute divorce
 Estrellita now questions the said ruling on the ground that:
 Zorayda and Adib have no legal standing to question the marriage
between Estrellita and Tamano because they were not parties to the
marriage contract; that under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages, an action to file the declaration of nullity of marriage is
only limited to the husband or the wife;
 The proceedings in the RTC and the CA are void because under Article
48 of the Family Code as well as A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Solicitor
General or the public prosecutor are required to appear or participate in the
proceedings in order to determine collusion between the parties – this was not
the case here, according to Estrellita;
 The Muslim Code or PD 1083 was enacted in 1977 and that the marriage
between Zorayda and Tamano happened in 1958; that Muslim Code
provides for Muslim Divorce; that under said law, if Muslim divorce
need not be registered.
Issue:

 W/N Llave’s marriage to Sen Tamano was indeed bigamous