TILAR v REPUBLIC OF THE PH (2017)

Petitioner: Jerrysus L. Tilar

Respondents: Republic of the Philippines

This case was a petition for certiorari to review the decision issued by the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay City, Leyte to dismiss the petition filed by Mr. Tilar to
for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage on the ground that the court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On November 2010, the petitioner filed a petition to declare the nullity of his marriage
on the private respondent’s psychological incapacity citing Article 36 of the Family
Code. The couple were married in June 29, 1996 in a Catholic Church in Cebu and
lived happily for the first few months; a son was also born within their marriage.
Later on, their relationship went off as his wife exhibited unusual and sudden change
of behavior leading to frequent quarrels and experiences of threats and physical harm
against the petitioner. In 2002, they eventually got separated. Upon consultation
with a psychologist, the petitioner soon found out that his wife was suffering from
“aggressive personality disorder as well as histrionic personality disorder”
incapacitating her to fulfill essential marital obligations. The Regional Trial Court then
ordered the Public prosecutor conducted an investigation whether there was collusion
since the respondent was not answering to its call.

In 2014, the RTC finally issued its decision to order the dismissal of the petition on
the grounds that they lack jurisdiction over the subject matter. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the petitioner but it was denied. Reasoning of the
aforementioned court centered on the fact that the marriage was solemnized by the
Catholic Church, a religious sacrament that is governed by the Church’s Canon Law.
By virtue of the separation of powers of the state and the church, guaranteed by the
Constitution—the highest law of the land—the court cannot take judicial cognizance
of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in dismissing the case on the ground
that the validity of church marriage is outside the province of its authority.

HELD:

1. Yes, while it is true that the petitioner’s marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic
Church—a religious institution—it is nevertheless a special contract between
two persons and the state that has civil and legal consequences governed by
laws, specifically in this case the Family Code. The intention of the petitioner
is only to nullify their contract in accordance to Article 36 of the Family Code,
 which provides psychological incapacity as a valid ground for declaring
marriages void ab initio; their marriage in the eyes of the Canon Law is another
matter to be resolved. Hence, the Court found no sufficient reason to apply
the principle of the separation of the church and the state in this case.
Moreover, section 19 (5) of BP 129, Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, also
provides that RTCs shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all actions involving
the contract of marriage and marital relations.
2. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the petition for review on certiorari and
order RTC, Branch 14, Baybay City, Leyte to proceed with resolution of the
case.