Ty v CA Article 40 Exception to the Rule In 1977, Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva in a civil ceremony.

. They had a church wedding in the same year as well. In 1980, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC declared their marriage as null and void; the civil one for lack of marriage license and the subsequent church wedding due to the lack of consent of the parties. In 1979, prior to the JDRC decision, Reyes married Ofelia. Then in 1991, Reyes filed for an action for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Ofelia. He averred that they lack a marriage license at the time of the celebration and that there was no judicial declaration yet as to the nullity of his previous marriage with Anna. Ofelia presented evidence proving the existence of a valid marriage license including the specific license number designated. The lower court however ruled that Ofelias marriage with Reyes is null and void. The same was affirmed by the CA applying the provisions of the Art 40 of the FC. ISSUE: Whether or not the absolute nullity of the previous of marriage of Reyes can be invoked in the case at bar. HELD: Art. 40 of the FC provides that, The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. This means that before one can enter into a second marriage he must first require a judicial declaration of the nullity of the previous marriage and such declaration may be invoked on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring the previous marriage as void. For purposes other than remarriage, other evidences may be presented and the declaration can be passed upon by the courts. In the case at bar, the lower court and the CA cannot apply the provision of the FC. Both marriages entered by Reyes were solemnized prior to the FC. The old CC did not have any provision that states that there must be such a declaration before remarriage can be done hence Ofelias marriage with Reyes is valid. The provisions of the FC (took effect in 87) cannot be applied retroactively especially because they would impair the vested rights of Ofelia under the CC which was operational during her marriage with Reyes. FACTS: Private respondent, Edgardo Reyes, was married with Anna Villanueva in a civil ceremony in March 1977 in Manila and subsequently had a church wedding in August 1977. Both weddings were declared null and void ab initio for lack of marriage license and consent of the parties. Even before the decree nullifying the marriage was issued, Reyes wed Ofelia Ty herein petitioner on April 1979 and had their church wedding in Makati on April 1982. The decree was only issued in August 1980. In January 1991, Reyes filed with RTC a complaint to have his marriage with petitioner be declared null and void. AC ruled that a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage with Anna must first be secured before a subsequent marriage could be validly contracted. However, SC found that the provisions of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied to the present case for doing so would prejudice the vested rights of the petitioner and of her children. ISSUE: Whether or not damages should be awarded to Ofelia Ty. HELD:: SC is in the opinion of the lower courts that no damages should be awarded to the wife who sought damages against the husband for filing a baseless complaint causing her mental anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, social humiliation and alienation from her parents. Aside from the fact, that petitioner wants her marriage to private respondent held valid and subsisting. She is likewise suing to maintain her status as legitimate wife. To grant her petition for damages would result to a situation where the husband pays the wife damages from conjugal or common funds. To do so, would make the application of the law absurd. Moreover, Philippine laws do not comprehend an action for damages between husband and wife merely because of breach of a marital obligation. Hence, the petition was granted. Marriage between Ty and Reyes is declared valid and subsisting and the award of the amount of P15,000 is ratified and maintained as monthly support to their 2 children for as long as they are of minor age or otherwise legally entitled thereto.