View full case

ROBERTO DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

The petitioner, Delia Soledad Domingo, filed a case for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to the private respondent, Roberto Domingo. She discovered that Roberto had a previous valid and existing marriage of which she was unaware. Delia also alleged that Roberto had been cohabiting with another woman and disposing of her properties without her knowledge or consent. She claimed that she had been financially supporting Roberto as he was unemployed. Delia sought the nullity of their marriage, a restraining order or injunction against Roberto's administration of their properties, and the declaration of her as the sole owner of said properties to be managed by her appointed attorney-in-fact.

Roberto filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition had no cause of action since their marriage was void ab initio. The trial court denied the motion, stating that while the second marriage was indeed void, a judicial declaration of its nullity was still necessary. The trial court further ruled that the determination of Roberto's possession of properties could only be made after trial. Roberto filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. He then filed a special civil action of certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals held that the cases cited by Roberto were not relevant as they dealt with successional rights while the present case involved the separation and distribution of properties. It held that the declaration of nullity of marriage may be invoked in the same proceeding to avoid duplication and multiplicity of suits.

In the second set of facts, it is stated that the petitioner and the private respondent got married while the petitioner's previous marriage with another person was still in effect, making their marriage bigamous and void from the beginning. The petitioner does not contest the nullity of their marriage. The private respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage and for the separation of their properties. The petitioner argues that the petition should be dismissed because a judicial declaration of nullity is only necessary for purposes of remarriage. On the other hand, the private respondent contends that a judicial declaration of nullity is necessary in order to determine the separation and distribution of their properties acquired during their marriage. The petitioner relies on previous cases that held that no judicial decree is required to establish the invalidity of a void, bigamous marriage, while the private respondent cites subsequent cases that require a judicial declaration of nullity. The Family Code of the Philippines settled the conflicting jurisprudence by explicitly requiring a declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage either as a cause of action or a ground for defense.

Lastly, in the third set of facts, it is mentioned that the case involves a proposed modification to the provision of the Family Code, specifically Article 48. Justice Caguioa suggests that the provision should include not only void but also voidable marriages. Justice Reyes proposes adding that the validity or invalidity of a marriage may be invoked, while Justice Puno suggests saying the invalidity of a marriage may be invoked.

ISSUES:

  1. Can a party to a marriage declare the nullity of their marriage without obtaining a final judgment from the court?

  2. What is the basis for a subsequent marriage to be free from legal infirmity?

  3. Whether a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a prior marriage is necessary for purposes other than remarriage.

  4. Whether evidence other than a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void is acceptable for proving the absolute nullity of a previous marriage for purposes other than remarriage.

  5. Whether the failure to state in the petition that it is filed to enable the petitioner to remarry will result in the dismissal of the case.

  6. Whether the declaration for absolute nullity of marriage is necessary.

  7. Whether an ordinary civil action for the recovery of properties is the proper remedy if the marriage is declared null and void.

RULING:

  1. No, a party to a marriage cannot declare the nullity of their marriage without obtaining a final judgment from the court. The absolute nullity of a marriage may only be invoked on the basis of a final judgment declaring the marriage void, except as provided in Article 41.

  2. The sole basis for a subsequent marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.

  3. A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a prior marriage is necessary for purposes other than remarriage. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked not only for purposes of remarriage but also in cases such as liquidation, partition, distribution and separation of property between the spouses, as well as an action for the custody and support of their common children and the delivery of the latters' presumptive legitimes.

  4. Evidence other than a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void is acceptable for proving the absolute nullity of a previous marriage for purposes other than remarriage. In cases where a party seeks to enter into a legally unassailable marriage and prove that the previous one was an absolute nullity, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity. This evidence need not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring the previous marriage void.

  5. The failure to state in the petition that it is filed to enable the petitioner to remarry will not result in the dismissal of the case. The restrictive interpretation of Article 40 of the Family Code, which places emphasis on the term "solely," was not intended by the members of the Committee. The term "solely" actually refers to the final judgment and not to the purposes of remarriage.

  6. The declaration for absolute nullity of marriage is necessary. When a marriage is declared void ab initio, the law provides that the final judgment shall provide for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties of the spouses.

  7. An ordinary civil action for the recovery of properties is not the proper remedy if the marriage is declared null and void. The Family Code clearly provides the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations governing them. The lower court has jurisdiction to decide the incidental questions regarding the couple's properties.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Parties to a marriage must secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.

  • The requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is for the protection of the spouse who believes that the marriage is still valid.

  • The absolute nullity of a prior marriage may be invoked not only for purposes of remarriage but also for other purposes such as liquidation, partition, distribution and separation of property between the spouses, as well as an action for the custody and support of their common children and the delivery of the latters' presumptive legitimes.

  • Evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, can be used to prove the grounds rendering a previous marriage an absolute nullity for purposes other than remarriage, and is not limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring the previous marriage void.

  • The failure to state in the petition that it is filed to enable the petitioner to remarry will not result in the dismissal of the case under Article 40 of the Family Code.

  • The declaration for absolute nullity of marriage is necessary, and the final judgment should provide for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties of the spouses.

  • An ordinary civil action for the recovery of properties is not the proper remedy if the marriage is declared null and void, as the Family Code provides for the effects of the declaration of nullity, including the separation of property according to the regime of property relations.