CATALAN v. CA1. Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando on

June 4, 1950. Thereafter, they migrated to the United States of America and allegedly became naturalized citizens thereof. After 38 years of marriage, Felicitas and Orlando divorced in April 1988.

2. Two months after the divorce, Orlando married respondent Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan.

3. Contending that said marriage was bigamous since Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with damages against Orlando and Merope.

4. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a real party-in-interest, but it was denied. Trial on the merits ensued.

5. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner.a. Subsequent marriage of Merope and Orlando is declared

null and void ab initio.b. Defendants are to pay damages and other feesc. The donation in consideration of marriage is ordered

revoked and the property donated is awarded to the heirs of Juliana Braganza.

6. Respondent appealed the decision to the CA. CA reversed the decision of RTC.

ISSUE/HELD:WON the petitioner has the personality to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the respondents on the ground of bigamy. IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. Case remanded to the trial Court.

This issue may not be resolved without first determining the corollary issue of whether the petitioner and respondent had indeed become naturalized citizens and whether they had actually been judicially granted a divorce decree.

o Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner and respondent Orlando were naturalized American citizens and that they obtained a divorce decree in April 1988. However, after a careful review of the records, we note that other than the allegations in the complaint and the testimony during the trial, the records are bereft of competent evidence to prove their naturalization and divorce.

We are not therefore dealing in this case with Filipino citizens whose marital status is governed by the Family Code and our Civil Code, but with American citizens who secured their divorce in the U.S. and who are considered by their national law to be free to contract another marriage.

A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, before it can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it, which must be proved considering that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.

Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part of the evidence, we cannot rule on the issue of whether petitioner has the personality to file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. After all, she may have the personality to file the petition if the divorce decree obtained was a limited divorce or a or a mensa et thoro the foreign law may restrict remarriage even after the divorce decree becomes absolute.In such case, the RTC would be correct to declare the marriage of the respondents void for being bigamous,

Petitioner’s personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained because of the absence of the divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it. Hence, a remand of the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence is necessary to determine whether respondent Orlando was granted a divorce decree and whether the foreign law which granted the same allows or restricts remarriage.

If it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow respondent Orlando’s remarriage, then the trial court should declare respondents’ marriage as bigamous and void ab initio but reduce the amount of moral damages fromP300,000.00 to P50,000.00 and exemplary damages from P200,000.00 to P25,000.00. On the contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same.

ENRICO v. HEIRS OF EULOGIO MEDINACELI

1. Respondents, heirs of Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli (Eulogio) and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli (Trinidad) filed with the RTC, an action for declaration of nullity of marriage of Eulogio and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico.

2. Substantially, the complaint alleged, inter alia, that Eulogio and Trinidad were married on 14 June 1962 and they had 7 children. On 1 May 2004, Trinidad died.

3. On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married petitioner before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan. Six months later, or on 10 February 2005, Eulogio passed away.

4. In impugning petitioner’s marriage to Eulogio, respondents averred the following:

a. That the same was entered into without the requisite marriage license. They argued that Article 348 of the Family Code is not applicable.

b. Lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogio’s serious illness which made its performance impossible.

5. In her answer, petitioner maintained:a. That she and Eulogio lived together as husband and wife

under one roof for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they were exempted from the requirement of a marriage license.

b. From their union were born Elvin Enrico and Marco Enrico, all surnamed Medinaceli, on 28 October 1988 and 30 October 1991, respectively.

c. She further contended that the marriage ceremony was performed in the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and solemnized by the Municipal Mayor.

d. She sought the dismissal of the action on the ground that it is only the contracting parties while living who can file an action for declaration of nullity of marriage.

6. RTC granted the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of cause of action invoking section 2 (a) of AM 02-11-10-SC which provides that “a petition for declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The heirs of the deceased spouse cannot substitute their late father in bringing the action to declare the marriage null and void.

7. Respondents filed an MR and the RTC reversed its prior Order. They said that the assailed Order ignored the ruling in Niñal v. Bayadog.

a. The heirs of a deceased spouse have the standing to assail a void marriage even after the death of the latter.

8. RTC believes that sec. 2(a) of the Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage is applicable only when both parties to a void marriage is still living. Upon the death of the anyone of the guilty party to the void marriage, his heirs may file a petition to declare the marriage void.

ISSUE/HELD: WON The heirs o Eulogio anf Trinidad can invoke the nullity of the marriage of their deceased father. No.

The ruling in Niñal case cannot be applied because the impugned marriage therein was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The Court in Niñal recognized that the applicable law to determine the validity of the two marriages involved therein was civil code, which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration.

On the other hand, Petitioner’s marriage with Eulogio was celebrated in 2004.

The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in the said Administrative Matter is explicit in scope.

o The Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.

o There is no need to reconcile the ruling in Niñal and the provisions of AM No 02-11-10-SC because they vary in scope and application. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August 2004, and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

o The Court must resort to Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which provides: Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. (a) Who may file. – A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife

There is no ambiguity in the Rule. When the law is clear, no explanation of it is required.

Carlos v. Sandoval

1. Petitioner Juan de Dios Carlos and Teofilo Carlos are brothers. During the lifetime of their father, their father agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo. The agreement was made in order to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes.

2. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to deliver and turn over the share of the other legal heir, petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. Teofilo is married to Felicidad and had a son Teofilo Carlos II.

3. When Teofilo died, his brother the petitioner commenced an action, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-135, against respondents Felicidad and Teofilo Carlos II with the following causes of action: (a) declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) sum of money and damages.

4. Petitioner avers that the marriage between his brother Teofilo and Felicidad is null and void in view of the absence of a marriage license and that their son, Teofilo Carlos II is neither a natural nor an adopted son of the couple.

ISSUE/HELD: WON Juan De Dios Carlos (petitioner) has the personality to invoke the nullity of the marriage of his late brother to Felicidad Sandoval (respondent). CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. The case is REMANDED to the Trial Court.

Ratio:

(FC) A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (March 15, 2003); and (2) Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code.

Section 2(a) of the Rule makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.However, the rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003, although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. Such rule became effective on March 15 2003 and is of prospective application.

Applicable law is the law in effect at the time of the celebration of marriage. The marriage of Teofilo and Felicidad was on May 14, 1962. The New Civil Code is the applicable law.

Under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage. However, the absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

Only a party who can demonstrate "proper interest" can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of action. INTEREST1

MEJO DIFFERENT TOPIC:

The case must be remanded to determine whether or not petitioner is a real-party-in-interest to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage in controversy.

o Under the law on succession, successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent and the compulsory heirs are called to succeed by operation of law.

1 Interest within the meaning of the rule means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere incidental interest.