A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 - Atienza vs. Brillantes, Jr.

Complainant Lupo A. Atienza asserts he has two children with Yolanda De Castro, residing at No. 34 Galaxy Street, Bel-Air Subdivision, Makati, in a house he purchased in 1987 and occupies when in Manila.
Respondent Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr. is the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 20, Manila, and was alleged to be married to Zenaida Ongkiko (with whom he has five children) and later to have cohabited with De Castro.

In December 1991, Atienza discovered the respondent sleeping in his bedroom. The houseboy informed him that the judge had been cohabiting with De Castro. Atienza then left without confronting the respondent but instructed the houseboy to care for his children.
Thereafter, Brillantes allegedly prevented Atienza from visiting his children and alienated their affections. Complainant further claims the judge had him arrested on January 13, 1992 after a heated argument with De Castro inside her office.

Brillantes denies ever causing Atienza’s arrest (attributing it instead to De Castro’s sister), denies cohabitation, and contends the administrative complaint is motivated by the property dispute over the Bel-Air house.
On marital status, respondent admits two marriage ceremonies with Ongkiko (April 25, 1965 in Nueva Ecija; June 5, 1965 in Manila) but asserts both were void for lack of a marriage license. He claims in good faith to have believed himself single when he married De Castro in Los Angeles on December 4, 1991. He invokes Article 40 of the Family Code and its retroactive effect (per Article 256) to argue that a prior-void marriage does not require judicial nullity for purposes of remarriage.

Whether Judge Brillantes committed gross immorality and gave the appearance of impropriety by cohabiting with Yolanda De Castro while still validly married.
Whether respondent’s first marriage to Ongkiko is void for lack of a marriage license, and, if so, whether his December 1991 marriage to De Castro is valid in the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity under Article 40 of the Family Code.
Whether Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judgment declaring nullity of a previous marriage before remarriage, applies retroactively to respondent’s circumstances.
Whether respondent may invoke good faith in contracting the second marriage, given his knowledge of marriage requirements as a lawyer and the absence of any judicial proceeding declaring nullity.