Case Digest (G.R. No. 189607)
Facts:
Renato A. Castillo v. Lea P. De Leon Castillo, G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Renato A. Castillo sued to have his marriage to respondent Lea P. De Leon Castillo declared null alleging bigamy and psychological incapacity. Lea had earlier married Benjamin Bautista on May 25, 1972; she then married Renato on January 6, 1979. Renato filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City on May 28, 2001, alleging that Lea’s prior marriage to Bautista was still subsisting when she married him and also invoking psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code (the CA later noted petitioner did not pursue the psychological incapacity ground in the RTC).
Lea opposed and, on January 3, 2002, filed an action in the RTC of Parañaque (Branch 260) to declare her first marriage to Bautista void for lack of license and irregularity of the solemnizing officer. On January 22, 2003, that RTC rendered judgment declaring Lea’s marriage to Bautista void ab initio, and later issued a certificate of finality.
In the Quezon City RTC nullity case, Lea filed a demurrer to evidence on August 12, 2004; the RTC denied the demurrer on March 8, 2005. On March 23, 2007, the Quezon City RTC declared the marriage between Renato and Lea null and void ab initio for bigamy under Article 41 of the Civil Code, reasoning that Lea’s prior marriage was subsisting when she married Renato and that, absent a prior judicial declaration, the earlier marriage must be presumed valid.
Both spouses appealed. On April 20, 2009, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 90153 reversed the RTC, holding that the Civil Code governed marriages solemnized in 1972 and 1979 (before the Family Code’s effectivity on August 3, 1988) and that under prevailing Civil Code jurisprudence a void marriage is nonexistent ab initio and need not be first judicially declared vo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in holding that respondent was not prevented from contracting a second marriage because her first marriage was void ab initio and that she did not have to await a judicial decree of nullity before contracting the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)