Case Digest (G.R. No. 173614)
Facts:
Lolita D. Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli, G.R. No. 173614, September 28, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lolita D. Enrico was married to Eulogio B. Medinaceli on 26 August 2004; Eulogio had earlier been married to Trinidad Catli‑Medinaceli (married 14 June 1962), who died on 1 May 2004. Eulogio died on 10 February 2005. On 17 March 2005 the respondents, the seven children and heirs of Eulogio and Trinidad (represented by Vilma M. Articulo), filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, Civil Case No. II‑4057, a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the marriage between petitioner and Eulogio, alleging lack of marriage license and absence of the five‑year cohabitation required by Article 34 of the Family Code, and contending also that the marriage ceremony could not be validly performed because of Eulogio’s serious illness.
Petitioner answered asserting that she and Eulogio had lived together as husband and wife for 21 years and had two children (Elvin and Marco), that the marriage was solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Lal‑lo, Cagayan, and, as an affirmative defense, argued that only the contracting parties while living may file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. On 11 October 2005, the RTC (Judge Virgilio M. Alameda) granted petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Complaint for lack of cause of action, relying on A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC (the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), Section 2(a), which states that such petition "may be filed solely by the husband or the wife."
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On 3 May 2006 the RTC (Judge Rolando R. Velasco) reversed its prior dismissal and reinstated the Complaint, relying on Ninal v. Bayadog and reasoning that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC applies only where both parties to a void marriage are still living and that the heirs may file after the death of a guilty spouse to protect their vested successional rights. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of that reinstatement was denie...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02‑11‑10‑SC bars the heirs of a deceased spouse from filing a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage when the marriage was celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code.
- Whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the Complaint ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)