Case Digest (G.R. No. L-53703)
Facts:
Lilia Oliva Wiegel v. The Honorable Alicia V. Sempio-Diy (as Presiding Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and Karl Heinz Wiegel, G.R. No. L-53703, August 19, 1986, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.
In Family Case No. 483 before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City, Karl Heinz Wiegel (plaintiff in the family case; respondent here) sought a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lilia Oliva Wiegel (defendant in the family case; petitioner here). The marriage between Karl and Lilia was alleged to have been celebrated in July 1978 at the Holy Catholic Apostolic Christian Church branch in Makati. Karl's nullity action was grounded on Lilia's purported existing prior marriage to Eduardo A. Maxion, solemnized June 25, 1972 at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City.
Lilia admitted the existence of the prior marriage but asserted that that marriage was null and void because she and Eduardo were allegedly forced to enter into it. During pre-trial the parties agreed on the operative factual point that force had been exerted on both spouses in the 1972 marriage. The pre-trial issue narrowed to the legal consequence of that agreed fact: was the first marriage void or merely voidable?
Petitioner then sought leave from the respondent presiding judge to present evidence (1) that the first marriage was vitiated by force on both spouses, and (2) that Eduardo Maxion was already married to someone else when he and Lilia were married in 1972. The respondent judge denied petitioner’s request, ruling that because the existence of force had been agreed upon, the case could be resolved on the basis of the agreed facts and additional evidence on that point need not be admitted.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Co...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion in compelling submission on the parties’ agreed facts and in denying petitioner leave to present evidence?
- Assuming the first marriage was vitiated by force or that the first husband had an existing spouse at the time, was petitioner’s subsequent 1978 marriage to respondent Karl Heinz Wi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)