Case Summary (G.R. No. 233334)
Relevant Chronology
• June 4, 1950 – Felicitas marries Orlando in Mabini, Pangasinan
• Circa 1950s–1988 – Felicitas and Orlando allegedly naturalize as U.S. citizens; they secure a U.S. divorce in April 1988
• June 16, 1988 – Orlando marries Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan
• October 10, 2000 – RTC, Dagupan City (Branch 44) declares the second marriage void ab initio; awards moral damages of ₱300,000, exemplary damages of ₱200,000, attorney’s fees of ₱50,000, and revokes a marriage-consideration donation
• August 6, 2004 – Court of Appeals reverses RTC decision and dismisses the case
• January 27, 2005 – CA denies petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
• February 6, 2007 – Supreme Court issues decision remanding the case
Procedural Posture
Felicitas filed a petition for nullity of the marriage between Orlando and Merope, alleging bigamy. The RTC ruled in her favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that Orlando and Felicitas were American citizens free to remarry under U.S. law, hence no bigamy. The Supreme Court granted review to determine (1) Felicitas’s standing to seek nullity and (2) whether failure to declare the marriage void was reversible error.
Legal Issues
- Whether petitioner has legal personality (“proper interest”) to question the validity of the respondents’ marriage.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the marriage void for bigamy.
Court’s Findings on Citizenship and Divorce
The Supreme Court observed that both lower courts assumed, without admissible proof, that (a) Felicitas and Orlando became naturalized U.S. citizens and (b) that they obtained an absolute divorce in April 1988. Beyond allegations and testimony, there was no competent documentary evidence of naturalization or the nature and validity of the divorce decree under U.S. law.
Standards for Proof of Foreign Divorce
• A foreign divorce decree is recognized only if it is valid under the national law of the foreigner and proven in our courts.
• Our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign law; it must be pleaded and proved.
• The party who alleges a fact bears the burden of proof; mere allegation is not evidence.
Personality to Sue for Nullity
• Under Philippine civil procedure and policy, only a party with a direct and substantial interest may file for nullity of marriage on grounds of absolute nullity (bigamy).
• If an absolute divorce abroad terminated the marital bond and allowed remarriage, neither former spouse retains an interest in the subsequent marriage’s validity.
• If the foreign decree was a limited divorce (mensa et thoro) or prohibited remarriage, the prior marital bond subsists, making the subsequent marriage bigamous and giving Felicitas proper interest to sue.
• Because the nature and validity of the divorce under U.S. law were not est
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 233334)
Facts of the Case
- Felicitas Amor-Catalan married Orlando B. Catalan on June 4, 1950 in Mabini, Pangasinan.
- The spouses migrated to the United States and allegedly became naturalized American citizens.
- After 38 years of marriage, they obtained a divorce in April 1988 (as alleged by petitioner).
- On June 16, 1988—two months after the divorce—Orlando married Merope E. Braganza in Calasiao, Pangasinan.
- Merope had a prior subsisting marriage to Eusebio Bristol, evidenced by a Philippine marriage certificate dated December 21, 1959.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a civil action for declaration of nullity of marriage with damages in RTC Dagupan City, Branch 44, on grounds of bigamy.
- Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of real party-in-interest; the RTC denied the motion and proceeded to trial.
- On October 10, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the second marriage void ab initio and awarded P300,000 moral damages, P200,000 exemplary damages, P50,000 attorney’s fees, and revocation of a marriage‐consideration donation.
- Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 69875).
- On August 6, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC decision, dismissing the case with no costs.
- The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 27, 2005.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioner has the requisite standing (legal personality) to question the nullity of the respondents’ marriage on the ground of bigamy.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred reversibly in failing to declare the questioned marriage void.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Petitioner asserts that Orlando’s bigamous marriage caused her and her children embarrassment and humiliatio