A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC - Re: Republic vs. Sereno

Case Summary (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC)

Factual Background

Lea P. De Leon Castillo contracted a marriage with Benjamin Bautista on May 25, 1972, and later contracted a second marriage with Renato A. Castillo on January 6, 1979. Renato filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on May 28, 2001, alleging that the 1979 marriage was void because Lea had a subsisting marriage to Bautista and additionally alleging psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Lea alleged that her first marriage to Bautista was void ab initio for lack of a marriage license and because the solemnizing officer was not authorized and not a member of the parties' denomination.

Parallel Proceedings Concerning the First Marriage

Lea filed a separate action on January 3, 2002, to declare her marriage to Bautista void. The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 260, rendered a Decision on January 22, 2003, declaring that first marriage null and void ab initio and later issued a Certificate of Finality confirming that decision had become final and executory.

Trial Court Proceedings on the Petition for Nullity

The RTC of Quezon City denied Lea’s Demurrer to Evidence on August 12, 2004 and March 8, 2005 respectively, after which it tried the case on the ground of bigamy under Article 41 of the Family Code as framed by petitioner’s allegations. In its Decision dated March 23, 2007, the RTC declared the marriage of Renato and Lea contracted on January 6, 1979 null and void ab initio on the ground of bigamous marriage. The RTC reasoned that because Lea’s marriage to Bautista was subsisting when she married Renato, the second marriage was bigamous and void; the RTC rejected the contention that the nullity of the prior marriage could be presumed without a judicial decree and emphasized that until judicially declared otherwise, a prior marriage must be treated as valid.

Appellate Proceedings and Court of Appeals Ruling

Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated April 20, 2009, reversed the RTC and upheld the validity of the marriage between Renato and Lea. The CA held that because both marriages were celebrated in 1972 and 1979 — prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 — the Civil Code governed their validity. The CA applied the established Civil Code doctrine that certain marriages are void ab initio and that a judicial declaration is not required to establish the invalidity of a marriage classified as void under the Civil Code; accordingly, the first marriage’s invalidity for lack of a license rendered the subsequent marriage valid from its performance. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its September 16, 2009 Resolution.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole issue the Supreme Court resolved was whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that a prior marriage which is void under the Civil Code need not be judicially annulled before the contracting of a subsequent marriage, and thus whether the CA correctly reversed the RTC’s declaration that the second marriage was null and void for bigamy.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner contended that regardless of any subsequent judicial declaration, at the time Lea married him in 1979 her first marriage to Bautista was valid and subsisting, thereby rendering the 1979 marriage bigamous and void. Respondent argued that her first marriage was void ab initio for lack of license and that no judicial declaration was necessary to establish its invalidity under the Civil Code; she sought affirmation of the CA’s decision that the 1979 marriage was valid and the properties acquired during the marriage be declared conjugal.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dated April 20, 2009 and the CA Resolution dated September 16, 2009. The Court held that the validity of a marriage and its incidents must be determined by the law in effect at the time of its celebration. Because both marriages and the birth of the parties’ children occurred while the Civil Code governed, the Civil Code’s provisions on void and voidable marriages controlled the resolution.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the Civil Code distinctions between void and voidable marriages: a void marriage is nonexistent from the beginning and requires no judicial decree to establish its invalidity; a voidable marriage remains valid until annulled and requires a judicial decree. The Court relied on jurisprudence under the Civil Code — notably People v. Mendoza, People v. Aragon, and Odayat v. Amante — which held that the Civil Code contained no express requirement for a judicial declaration to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. The Court recognized that the subsequent enactment of the Family Code altered that rule for marriages celebrated after its effectivity by expressly requiring a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void for purposes of remarriage (Article 40). The Court explained that the Family Code’s requirement serves public policy to protect the sacrosanct character of marriage as recognized by the Constitution and to ensure an official, verifiable state pronouncement of nullity when remarriage is asserted. However, the Court emphasized the settled exception in cases where marriages and births occurred before the Family Code’s effectivity: in those situations the pre-existing Civil Code rule continues to apply, as held in Apiag v. Cantero and Ty v. Court of Appeals. The Court applied that line of cases to the present facts: because the second marriage occurred in 1979 and the children were born while the Civil Code remained in force, no judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was necessary to render the first marriage void ab initio and to validate the second marriage.

Application to the Present Case

Applying the foregoing principles, the Court concluded that Lea’s first marriage to Bautista was void for lack of a marriage license under Article 80 of the Civil Code, and consequently her subseq

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner Renato A. Castillo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 90153.
Respondent Lea P. De Leon Castillo opposed the petition and sought affirmation of the Court of Appeals' ruling upholding the validity of the parties' marriage.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court, which had earlier declared the parties' marriage null and void ab initio on the ground of bigamy under Article 41 of the Family Code.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 April 2009 and Resolution dated 16 September 2009.

Key Factual Allegations

Respondent married Benjamin Bautista on 25 May 1972.
Respondent married Petitioner on 6 January 1979.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on 28 May 2001 alleging that Respondent's prior marriage to Bautista subsisted and alleging psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Respondent separately filed an action on 3 January 2002 to declare her 1972 marriage to Bautista void for lack of a marriage license and lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.
The Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City rendered a decision on 22 January 2003 declaring the 1972 marriage null and void ab initio, and issued a Certificate of Finality thereafter.

Lower Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 84 denied Respondent's Demurrer to Evidence on 8 March 2005.
The same RTC issued a Decision dated 23 March 2007 declaring the 1979 marriage between Petitioner and Respondent null and void ab initio for bigamy under Article 41 of the Family Code.
The RTC ruled that the subsistence of the 1972 marriage at the time of the 1979 marriage rendered the latter bigamous and void despite any later judicial declaration.
The RTC denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration concerning property distribution on 6 September 2007.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC in its Decision dated 20 April 2009 and held the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent valid.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Civil Code governed marriages celebrated in 1972 and 1979 because those marriages predated the effectivity of the Family Code on 3 August 1988.
The Court of Appeals concluded under the Civil Code that a prior void marriage need not be judicially declared null before a second marriage is contracted.
The Court of Appeals Decision was maintained in its Resolution dated 16 September 2009 denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that Respondent was not required to await a judicial decree of nullity of her first marriage contracted in 1972 before contracting a second marriage in 1979.
Whether the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent contracted in 1979 was void ab initio for bigamy.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner contended th