Case Summary (G.R. No. 160172)
Factual Background
The parties met in 1991 and became sweethearts. They applied for a marriage license with the Office of the Civil Registrar of Pasig City in September 1994 but the license had expired on their return. They executed an affidavit on 13 March 1995 asserting that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, and were married on the same date with Judge Jose C. Bernabe as solemnizing officer. After the ceremony, the parties did not live together as husband and wife. A child, Reianna Tricia, was born in November 1995. Since the birth, respondent supported the child from her earnings as a government dentist and private practitioner.
Trial Court Proceedings
Respondent filed a complaint for support against petitioner on 4 June 1998 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. The trial court found that the marriage was not valid because it was solemnized without a marriage license. The trial court nonetheless declared petitioner to be the natural father of the child and ordered him to provide support.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and modified in part. It held that a marriage is presumed subsisting until judicially declared null and that the child was born during the subsistence of the marriage. The appellate court criticized petitioner for refusing DNA testing and for failing to state with certainty the last occasion of carnal knowledge. The Court of Appeals also relied on an affidavit dated 7 April 1998 in which petitioner admitted paternity. The appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in declaring the marriage null in the same action for support because no participation of the prosecuting attorney occurred as contemplated by the Family Code in actions for declaration of nullity. The Court of Appeals therefore declared the child legitimate and held the marriage valid until properly annulled by a competent court.
Petition to the Supreme Court and Parties' Contentions
Petitioner argued that the trial court properly annulled the marriage because the affidavit used in lieu of a license was false and no cohabitation for five years had occurred; petitioner contended that the false affidavit could not substitute for a marriage license and that the marriage was therefore void ab initio. He further argued that a void marriage may be collaterally attacked and that no separate annulment proceeding was necessary. Petitioner denied paternity and asserted that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the child legitimate. Respondent characterized the petition as dilatory and maintained that the marriage’s validity could not be attacked collaterally in this support action; she emphasized petitioner’s evasive testimony and his refusal to undergo DNA testing. The Office of the Solicitor General supported the trial court’s finding that the marriage was solemnized without a license and that the affidavit was false, and agreed that the child was illegitimate and entitled to support.
Issues Presented
Two issues were framed: whether the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage in an action for support; and whether the child is the daughter of petitioner and therefore entitled to support.
Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage in the action for support because a void marriage may be collaterally attacked when resolution of the marriage’s validity is essential to the determination of the case. The Court relied on the doctrine in Ninal v. Bayadog and Carino v. Carino that a court may pass upon the validity of a marriage in a suit not directly instituted to question it when necessary to decide the main controversy. Applying the Family Code, the Court found that the parties did not possess a marriage license and that the affidavit purporting to establish the five-year cohabitation exemption was false. The Court concluded that the false affidavit could not substitute for the statutory requirement and that the marriage was therefore void ab initio. The Court further found that the child is petitioner’s illegitimate daughter. The Court relied on the child’s civil registration listing petitioner as father, petitioner’s affidavit admitting paternity in a tax-exemption document, and the trial court’s credibility findings supported by documentary exhibits such as photographs. The Court therefore set aside the Court of Appeals decision and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated 16 October 2000.
Legal Reasoning
The Court explained that the exemption from the marri
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 160172)
Parties and Posture
- REINEL ANTHONY B. DE CASTRO was the petitioner who contested the trial court's rulings and sought review from the Court of Appeals and thereafter from the Supreme Court.
- ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO was the respondent who filed a complaint for support against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.
- Reianna Tricia A. De Castro was the child at issue whose filiational status and entitlement to support were contested in the proceedings.
- The case reached the Supreme Court by petition for review from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 69166 which had declared the child legitimate and the parties' marriage valid until annulled.
Key Facts
- The parties met in 1991 and applied for a marriage license in September 1994 but the license had expired on their return to the civil registrar.
- On 13 March 1995 the parties executed an affidavit asserting they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were married on the same date before Judge Jose C. Bernabe.
- The parties did not live together as husband and wife after the ceremony and the respondent gave birth to a child in November 1995.
- Respondent alone supported the child from her income as a government dentist and from private practice.
- Petitioner denied the validity of the marriage, alleged the affidavit was false, denied paternity, and refused DNA testing during the proceedings.
Procedural History
- Respondent filed a complaint for support on 4 June 1998 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, which proceeded as JDRC No. 4626 and was later raffled to Branch 70.
- The trial court, in a Decision dated 16 October 2000, declared the marriage not valid for lack of a marriage license but found petitioner to be the natural father and ordered support.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision with modifications by declaring the child legitimate and declaring the marriage valid until properly annulled, and assessed costs against petitioner.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals which was denied, and thereafter filed the present petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage in an action for support.
- Whether Reianna Tricia A. De Castro was the daughter of petitioner and thus entitled to support.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Petitioner argued that the marriage was void ab initio due to solemnization without a marriage license and because the affidavit substituting for a license falsely stated five years of cohabitation.
- Petitioner maintained that the false affidavit could not substitute for the marriage license and that the trial court properly declared the marriage invalid.
- Petitioner contended that the invalidity of the marriage could be raised as an affirmative defense and collaterally attacked in the support action to avoid a separate suit for annulment.
- Petitioner denied paternity and filiation and protested the Court of Appeals' declaration of legitimacy.
Respondent’s and OSG Contentions
- ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO contended that the petition was dilatory and reiterated that the legitimacy of the marriage could not be attacked collaterally in a support action.
- Respondent emphasized petitioner’s evasive testimony about sexual encounters and his refusal to undergo DNA testing.
- The Office of the Solicito