Case Summary (G.R. No. 104818)
Petitioner and Respondent
• Petitioner: Roberto Domingo, second husband alleged to have contracted bigamous marriage.
• Respondent/Petitioner in nullity case: Delia Soledad A. Domingo, represented by attorney-in-fact Moises R. Avera.
Key Dates
• Marriage of petitioner and private respondent: November 29, 1976.
• Discovery of prior marriage and bigamy suit: 1983.
• Filing of nullity and separation petition (SP No. 1989-J): May 29, 1991.
• RTC order denying motion to dismiss: August 20, 1991; reconsideration denied September 11, 1991.
• Court of Appeals dismissal of certiorari: February 7, 1992; motion for reconsideration denied March 20, 1992.
• Supreme Court decision: September 17, 1993.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XV, Section 2 (protection of marriage and family).
• Family Code of the Philippines (Commonwealth 1987), particularly Articles 39, 40 (absolute nullity and grounds), 43–44 (effects of nullity), 48, 50, 52 (incidental reliefs).
Facts and Procedural History
Delia Domingo alleged ignorance of Roberto’s prior valid marriage (1969). She worked abroad from 1979 and acquired P350,000 in assets, which petitioner allegedly misappropriated. She sought (a) declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage, and (b) separation and administration of property under attorney-in-fact. Roberto moved to dismiss on the ground that a void marriage needs no judicial decree. The RTC denied the motion, citing Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS for the need of a judicial declaration. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s certiorari for grave abuse of discretion, holding that nullity and property separation are properly joined to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Issues
- Whether a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is necessary for a second marriage void ab initio.
- Whether the special proceeding combining nullity and separation of property is the appropriate remedy.
Judicial Declaration of Void Marriages
Early jurisprudence (People v. Mendoza; People v. Aragon) held no decree needed to establish void bigamous union. Subsequent cases (Gomez v. Lipana; Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS) reversed, requiring judicial declaration to support ancillary reliefs (property partition, legitimes). Tolentino v. Paras briefly reverted to the earlier rule, but Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy reaffirmed the need for declaratory judgment. The enactment of the Family Code settled the conflict by expressly requiring final judgment for invocation of absolute nullity (Art. 39) and for purposes of remarriage (Art. 40).
Interpretation of Article 40, Family Code
Article 40 reads: “The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” The Court construed “solely” as qualifying the basis (final judgment), not the purpose (remarriage). Hence, while only a final judgment suffices to permit a subsequent valid marriage, other purposes—such as liquidation, partition, custody, support, and legitimes—may rely on evidence of nullity without prior decree. A restrictive construction would undermine the public interest in preserving marriage’s integrity and lead to uncertain collateral attacks.
Necessity for Judicial Declaration for Separation of Property
Upon declaration of absolute nullity, the Family Code mandates in Article 50 that the decree include liquidation, partition, and distribution of spouses’ properties, custody and support of children, and delivery of presumptive legitimes. Articles 43–44 specify further penalties (forfeiture of profits, revocation of donations, disqualification from inheritance) where bad faith is shown. Thus, separation of property is an inherent incident of a nullity action; no separate ordinary civil action is required.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The petition for certiorari was denied. The Court held that (1) a judicial declaration of abs
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 104818)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Roberto Domingo married Delia Soledad A. Domingo on November 29, 1976 (Registry No. 1277K-76; License No. 4999036) in Carmona, Cavite.
- Unknown to Delia, Roberto had a valid, subsisting marriage to Emerlina dela Paz dated April 25, 1969.
- Delia learned of the prior marriage only in 1983 when Emerlina sued them for bigamy.
- From January 23, 1979, Delia worked in Saudi Arabia, returning annually for one-month vacation.
- Since 1983, Roberto was unemployed and dependent on Delia’s earnings.
- Delia used her earnings to acquire real and personal properties worth approximately ₱350,000, managed by Roberto.
- In June 1989, Delia discovered Roberto cohabiting with another woman and disposing of her properties without consent.
- Delia appointed her brother, Moises R. Avera, as attorney-in-fact to recover and administer her properties.
- Roberto refused to turn over the properties, claiming authority by virtue of marriage.
Petition and Prayer
- Delia filed Special Proceedings No. 1989-J for:
• Declaration of nullity of her marriage to Roberto;
• Separation (liquidation, partition, distribution) of their properties;
• Issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction to prevent Roberto’s administration of said properties;
• Declaration that Delia is sole and exclusive owner of the properties under her attorney-in-fact.
Procedural History
- Roberto moved to dismiss for “no cause of action” because the marriage was void ab initio and thus needed no judicial nullity decree.
- On August 20, 1991, RTC Pasig (Judge Austria) denied the motion, citing Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS: judicial declaration of a void marriage is required.
- A motion for reconsideration was denied on September 11, 1991; Roberto was ordered to answer.
- Instead, Roberto filed CA No. GR SP 05183 (certiorari and mandamus) challenging the RTC’s jurisdiction/grave abuse.
- On February 7, 1992, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that nullity and separation of property may be joined in one proceeding under Family Code Articles 48, 50, 52.
- The CA denied reconsideration on March 20, 1992.
- Roberto elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 104818).
Issues Presented
- Whether judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary at all.
- If so, whether such decree is required only for purposes of remarriage.
- Whether Special Proceedings No. 1989-J is the proper remedy for Delia to recover and separate the properties acquired during the void marria