Case Summary (G.R. No. 106654)
Procedural History
• Respondent obtained a Philippine judicial declaration nullifying his first marriage on November 25, 2003.
• In January 2006 he filed before the RTC, Bacoor, Cavite, a petition to declare his marriage to Mercado void for bigamy under Family Code Article 35(4).
• Mercado counterclaimed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in a related property‐separation suit.
• The RTC in November 2009 declared the marriage null and awarded Mercado moral damages (₱250,000), exemplary damages (₱100,000), and attorney’s fees (₱150,000).
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals in February 2013 affirmed nullity but deleted all damage awards.
• Mercado filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court.
Key Dates
• February 5, 1972: Ongpin–Mantaring marriage in Quezon City
• April 21, 1989: Ongpin–Mercado marriage in New Jersey
• November 25, 2003: Nullity of first marriage declared in the Philippines
• January 8, 2006: Petition to annul Ongpin–Mercado marriage filed
• November 12, 2009: RTC decision granting damages
• February 21, 2013: CA decision deleting damages
• September 30, 2020: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post‐1990 decision)
• Family Code Art. 26 (capacity to marry), Art. 35(4) (bigamous marriages)
• Civil Code Art. 19 (good faith), Art. 20, Art. 21 (liability for wrongful acts), Art. 2219 (moral damages)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court (certiorari review)
Factual Background
Respondent Ongpin married Mantaring in 1972. Mantaring secured a Nevada divorce, believing she had become a U.S. citizen; Ongpin then married Mercado in 1989. They separated in March 2000. In 2003 Ongpin learned that Mantaring had retained Filipino citizenship when the divorce was granted, prompting him to seek a Philippine declaration of nullity of his first marriage. Mercado alleged that Ongpin’s subsequent petition to void their marriage was a tactic to defeat her property‐separation claim and sought damages for emotional harm and litigation expenses.
Regional Trial Court Ruling
The RTC found Ongpin’s second marriage void for bigamy under Family Code Art. 35(4) and concluded he acted in bad faith by contracting a second marriage despite a subsisting first marriage. It awarded Mercado moral damages under Civil Code Arts. 19, 20, 21 and 2219, exemplary damages for wanton conduct, and attorney’s fees.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA held Ongpin believed in good faith that the Nevada divorce was valid, as he thought Mantaring was already a U.S. citizen. It found no deliberate or fraudulent intent and rejected the notion that the annulment petition was filed solely to evade the property‐separation suit. Accordingly, it deleted the awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Issues on Review
- Whether bad faith can be reviewed under Rule 45.
- Whether Mercado is entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Standard on Review of Factual Findings
Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court generally does not review factual findings unless findings of the RTC and CA conflict on matters crucial to the legal issues, as is the case with the determination of bad faith here.
Requirement of Bad Faith Under Civil Code Article 19
Article 19 imposes an obligation to act with justice, honesty, and good faith. Bad faith connotes a conscious, dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, or ill will. It must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, since good faith is presumed.
Analysis on Bad Faith and Moral Damages
The SC recognized conflicting conclusions: the RTC found bad faith; the CA found respondent believed in good faith that the first divorce was valid. Reviewing the record, the Court agreed with the CA that Mercado failed to prove Ongpin knew the first marriage still subsisted at the time of the second marriage. Mercado herself knew as early as 1992 of possible irregularities in the first divorce but took no
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 106654)
Facts
- On February 5, 1972, respondent Rene V. Ongpin married Alma D. Mantaring in Quezon City.
- Mantaring later obtained a divorce decree from the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, USA, while still a Filipino citizen.
- Believing himself validly divorced, Ongpin married petitioner Mary Elizabeth Mercado in Princeton, New Jersey on April 21, 1989.
- The spouses separated on March 16, 2000.
- Ongpin secured a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage on November 25, 2003.
- Mercado, a United States citizen at the time of her marriage, initiated civil proceedings for separation of property in 2002, alleging Ongpin’s concealment or disposal of marital assets.
Procedural History
- January 8, 2006: Ongpin filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to Mercado before the RTC of Bacoor, Cavite, invoking Article 35(4) as bigamous.
- Mercado opposed, arguing the second marriage was valid under Article 26 (her foreign citizenship), and counterclaimed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
- November 12, 2009: The RTC declared the marriage null and void, awarding Mercado ₱250,000.00 as moral damages, ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱150,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
- February 21, 2013: The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision by deleting all awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
- May 22, 2013: The Court of Appeals denied Mercado’s motion for reconsideration.
- June 17, 2013: Mercado filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s Decision and Resolution.
- The Supreme Court admitted the petition, required commentary from Ongpin, and heard memoranda from both parties.
Issues
- Whether questions of fact—specifically the existence of bad faith—are reviewable in a Rule 45 petition.
- Whether petitioner Mercado is entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees under Articles 19, 20, 21, and 2219 of the Civil Code.
Factual Findings and Conflict
- The RTC found tha