100%(7)7 out of 7 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 149 pages.
Ty v. CAGR# 127406, NOV. 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 86Article 40 – Exception to the RuleFACTS:In 1977, Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva in a civilceremony. They had a church wedding in the same year as well. In1980, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC declaredtheir marriage as null and void; the civil one for lack of marriagelicense and the subsequent church wedding due to the lack ofconsent of the parties. In 1979, prior to the JDRC decision, Reyesmarried Ofelia. Then in 1991, Reyes filed for an action for declarationof nullity of his marriage with Ofelia. He averred that they lack amarriage license at the time of the celebration and that there was nojudicial declaration yet as to the nullity of his previous marriage withAnna. Ofelia presented evidence proving the existence of a validmarriage license including the specific license number designated.The lower court however ruled that Ofelia’s marriage with Reyes isnull and void. The same was affirmed by the CA applying theprovisions of the Art 40 of the FC.ISSUE:Whether or not the absolute nullity of the previous ofmarriage of Reyes can be invoked in the case at bar.HELD:Art. 40 of the FC provides that, “The absolute nullity of aprevious marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on thebasis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriagevoid.” This means that before one can enter into a second marriagehe must first require a judicial declaration of the nullity of theprevious marriage and such declaration may be invoked on the basissolely of a final judgment declaring the previous marriage as void.For purposes other than remarriage, other evidences may bepresented and the declaration can be passed upon by the courts. Inthe case at bar, the lower court and the CA cannot apply theprovision of the FC. Both marriages entered by Reyes weresolemnized prior to the FC. The old CC did not have any provisionthat states that there must be such a declaration before remarriagecan be done hence Ofelia’s marriage with Reyes is valid. Theprovisions of the FC (took effect in ’87) cannot be appliedretroactively especially because they would impair the vested rightsof Ofelia under the CC which was operational during her marriagewith Reyes.Alcantara v. AlcantaraGR# 167746, AUG. 28, 2007531 SCRA 446FACTS: Restituto filed a petition for annulment of marriage againstRosita alleging that on 8 Dec 1982 he and Rosita, without securingthe required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall for thepurpose of looking for a “fixer” who could arrange a marriage forthem before a certain Rev. Navarro. They got married on the sameday. Restituto and Rosita went through another marriage ceremonyin Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The marriage was againcelebrated without the parties securing a marriage license. Thealleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing onthe marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a resident ofCarmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a licensewith the local civil registrar of the said place. In 1988, they parted