Ty v. CA
GR# 127406,
NOV. 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 86
Article 40 – Exception to the Rule
FACTS:
In 1977, Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva in a civil
ceremony. They had a church wedding in the same year as well. In
1980, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC declared
their marriage as null and void; the civil one for lack of marriage
license and the subsequent church wedding due to the lack of
consent of the parties. In 1979, prior to the JDRC decision, Reyes
married Ofelia. Then in 1991, Reyes filed for an action for declaration
of nullity of his marriage with Ofelia. He averred that they lack a
marriage license at the time of the celebration and that there was no
judicial declaration yet as to the nullity of his previous marriage with
Anna. Ofelia presented evidence proving the existence of a valid
marriage license including the specific license number designated.
The lower court however ruled that Ofelia’s marriage with Reyes is
null and void. The same was affirmed by the CA applying the
provisions of the Art 40 of the FC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the absolute nullity of the previous of
marriage of Reyes can be invoked in the case at bar.
HELD:
Art. 40 of the FC provides that, “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.” This means that before one can enter into a second marriage
he must first require a judicial declaration of the nullity of the
previous marriage and such declaration may be invoked on the basis
solely of a final judgment declaring the previous marriage as void.
For purposes other than remarriage, other evidences may be
presented and the declaration can be passed upon by the courts. In
the case at bar, the lower court and the CA cannot apply the
provision of the FC. Both marriages entered by Reyes were
solemnized prior to the FC. The old CC did not have any provision
that states that there must be such a declaration before remarriage
can be done hence Ofelia’s marriage with Reyes is valid. The
provisions of the FC (took effect in ’87) cannot be applied
retroactively especially because they would impair the vested rights
of Ofelia under the CC which was operational during her marriage
with Reyes.
Alcantara v. Alcantara
GR# 167746, AUG. 28, 2007
531 SCRA 446
FACTS:
Restituto filed a petition for annulment of marriage against
Rosita alleging that on 8 Dec 1982 he and Rosita, without securing
the required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall for the
purpose of looking for a “fixer” who could arrange a marriage for
them before a certain Rev. Navarro. They got married on the same
day. Restituto and Rosita went through another marriage ceremony
in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The marriage was again
celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license. The
alleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on
the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a resident of
Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a license
with the local civil registrar of the said place. In 1988, they parted
