151459128-Atty-Legaspi-Case-Digest - Ty v CA GR 127406 NOV 27 2000 346 SCRA 86 Article 40 Exception to the Rule of Ofelia under the CC which was

151459128-Atty-Legaspi-Case-Digest - Ty v CA GR 127406 NOV...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 149 pages.

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
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture