not valid because they were forced to enter the union and Maxion was married to

Not valid because they were forced to enter the union

This preview shows page 24 - 25 out of 51 pages.

not valid because they were forced to enter the union and Maxion was married to someone else at that time. ISSUE: WON Lilia’s first marriage is void? HELD: No. It’s voidable. Petition dismissed. RATIO: There is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriage will not be void but merely viodable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married respondent she was still validly married to her first husband, consequently, her marriage to respondent is VOID (Art. 80, Civil Code). There is likewise no need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage of her first husband at the time they married each other, for then such a marriage though void still needs according to this Court a judicial declaration of such fact and for all legal intents and purposes she would still be regarded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel; accordingly, the marriage of petitioner and respondent would be regarded VOID under the law. Lolita D. Enrico v. Heirs of Eulogio B. Medinaceli - September 28, 2007 Facts: Petitioner, Lolita D. Enrico, is the second wife of Eulogio Medinacili. They were married on August 24, 2004. This marriage was celebrated 4 months after Eulogio’s first wife died on May 2004. On February, 2005, or six months after his second marriage, Eulogio died. The respondents are Eulogio’s heirs and seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage of Petitioner Lolita and Eulogio on the ground that the marriage was celebrated without a valid marriage license. And that 5-year cohabitation exception could not apply since Eulogio was a bachelor for only 4 months. Petitioner answered the complaint and alleged that they have been living as husband and wife for 21 years as in fact they had 2 children. Further, petitioner contended that it is only the contracting parties while living can file an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage. RTC dismissed the complaint but on reconsideration reinstated the case. Petitioner Enrico directly filed for Rule 65 in the SC. Issue: Do the heirs have standing to file the action for the declaration of nullity? NO. Ruling: SC grants the petition and dismisses the petition for declaration of nullity filed by the heirs. First, Void marriages solemnized under the Family Code are governed by the A.M. 02-11-10 of the SC, that is, marriages entered into on and after August 3, 1988. The A.M. of the SC provides that “a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.” It is clear. Thus, the heirs have no standing. Case Dismissed!
Image of page 24
Image of page 25

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 51 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, DEAN DEL CASTILLO

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture