100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 24 - 25 out of 51 pages.
not valid because they were forced to enter the union and Maxion was married tosomeone 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 byforce committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriagewill not be void but merely viodable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid untilannulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she marriedrespondent she was still validly married to her first husband, consequently, hermarriage to respondent is VOID (Art. 80, Civil Code). There is likewise no need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage ofher first husband at the time they married each other, for then such a marriage thoughvoid still needs according to this Court a judicial declaration of such fact and for alllegal intents and purposes she would still be regarded as a married woman at thetime she contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel; accordingly, themarriage of petitioner and respondent would be regarded VOID under the law. Lolita D. Enrico v. Heirs of Eulogio B. Medinaceli - September 28, 2007Facts: Petitioner, Lolita D. Enrico, is the second wife of Eulogio Medinacili. They weremarried on August 24, 2004. This marriage was celebrated 4 months after Eulogio’sfirst 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 themarriage of Petitioner Lolita and Eulogio on the ground that the marriage wascelebrated without a valid marriage license. And that 5-year cohabitation exceptioncould not apply since Eulogio was a bachelor for only 4 months. Petitioner answered the complaint and alleged that they have been living ashusband and wife for 21 years as in fact they had 2 children. Further, petitionercontended that it is only the contracting parties while living can file an action fordeclaration 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 filedby the heirs.First, Void marriages solemnized under the Family Code are governed bythe 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 ofvoid marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.” It is clear. Thus, theheirs have no standing. Case Dismissed!
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 51 pages?
Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, DEAN DEL CASTILLO