This case discusses whether a judicial declaration of nullity can be invoked not just for remarriage but also for separating and distributing property from the invalid marriage.
The respondent filed for nullity of her marriage to the petitioner and separation of property, as the petitioner had an existing marriage when they married. The petitioner claimed nullity was unnecessary as the marriage was void from the start.
The court ruled that Article 40 allows a final judgment of nullity to be used for more than just remarriage. It can also be used as the basis for separating property, as the Family Code outlines effects of nullity that include property separation according to the property regime governing the parties. Therefore, the respondent could invoke nullity for both rem
This case discusses whether a judicial declaration of nullity can be invoked not just for remarriage but also for separating and distributing property from the invalid marriage.
The respondent filed for nullity of her marriage to the petitioner and separation of property, as the petitioner had an existing marriage when they married. The petitioner claimed nullity was unnecessary as the marriage was void from the start.
The court ruled that Article 40 allows a final judgment of nullity to be used for more than just remarriage. It can also be used as the basis for separating property, as the Family Code outlines effects of nullity that include property separation according to the property regime governing the parties. Therefore, the respondent could invoke nullity for both rem
This case discusses whether a judicial declaration of nullity can be invoked not just for remarriage but also for separating and distributing property from the invalid marriage.
The respondent filed for nullity of her marriage to the petitioner and separation of property, as the petitioner had an existing marriage when they married. The petitioner claimed nullity was unnecessary as the marriage was void from the start.
The court ruled that Article 40 allows a final judgment of nullity to be used for more than just remarriage. It can also be used as the basis for separating property, as the Family Code outlines effects of nullity that include property separation according to the property regime governing the parties. Therefore, the respondent could invoke nullity for both rem
ROBERTO DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DELIA SOLEDAD AVERA represented by her Attorney-in-Fact MOISES R. AVERA, respondents. TOPIC: Effects of final judgment of decalarung Nullity Art. 40. 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. Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. Art. 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio. A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested person, with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed. (n) Art. 43. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects: (1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered legitimate; (2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse; (3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law; (4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable; and (5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession. ISSUE: WON judicial declaration of the nullity of marriage can be invoked not only for the sole purpose of remarriage, but also in order to provide a basis for the separation and distribution of the properties acquired during coventure. FACTS: On May 29, 1991, private respondent Delia Soledad A. Domingo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig entitled "Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property" against petitioner Roberto Domingo. Petitioner Roberto Domingo and respondent Delia Avera were married on November 29, 1976. Unknown to the respondent, petitioner had a previous marriage with one Emerlina dela Paz on April 25, 1969 which marriage is valid and still existing. She came to know of the prior marriage only sometime in 1983 when Emerlina dela Paz sued them for bigamy Respondent is working in Saudi and one time when she had a vacation leave, she discovered that the petitioner is cohabiting with another woman and is disposing some of her properties w/o her knowledge and consent. Roberto is unemployed and completely dependent upon the respondent for support and subsistence. Out of respondents personal earnings, she purchased real and personal properties with a total amount of approximately P350,000.00, which are under the possession and administration of Roberto Thereafter respondent appointed her brother Moises R. Avera as her attorney-in-fact to take care of her properties but Roberto failed and refused to turn over the possession and administration of said properties to her brother/attorney-in-fact The respondent in her petition prayed that a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining Roberto from exercising any act of administration and ownership over said properties; their marriage be declared null and void and of no force and effect; and Delia Soledad be declared the sole and exclusive owner of all properties acquired at the time of their void marriage and such properties be placed under the proper management and administration of the attorney-in-fact. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petition stated no cause of action. The marriage being void ab initio, the petition for the declaration of its nullity is, therefore, superfluous and unnecessary. It added that private respondent has no property which is in his possession. Petitioner invoked that Article 40 applies only for the sole purpose of remarriage. RTC and CA denied motion to dismiss, hence, this appeal RULING: Yes. Petition dismissed. The court ruled that Article 40 denotes that such final judgment declaring the previous marriage void need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage. Respondent's ultimate prayer for separation of property will simply be one of the necessary consequences of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage. The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations governing them.
Persons and family relation
Civil code
Case digest
NICANOR T. SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CONSUELAO T. SANTOS-GUERRERO and ANDRES GUERRERO
CECILIO MENDOZA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and LUISA DE LA ROSA MENDOZA
JUANITA TRINIDAD RAMOS vs. DANILO PANGILINAN
JOSE MODEQUILLO vs. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA FRANCISCO SALINAS,
ALBINO JOSEF vs. OTELIO SANTOS
SPOUSES AUTHER G. KELLEY, JR. and DORIS A. KELLEY vs. PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. and JORGE A. RAGUTANA
MARY JOSEPHINE GOMEZ and EUGENIA SOCORRO C. GOMEZ-SALCEDO
vs. ROEL, NOEL and JANNETTE BEVERLY STA. INES and HINAHON STA. INES
FLORANTE F. MANACOP vs. COURT OF APPEALS and E & L MERCANTILE, INC.
PABLITO TANEO, JR., JOSE TANEO, NENA T. CATUBIG and HUSBAND, CILIA T. MORING and HUSBAND vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ABDON GILIG
SPOUSES CHARLIE FORTALEZA and OFELIA FORTALEZA vs. SPOUSES RAUL LAPITAN and RONA LAPITAN