Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 104818 September 17, 1993
ROBERTO DOMINGO, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O !PPE!"S #$% DE"I! SO"ED!D !&ER! repre'e$te% b( )er !ttor$e(*+$*#,t MOISES R.
!&ER!,respondents.
Jose P.O. Aliling IV for petitioner.
De Guzman, Meneses & Associates for private respondent.

ROMERO, J.:
The instant petition sees the reversal of respondent court!s rulin" findin" no "rave abuse of discretion in the lo#er
court!s order den$in" petitioner!s %otion to dis%iss the petition for declaration of nullit$ of %arria"e and separation of
propert$.
On Ma$ &', (''(, private respondent Delia Soledad ). Do%in"o filed a petition before the Re"ional Trial *ourt of
Pasi" entitled +Declaration of Nullit$ of Marria"e and Separation of Propert$+ a"ainst petitioner Roberto Do%in"o.
The petition #hich #as doceted as Special Proceedin"s No. (','-. alle"ed a%on" others that/ the$ #ere %arried
on Nove%ber &', ('01 at the 2M*) 2outh *enter 3ld"., as evidenced b$ a Marria"e *ontract Re"istr$ No. (&004-01
#ith Marria"e 5icense No. 6'''781 issued at *ar%ona, *avite9 unno#n to her, he had a previous %arria"e #ith one
:%erlina dela Pa; on )pril &<, ('1' #hich %arria"e is valid and still e=istin"9 she ca%e to no# of the prior %arria"e
onl$ so%eti%e in (',8 #hen :%erlina dela Pa; sued the% for bi"a%$9 fro% .anuar$ &8 ('0' up to the present, she
has been #orin" in Saudi )rabia and she used to co%e to the Philippines onl$ #hen she #ould avail of the one-
%onth annual vacation leave "ranted b$ her forei"n e%plo$er since (',8 up to the present, he has been une%plo$ed
and co%pletel$ dependent upon her for support and subsistence9 out of her personal earnin"s, she purchased real
and personal properties #ith a total a%ount of appro=i%atel$ P8<7,777.77, #hich are under the possession and
ad%inistration of Roberto9 so%eti%e in .une (',', #hile on her one-%onth vacation, she discovered that he #as
cohabitin" #ith another #o%an9 she further discovered that he had been disposin" of so%e of her properties #ithout
her no#led"e or consent9 she confronted hi% about this and thereafter appointed her brother Moises R. )vera as
her attorne$-in-fact to tae care of her properties9 he failed and refused to turn over the possession and
ad%inistration of said properties to her brother>attorne$-in-fact9 and he is not authori;ed to ad%inister and possess
the sa%e on account of the nullit$ of their %arria"e. The petition pra$ed that a te%porar$ restrainin" order or a #rit of
preli%inar$ in?unction be issued en?oinin" Roberto fro% e=ercisin" an$ act of ad%inistration and o#nership over said
properties9 their %arria"e be declared null and void and of no force and effect9 and Delia Soledad be declared the
sole and e=clusive o#ner of all properties ac@uired at the ti%e of their void %arria"e and such properties be placed
under the proper %ana"e%ent and ad%inistration of the attorne$-in-fact.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dis%iss on the "round that the petition stated no cause of action. The %arria"e bein"
void a initio, the petition for the declaration of its nullit$ is, therefore, superfluous and unnecessar$. It added that
private respondent has no propert$ #hich is in his possession.
On )u"ust &7, (''(, .ud"e Maria )licia M. )ustria issued an Order den$in" the %otion to dis%iss for lac of %erit.
She e=plained/
Movant ar"ues that a second %arria"e contracted after a first %arria"e b$ a %an #ith another
#o%an is ille"al and void Acitin" the case of 2ap v. *ourt of )ppeals, (6< S*R) &&'B and no
?udicial decree is necessar$ to establish the invalidit$ of a void %arria"e Acitin" the cases of People
v. )ra"on, (77 Phil. (7889 People v. Mendo;a, '< Phil. ,6<B. Indeed, under the 2ap case there is
no dispute that the second %arria"e contracted b$ respondent #ith herein petitioner after a first
%arria"e #ith another #o%an is ille"al and void. Ho#ever, as to #hether or not the second
%arria"e should first be ?udiciall$ declared a nullit$ is not an issue in said case. In the case
of Vda. de !onsuegra v. G"I", the Supre%e *ourt ruled in e=plicit ter%s, thus/
)nd #ith respect to the ri"ht of the second #ife, this *ourt observed that
althou"h the second %arria"e can be presu%ed to be void a initio as it #as
celebrated #hile the first %arria"e #as still subsistin", still there is need for
?udicial declaration of its nullit$. A80 S*R) 8(1, 8&1B
The above rulin" #hich is of later vinta"e deviated fro% the previous rulin"s of
the Supre%e *ourt in the aforecited cases of )ra"on and Mendo;a.
Cinall$, the contention of respondent %ovant that petitioner has no
propert$ in his possession is an issue that %a$ be deter%ined onl$ after
trial on the %erits.
1
) %otion for reconsideration #as filed stressin" the erroneous application of Vda. de !onsuegra v. G"I"
-
and the
absence of ?usticiable controvers$ as to the nullit$ of the %arria"e. On Septe%ber ((, (''(, .ud"e )ustria denied the
%otion for reconsideration and "ave petitioner fifteen A(<B da$s fro% receipt #ithin #hich to file his ans#er.
Instead of filin" the re@uired ans#er, petitioner filed a special civil action of certiorari and mandamus on the "round
that the lo#er court acted #ith "rave abuse of discretion a%ountin" to lac of ?urisdiction in den$in" the %otion to
dis%iss.
On Cebruar$ 0, (''&, the *ourt of )ppeals
3
dis%issed the petition. It e=plained that the case of #ap v. !A
4
cited b$
petitioner and that of !onsuegra v. G"I" relied upon b$ the lo#er court do not have relevance in the case at bar,
there bein" no identit$ of facts because these cases dealt #ith the successional ri"hts of the second #ife #hile the
instant case pra$s for separation of propert$ corollar$ #ith the declaration of nullit$ of %arria"e. It observed that the
separation and subse@uent distribution of the properties ac@uired durin" the union can be had onl$ upon proper
deter%ination of the status of the %arital relationship bet#een said parties, #hether or not the validit$ of the first
%arria"e is denied b$ petitioner. Curther%ore, in order to avoid duplication and %ultiplicit$ of suits, the declaration of
nullit$ of %arria"e %a$ be invoed in this proceedin" to"ether #ith the partition and distribution of the properties
involved. *itin" )rticles 6,, <7 and <& of the Ca%il$ *ode, it held that private respondent!s pra$er for declaration of
absolute nullit$ of their %arria"e %a$ be raised to"ether #ith other incidents of their %arria"e such as the separation
of their properties. 5astl$, it noted that since the *ourt has ?urisdiction, the alle"ed error in refusin" to "rant the %otion
to dis%iss is %erel$ one of la# for #hich the re%ed$ ordinaril$ #ould have been to file an ans#er, proceed #ith the
trial and in case of an adverse decision, reiterate the issue on appeal. The %otion for reconsideration #as
subse@uentl$ denied for lac of %erit.
.
Hence, this petition.
The t#o basic issues confrontin" the *ourt in the instant case are the follo#in".
Cirst, #hether or not a petition for ?udicial declaration of a void %arria"e is necessar$. If in the affir%ative, #hether the
sa%e should be filed onl$ for purposes of re%arria"e.
Second, #hether or not SP No. (','-. is the proper re%ed$ of private respondent to recover certain real and
personal properties alle"edl$ belon"in" to her e=clusivel$.
Petitioner, invoin" the rulin" in People v. Aragon
/
and People v. Mendoza,
7
contends that SP. No. (','-. for
Declaration of Nullit$ of Marria"e and Separation of Propert$ filed b$ private respondent %ust be dis%issed for bein"
unnecessar$ and superfluous. Curther%ore, under his o#n interpretation of )rticle 67 of the Ca%il$ *ode, he sub%its
that a petition for declaration of absolute nullit$ of %arria"e is re@uired onl$ for purposes of re%arria"e. Since the
petition in SP No. (','-. contains no alle"ation of private respondent!s intention to re%arr$, said petition should
therefore, be dis%issed.
On the other hand, private respondent insists on the necessit$ of a ?udicial declaration of the nullit$ of their %arria"e,
not for purposes of re%arria"e, but in order to provide a basis for the separation and distribution of the properties
ac@uired durin" coverture.
There is no @uestion that the %arria"e of petitioner and private respondent celebrated #hile the for%er!s previous
%arria"e #ith one :%erlina de la Pa; #as still subsistin", is bi"a%ous. )s such, it is fro% the be"innin".
8
Petitioner
hi%self does not dispute the absolute nullit$ of their %arria"e.
9
The cases of People v. Aragon and People v. Mendoza relied upon b$ petitioner are cases #here the *ourt had
earlier ruled that no ?udicial decree is necessar$ to establish the invalidit$ of a void, bi"a%ous %arria"e. It is
note#orth$ to observe that .ustice )le= Re$es, ho#ever, dissented on these occasions statin" that/
Thou"h the lo"ician %a$ sa$ that #here the for%er %arria"e #as void there #ould be
nothin" to dissolve, still it is not for the spouses to ?ud"e #hether that %arria"e #as void
or not. That ?ud"%ent is reserved to the courts. . . .
10
This dissentin" opinion #as adopted as the %a?orit$ position in subse@uent cases involvin" the sa%e issue. Thus,
in Gomez v. $ipana,
11
the *ourt abandoned its earlier rulin" in the Aragon and Mendoza cases. In reversin" the
lo#er court!s order forfeitin" the husband!s share of the disputed propert$ ac@uired durin" the second %arria"e, the
*ourt stated that +if the nullit$, or annul%ent of the %arria"e is the basis for the application of )rticle (6(0, there is
need for a ?udicial declaration thereof, #hich of course conte%plates an action for that purpose.+
*itin" Gomez v. $ipana, the *ourt subse@uentl$ held in Vda. de !onsuegra v. Government "ervice Insurance
"%stem, that +althou"h the second %arria"e can be presu%ed to be void a initio as it #as celebrated #hile the first
%arria"e #as still subsistin", still there is need for ?udicial declaration of such nullit$.+
In &olentino v. Paras,
1-
ho#ever, the *ourt turned around and applied the Aragon and Mendoza rulin" once a"ain. In
"rantin" the pra$er of the first #ife asin" for a declaration as the la#ful survivin" spouse and the correction of the
death certificate of her deceased husband, it e=plained that +AtBhe second %arria"e that he contracted #ith private
respondent durin" the lifeti%e of his first spouse is null and void fro% the be"innin" and of no force and effect. 'o
(udicial decree is necessar% to estalis) t)e invalidit% of a void marriage.+
Ho#ever, in the %ore recent case of *iegel v. "empio+Di%
13
the *ourt reverted to the !onsuegra case and held that
there #as +no need of introducin" evidence about the e=istin" prior %arria"e of her first husband at the ti%e the$
%arried each other, for then such a %arria"e thou"h void still needs accordin" to this *ourt a ?udicial declaration of
such fact and for all le"al intents and purposes she #ould still be re"arded as a %arried #o%an at the ti%e she
contracted her %arria"e #ith respondent 4arl Hein; Die"el.+
*a%e the Ca%il$ *ode #hich settled once and for all the conflictin" ?urisprudence on the %atter. ) declaration of the
absolute nullit$ of a %arria"e is no# e=plicitl$ re@uired either as a cause of action or a "round for defense.
14
Dhere
the absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e is sou"ht to be invoed for purposes of contractin" a second %arria"e, the
sole basis acceptable in la# for said pro?ected %arria"e be free fro% le"al infir%it$ is a final ?ud"%ent declarin" the
previous %arria"e void.
1.
The Ca%il$ 5a# Revision *o%%ittee and the *ivil *ode Revision *o%%ittee
1/
#hich drafted #hat is no# the Ca%il$
*ode of the Philippines too the position that parties to a %arria"e should not be allo#ed to assu%e that their
%arria"e is void even if such be the fact but %ust first secure a ?udicial declaration of the nullit$ of their %arria"e
before the$ can be allo#ed to %arr$ a"ain. This is borne out b$ the follo#in" %inutes of the (<&nd .oint Meetin" of
the *ivil *ode and Ca%il$ 5a# *o%%ittees #here the present )rticle 67, then )rt. 8', #as discussed.
3. )rticle 8'. E
The absolute nullit$ of a %arria"e %a$ be invoed onl$ on the basis of a final
?ud"%ent declarin" the %arria"e void, e=cept as provided in )rticle 6(.
.ustice *a"uioa re%ared that the above provision should include not onl$ void but also voidable
%arria"es. He then su""ested that the above provision be %odified as follo#s/
The validit$ of a %arria"e %a$ be invoed onl$ . . .
.ustice Re$es A..3.5. Re$esB, ho#ever, proposed that the$ sa$/
The validit$ or invalidit$ of a %arria"e %a$ be invoed
onl$ . . .
On the other hand, .ustice Puno su""ested that the$ sa$/
The invalidit$ of a %arria"e %a$ be invoed onl$ . . .
Justice !aguioa e,plained t)at )is idea is t)at one cannot determine for )imself -)et)er or not )is
marriage is valid and t)at a court action is needed. .ustice Puno accordin"l$ proposed that the
provision be %odified to read/
The invalidit$ of a %arria"e %a$ be invoed onl$ on the basis of a final ?ud"%ent
annullin" the %arria"e or declarin" the %arria"e void, e=cept as provided in
)rticle 6(.
.ustice *a"uioa re%ared that in annul%ent, there is no @uestion. .ustice Puno, ho#ever, pointed
out that, even if it is a ?ud"%ent of annul%ent, the$ still have to produce the ?ud"%ent.
.ustice *a"uioa su""ested that the$ sa$/
The invalidit$ of a %arria"e %a$ be invoed onl$ on the basis of a final ?ud"%ent
declarin" the %arria"e invalid, e=cept as provided in )rticle 6(.
.ustice Puno raised the @uestion/ Dhen a %arria"e is declared invalid, does it include the
annul%ent of a %arria"e and the declaration that the %arria"e is voidF .ustice *a"uioa replied in
the affir%ative. Dean Gupit added that in so%e ?ud"%ents, even if the %arria"e is annulled, it is
declared void. .ustice Puno su""ested that this %atter be %ade clear in the provision.
Prof. 3aviera re%ared that the ori"inal idea in the provision is to re@uire first a ?udicial declaration
of a void %arria"e and not annullable %arria"es, #ith #hich the other %e%bers concurred. .ud"e
Di$ added that annullable %arria"es are presu%ed valid until a direct action is filed to annul it,
#hich the other %e%bers affir%ed. .ustice Puno re%ared that if this is so, then the phrase
+absolute nullit$+ can stand since it %i"ht result in confusion if the$ chan"e the phrase to +invalidit$+
if #hat the$ are referrin" to in the provision is the declaration that the %arria"e is void.
Prof. 3autista co%%ented that the$ #ill be doin" a#a$ #ith collateral defense as #ell as collateral
attac. .ustice *a"uioa e=plained that the idea in the provision is that there should be a final
?ud"%ent declarin" the %arria"e void and a part$ should not declare for hi%self #hether or not the
%arria"e is void, #hile the other %e%bers affir%ed. .ustice *a"uioa added that the$ are, therefore,
tr$in" to avoid a collateral attac on that point. Prof. 3autista stated that there are actions #hich are
brou"ht on the assu%ption that the %arria"e is valid. He then ased/ )re the$ deprivin" one of the
ri"ht to raise the defense that he has no liabilit$ because the basis of the liabilit$ is voidF Prof.
3autista added that the$ cannot sa$ that there #ill be no ?ud"%ent on the validit$ or invalidit$ of the
%arria"e because it #ill be taen up in the sa%e proceedin". It #ill not be a unilateral declaration
that, it is a void %arria"e. Justice !aguioa sa- t)e point of Prof. .autista and suggested t)at t)e%
limit t)e provision to remarriage. He then proposed that )rticle 8' be re#orded as follo#s/
The absolute nullit$ of a %arria"e for purposes of re%arria"e %a$ be invoed
onl$ on the basis of final ?ud"%ent . . .
.ustice Puno su""ested that the above be %odified as follo#s/
The absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e %a$ be invoed for purposes of
establishin" the validit$ of a subse@uent %arria"e onl$ on the basis of a final
?ud"%ent declarin" such previous %arria"e void, e=cept as provided in )rticle 6(.
.ustice Puno later %odified the above as follo#s/
Cor the purpose of establishin" the validit$ of a subse@uent %arria"e, the
absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e %a$ onl$ be invoed on the basis of a final
?ud"%ent declarin" such nullit$, e=cept as provided in )rticle 6(.
.ustice *a"uioa co%%ented that the above provision is too broad and #ill not solve the ob?ection of
Prof. 3autista. He proposed that the$ sa$/
Cor the purpose of enterin" into a subse@uent %arria"e, the absolute nullit$ of a
previous %arria"e %a$ onl$ be invoed on the basis of a final ?ud"%ent declarin"
such nullit$, e=cept as provided in )rticle 6(.
.ustice *a"uioa e=plained that the idea in the above provision is that if one enters into a
subse@uent %arria"e #ithout obtainin" a final ?ud"%ent declarin" the nullit$ of a previous %arria"e,
said subse@uent %arria"e is void a initio.
)fter further deliberation, .ustice Puno su""ested that the$ "o bac to the ori"inal #ordin" of the
provision as follo#s/
The absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e %a$ be invoed for purposes
of re%arria"e onl$ on the basis of a final ?ud"%ent declarin" such
previous %arria"e void, e=cept as provided in )rticle 6(.
17
In fact, the re@uire%ent for a declaration of absolute nullit$ of a %arria"e is also for the protection of the spouse #ho,
believin" that his or her %arria"e is ille"al and void, %arries a"ain. Dith the ?udicial declaration of the nullit$ of his or
her first %arria"e, the person #ho %arries a"ain cannot be char"ed #ith bi"a%$.
18
.ust over a $ear a"o, the *ourt %ade the pronounce%ent that there is a necessit$ for a declaration of absolute nullit$
of a prior subsistin" %arria"e before contractin" another in the recent case of &erre v. &erre.
19
The *ourt, in turnin"
do#n the defense of respondent Terre #ho #as char"ed #ith "rossl$ i%%oral conduct consistin" of contractin" a
second %arria"e and livin" #ith another #o%an other than co%plainant #hile his prior %arria"e #ith the latter
re%ained subsistin", said that +for purposes of deter%inin" #hether a person is le"all$ free to contract a second
%arria"e, a ?udicial declaration that the first %arria"e #as null and void a initio is essential.+
)s re"ards the necessit$ for a ?udicial declaration of absolute nullit$ of %arria"e, petitioner sub%its that the sa%e can
be %aintained onl$ if it is for the purpose of re%arria"e. Cailure to alle"e this purpose, accordin" to petitioner!s theor$,
#ill #arrant dis%issal of the sa%e.
)rticle 67 of the Ca%il$ *ode provides/
)rt. 67. The absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e %a$ be invoed for purposes of re%arria"e on
the basis solel$ of a final ?ud"%ent declarin" such previous %arria"e void. AnB
*rucial to the proper interpretation of )rticle 67 is the position in the provision of the #ord +solel$.+ )s it is placed, the
sa%e sho#s that it is %eant to @ualif$ +final ?ud"%ent declarin" such previous %arria"e void.+ Reali;in" the need for
careful crafts%anship in conve$in" the precise intent of the *o%%ittee %e%bers, the provision in @uestion, as it
finall$ e%er"ed, did not state +The absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e %a$ be invoed solel% for purposes of
re%arria"e . . .,+ in #hich case +solel$+ #ould clearl$ @ualif$ the phrase +for purposes of re%arria"e.+ Had the
phraseolo"$ been such, the interpretation of petitioner #ould have been correct and, that is, that the absolute nullit$
of a previous %arria"e %a$ be invoed solel% for purposes of re%arria"e, thus renderin" irrelevant the clause +on the
basis solel$ of a final ?ud"%ent declarin" such previous %arria"e void.+
That )rticle 67 as finall$ for%ulated included the si"nificant clause denotes that such final ?ud"%ent declarin" the
previous %arria"e void need not be obtained onl$ for purposes of re%arria"e. Hndoubtedl$, one can conceive of
other instances #here a part$ %i"ht #ell invoe the absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e for purposes other than
re%arria"e, such as in case of an action for li@uidation, partition, distribution and separation of propert$ bet#een the
erst#hile spouses, as #ell as an action for the custod$ and support of their co%%on children and the deliver$ of the
latters! presu%ptive le"iti%es. In such cases, evidence needs %ust be adduced, testi%onial or docu%entar$, to prove
the e=istence of "rounds renderin" such a previous %arria"e an absolute nullit$. These need not be li%ited solel$ to
an earlier final ?ud"%ent of a court declarin" such previous %arria"e void. Hence, in the instance #here a part$ #ho
has previousl$ contracted a %arria"e #hich re%ains subsistin" desires to enter into another %arria"e #hich is le"all$
unassailable, he is re@uired b$ la# to prove that the previous one #as an absolute nullit$. 3ut this he %a$ do on the
basis solel% of a final ?ud"%ent declarin" such previous %arria"e void.
This leads us to the @uestion/ Dh$ the distinctionF In other #ords, for purposes of re%arria"e, #h$ should the onl$
le"all$ acceptable basis for declarin" a previous %arria"e an absolute nullit$ be a final ?ud"%ent declarin" such
previous %arria"e voidF Dhereas, for purposes other than re%arria"e, other evidence is acceptableF
Marria"e, a sacrosanct institution, declared b$ the *onstitution as an +inviolable social institution, is the foundation of
the fa%il$9+ as such, it +shall be protected b$ the State.+
-0
In %ore e=plicit ter%s, the Ca%il$ *ode characteri;es it as
+a special contract of per%anent union bet#een a %an and a #o%an entered into in accordance #ith la# for the
establish%ent of con?u"al, and fa%il$ life.+
-1
So crucial are %arria"e and the fa%il$ to the stabilit$ and peace of the
nation that their +nature, conse@uences, and incidents are "overned b$ la# and not sub?ect to stipulation . . .+
--
)s a
%atter of polic$, therefore, the nullification of a %arria"e for the purpose of contractin" another cannot be
acco%plished %erel$ on the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that their union is so defective #ith
respect to the essential re@uisites of a contract of %arria"e as to render it void ipso (ure and #ith no le"al effect E
and nothin" %ore. Dere this so, this inviolable social institution #ould be reduced to a %ocer$ and #ould rest on
ver$ sha$ foundations indeed. )nd the "rounds for nullif$in" %arria"e #ould be as diverse and far-ran"in" as
hu%an in"enuit$ and fanc$ could conceive. Cor such a social si"nificant institution, an official state pronounce%ent
throu"h the courts, and nothin" less, #ill satisf$ the e=actin" nor%s of societ$. Not onl$ #ould such an open and
public declaration b$ the courts definitivel$ confir% the nullit$ of the contract of %arria"e, but the sa%e #ould be
easil$ verifiable throu"h records accessible to ever$one.
That the la# sees to ensure that a prior %arria"e is no i%pedi%ent to a second sou"ht to be contracted b$ one of
the parties %a$ be "leaned fro% ne# infor%ation re@uired in the Ca%il$ *ode to be included in the application for a
%arria"e license, vi;, +If previousl$ %arried, ho#, #hen and #here the previous %arria"e #as dissolved and
annulled.+
-3
Revertin" to the case before us, petitioner!s interpretation of )rt. 67 of the Ca%il$ *ode is, undoubtedl$, @uite
restrictive. Thus, his position that private respondent!s failure to state in the petition that the sa%e is filed to enable
her to re%arr$ #ill result in the dis%issal of SP No. (','-. is untenable. His %isconstruction of )rt. 67 resultin" fro%
the %isplaced e%phasis on the ter% +solel$+ #as in fact anticipated b$ the %e%bers of the *o%%ittee.
Dean Gupit commented t)e -ord /onl%/ ma% e misconstrued to refer to /for purposes of
remarriage./ Judge Di% stated t)at /onl%/ refers to /final (udgment./ .ustice Puno
su""ested that the$ sa$ +on the basis onl$ of a final ?ud"%ent.+ Prof. 3aviera su""ested
that the$ use the le"al ter% +solel$+ instead of +onl$,+ #hich the *o%%ittee
approved.
-4
A:%phasis suppliedB
Pursuin" his previous ar"u%ent that the declaration for absolute nullit$ of %arria"e is unnecessar$, petitioner
su""ests that private respondent should have filed an ordinar$ civil action for the recover$ of the properties alle"ed to
have been ac@uired durin" their union. In such an eventualit$, the lo#er court #ould not be actin" as a %ere special
court but #ould be clothed #ith ?urisdiction to rule on the issues of possession and o#nership. In addition, he pointed
out that there is actuall$ nothin" to separate or partition as the petition ad%its that all the properties #ere ac@uired
#ith private respondent!s %one$.
The *ourt of )ppeals disre"arded this ar"u%ent and concluded that +the pra$er for declaration of absolute nullit$ of
%arria"e %a$ be raised to"ether #ith the other incident of their %arria"e such as the separation of their properties.+
Dhen a %arria"e is declared void a initio, the la# states that the final ?ud"%ent therein shall provide for +the
li@uidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custod$ and support of the co%%on
children, and the deliver$ of their presu%ptive le"iti%es, unless such %atters had been ad?udicated in previous
?udicial proceedin"s.+
-.
Other specific effects flo#in" therefro%, in proper cases, are the follo#in"/
)rt. 68. === === ===
A&B The absolute co%%unit$ of propert$ or the con?u"al partnership, as the case %a$ be, shall be
dissolved and li@uidated, but if either spouse contracted said %arria"e in bad faith, his or her share
of the net profits of the co%%unit$ propert$ or con?u"al partnership propert$ shall be forfeited in
favor of the co%%on children or, if there are none, the children of the "uilt$ spouse b$ a previous
%arria"e or, in default of children, the innocent spouse9
A8B Donations b$ reason of %arria"e shall re%ain valid, e=cept that if the donee contracted the
%arria"e in bad faith, such donations %ade to said donee are revoed b$ operation of la#9
A6B The innocent spouse %a$ revoe the desi"nation of the other spouse #ho acted in bad faith as
a beneficiar$ in an$ insurance polic$, even if such desi"nation be stipulated as irrevocable9 and
A<B The spouse #ho contracted the subse@uent %arria"e in bad faith shall be dis@ualified to inherit
fro% the innocent spouse b$ testate and intestate succession. AnB
)rt. 66. If both spouses of the subse@uent %arria"e acted in bad faith, said %arria"e shall
be void a initio and all donations b$ reason of %arria"e and testa%entar$ disposition
%ade b$ one in favor of the other are revoed b$ operation of la#. AnB
-/
3ased on the fore"oin" provisions, private respondent!s ulti%ate pra$er for separation of propert$ #ill si%pl$ be one
of the necessar$ conse@uences of the ?udicial declaration of absolute nullit$ of their %arria"e. Thus, petitioner!s
su""estion that in order for their properties to be separated, an ordinar$ civil action has to be instituted for that
purpose is baseless. The Ca%il$ *ode has clearl$ provided the effects of the declaration of nullit$ of %arria"e, one of
#hich is the separation of propert$ accordin" to the re"i%e of propert$ relations "overnin" the%. It stands to reason
that the lo#er court before #ho% the issue of nullit$ of a first %arria"e is brou"ht is lie#ise clothed #ith ?urisdiction to
decide the incidental @uestions re"ardin" the couple!s properties. )ccordin"l$, the respondent court co%%itted no
reversible error in findin" that the lo#er court co%%itted no "rave abuse of discretion in den$in" petitioner!s %otion to
dis%iss SP No. (','-..
DH:R:COR:, the instant petition is hereb$ D:NI:D. The decision of respondent *ourt dated Cebruar$ 0, (''& and
the Resolution dated March &7, (''& are )CCIRM:D.
SO ORD:R:D.
.idin and Melo, JJ., concur.
0eliciano, J., is on leave.



Sep#r#te Op+$+o$'

&ITUG, J., concurrin"/
I concur #ith the opinion so #ell e=pressed b$ M%e. .ustice Clerida Ruth P. Ro%ero. I should lie, ho#ever, to put in
a %odest observation.
Void %arria"es are ine=istent fro% the ver$ be"innin" and, I believe, no ?udicial decree is re1uired to establish their
nullit$, e=cept in the follo#in" instances/
AaB Cor purposes of re%arria"e pursuant to the provision of )rticle 67 of the Ca%il$ *ode9 viz./
The absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e %a$ be invoed for purposes of re%arria"e on the basis
solel$ of a final ?ud"%ent declarin" such previous %arria"e void. AnB
AbB ) %arria"e celebrated prior to the effectivit$ of the Ca%il$ *ode in case a part$ thereto #as ps$cholo"icall$
incapacitated to co%pl$ #ith the essential %arital obli"ations of %arria"e A)rticle 81, Ca%il$ *odeB, #here an action
or defense for the declaration of nullit$ prescribes ten A(7B $ears after the Ca%il$ *ode too effect A)rticle 8', Ca%il$
*odeB9 other#ise, the %arria"e is dee%ed unaffected b$ the Ca%il$ *ode.
) void %arria"e, even #ithout its bein" ?udiciall$ declared a nullit$, albeit the preferabilit$ for, and ?usticiabilit$ Afull$
discussed in the %a?orit$ opinionB of, such a declaration, #ill not "ive it the status or the conse@uences of a valid
%arria"e, savin" onl$ specific instances #here certain effects of a valid %arria"e can still flo# fro% the void %arria"e.
:=a%ples of these cases are children of void %arria"es under )rticle 81 Adue to ps$cholo"ical incapacit$B and )rticle
<8, in relation to )rticle <& Adue to failure of partition, deliver$ of presu%ptive le"iti%es of children and recordin"
thereof follo#in" the annul%ent or declaration of nullit$ a prior %arria"eB, conceived or born before the ?udicial
declaration of nullit$ of such void %arria"es, #ho the la# dee%s as le"iti%ate A)rticle <6, Ca%il$ *odeB.
In %ost, if not in all, other cases, a void %arria"e is to be considered e=tant per se. Neither the con?u"al, partnership
of "ain under the old re"i%e nor the absolute co%%unit$ of propert$ under the ne# *ode Aabsent a %arria"e
settle%entB, #ill appl$9 instead, their propert$ relations shall be "overned b$ the co-o#nership rules under either
)rticle (60 or )rticle (6, of the Ca%il$ *ode. I %ust hasten to add as a personal vie#, ho#ever, that the e=ceptional
effects on children of a void %arria"e because of the ps$cholo"ical incapacit$ of a part$ thereto should have been
e=tended to cover even the personal and propert$ relations of the spouses. Hnlie the other cases of void %arria"es
#here the "rounds therefor %a$ be established b$ hard facts and #ith little uncertaint$, the ter% +ps$cholo"ical
incapacit$+ is so relative and unsettlin" that until a ?udicial declaration of nullit$ is %ade its interi% effects can lon"
and literall$ han" on the balance not onl$ insofar as the spouses the%selves are concerned but also as re"ards third
persons #ith #ho% the spouses deal.


0 Sep#r#te Op+$+o$'
&ITUG, J., concurrin"/
I concur #ith the opinion so #ell e=pressed b$ M%e. .ustice Clerida Ruth P. Ro%ero. I should lie, ho#ever, to put in
a %odest observation.
Void %arria"es are ine=istent fro% the ver$ be"innin" and, I believe, no ?udicial decree is re1uired to establish their
nullit$, e=cept in the follo#in" instances/
AaB Cor purposes of re%arria"e pursuant to the provision of )rticle 67 of the Ca%il$ *ode9 viz./
The absolute nullit$ of a previous %arria"e %a$ be invoed for purposes of re%arria"e on the basis
solel$ of a final ?ud"%ent declarin" such previous %arria"e void. AnB
AbB ) %arria"e celebrated prior to the effectivit$ of the Ca%il$ *ode in case a part$ thereto #as ps$cholo"icall$
incapacitated to co%pl$ #ith the essential %arital obli"ations of %arria"e A)rticle 81, Ca%il$ *odeB, #here an action
or defense for the declaration of nullit$ prescribes ten A(7B $ears after the Ca%il$ *ode too effect A)rticle 8', Ca%il$
*odeB9 other#ise, the %arria"e is dee%ed unaffected b$ the Ca%il$ *ode.
) void %arria"e, even #ithout its bein" ?udiciall$ declared a nullit$, albeit the preferabilit$ for, and ?usticiabilit$ Afull$
discussed in the %a?orit$ opinionB of, such a declaration, #ill not "ive it the status or the conse@uences of a valid
%arria"e, savin" onl$ specific instances #here certain effects of a valid %arria"e can still flo# fro% the void %arria"e.
:=a%ples of these cases are children of void %arria"es under )rticle 81 Adue to ps$cholo"ical incapacit$B and )rticle
<8, in relation to )rticle <& Adue to failure of partition, deliver$ of presu%ptive le"iti%es of children and recordin"
thereof follo#in" the annul%ent or declaration of nullit$ a prior %arria"eB, conceived or born before the ?udicial
declaration of nullit$ of such void %arria"es, #ho the la# dee%s as le"iti%ate A)rticle <6, Ca%il$ *odeB.
In %ost, if not in all, other cases, a void %arria"e is to be considered e=tant per se. Neither the con?u"al, partnership
of "ain under the old re"i%e nor the absolute co%%unit$ of propert$ under the ne# *ode Aabsent a %arria"e
settle%entB, #ill appl$9 instead, their propert$ relations shall be "overned b$ the co-o#nership rules under either
)rticle (60 or )rticle (6, of the Ca%il$ *ode. I %ust hasten to add as a personal vie#, ho#ever, that the e=ceptional
effects on children of a void %arria"e because of the ps$cholo"ical incapacit$ of a part$ thereto should have been
e=tended to cover even the personal and propert$ relations of the spouses. Hnlie the other cases of void %arria"es
#here the "rounds therefor %a$ be established b$ hard facts and #ith little uncertaint$, the ter% +ps$cholo"ical
incapacit$+ is so relative and unsettlin" that until a ?udicial declaration of nullit$ is %ade its interi% effects can lon"
and literall$ han" on the balance not onl$ insofar as the spouses the%selves are concerned but also as re"ards third
persons #ith #ho% the spouses deal.
0 oot$ote'
( )nne= +*+, 2ollo, pp. &,-&'.
& 5-&,7'8, .anuar$ 87, ('0(, 80 S*R) 8(<.
8 )nne= +.+, 2ollo, pp. 1&-10, .ustice .or"e S. I%perial, ponente and .ustices 5uis ). .avellana and
Serafin V.*. Guin"ona, concurrin".
6 5-67778, October &,, (',1, (6< S*R) &&'.
< )nne= +M+, 2ollo, p. ,7.
1 (77 Phil. (788 A('<0B.
0 '< Phil. ,6< A('<6B.
, *IVI5 *OD:, art. ,7, par. 69 C)MI52 *OD:, arts. 8<, par. 6 and 6(.
' 2ollo, pp. (7& and (71.
(7 See/ Note 1 at p. (7819 Note 0 at p. ,6,.
(( 5-&8&(6, .une 87, ('07, 88 S*R) 1(<, 1&7-1&(.
(& 5-68'7<, Ma$ 87, (',8, (&& S*R) <&<.
(8 G.R. No. <8078, )u"ust (', (',1, (68 S*R) 6''.
(6 C)MI52 *OD:, art. 8'.
(< Id., art. 67. See also/ arts. ((, (8, 6&, 66, 6,, <7, <&, <6, ,1, '', (60, (6,.
(1 The Ca%il$ 5a# Revision *o%%ittee of the Inte"rated 3ar of the Philippines AI3PB prepared the
draft of the revision of 3oo I of the *ivil *ode of the Philippines. )fter %ore than four $ears, the
draft #as turned over to the *ivil *ode Revision *o%%ittee of the HP 5a# *enter #hich revie#ed
and revised the sa%e for %ore than three $ears.
(0 )u"ust &8, (',1, pp. 6-0.
(, J. ).V. S:MPIO-DI2, H)ND3OO4 OC TH: C)MI52 *OD: OC TH: PHI5IPPIN:S, 61 A(',,B.
(' )d%. *ase No. &86', .ul$ 8, (''&, &(( S*R) 1, ((.
&7 *ONST., art. IV, sec. &.
&( C)MI52 *OD:, art. (.
&& Id.
&8 Id., art. ((.
&6 See/ Note (0, at p. 0.
&< )rt. <7 A&B.
&1 In relation to )rt. <7 A(B E The effects provided for in para"raphs A&B, A8B, A6B and A<B of )rticle 68
and in )rticle 66 shall also appl$ in proper cases to %arria"es #hich are declared void a initio or
annulled b$ final ?ud"%ent under )rticles 67 and 6<.