Maria Cecilia Y.

Oliva

Professor: Dean Israelito Torreon

LLB-3

Legal Counseling

Supreme Court Conflicting Decisions

The cases of Gomez vs. Lipana (1970), Odayat vs. Amante (1977), and
Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy (1986) were decided when the New Civil Code was still in effect.
In Gomez vs. Lipana, Lipana contracted two marriages:

In 1930 to Loreta Ancino; and

In 1935 to Isidra Gomez who did not know of the first marriage.

Lipana and Isidra acquired a property during this marriage.

When Isidra died intestate, her only heirs were her sisters. The sisteradministrator sought to forfeit Lipanas interest in the estate on the ground that Lipanas
marriage to Isidra was void, and that Lipana caused such nullity.
The Supreme Court held in this case that although the second marriage
was presumed void ab initio for being contracted during the subsistence of a prior
marriage, there was a need for a judicial declaration of the nullity of the second
marriage. But, the death of Isidra happened before the second marriage could be
declared null and void, so the Supreme Court in the interest of equity and justice did not
forfeit Lipanas share in the estate. As the first marriage was not yet dissolved, the
conjugal partnership was also not dissolved, so the first wife had an interest in Lipanas
share in the estate, even if it was acquired during the subsistence of the second
marriage. The Supreme Court also recognized that since Isidra contracted the second
marriage in good faith, the said marriage established a conjugal partnership, and that
Isidra had rights therein.
In Odayat vs. Amante, Amante contracted two marriages:

To Filomena Abella in 1948 who at that time was married to another

man; and

Maria Cecilia Y. Oliva

Professor: Dean Israelito Torreon

LLB-3

Legal Counseling

To Beatriz Jornada in 1964.

Amante, a clerk of court, was charged with immorality in an administrative

case against him. The Supreme Court exonerated Amante from the said charge on the
ground that Amantes first marriage to Abella was void, and that there was no necessity
for the judicial declaration of nullity of the said marriage.
In Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, Wiegel married Lilia in 1978. Lilia at that time
was married to another man, and she alleged that her prior marriage was void because
they were only forced to enter into such marriage.
The Supreme Court held that a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior
marriage was necessary, and absent such, she was still considered as a married
woman at the time Lilia married Wiegel.
Currently, Article 40 of the Family Code now requires the judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage. The provision provides:
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.