153 Carlos v Sandoval
G.R. No. 179922 Who may bring an action for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage? (Husband or wife only)
December 16, 2008
By: Calaguas
Topic: Additional Requirements for Annulment or Declaration of Nullity
Petitioner: Juan De Dios Carlos
Respondent: Felicidad Sandoval, also known as Felicidad S. Vda. De Carlos or Felicidad Sandoval Carlos,
or Feilicidad Sandoval Vda. De Carlos, and Teofilo Carlos II
Ponente: Reyes, R.T., J.
DOCTRINE:
The nullity and annulment of a marriage cannot be declared in a judgment on the pleadings summary
judgement, or confession of judgement as material facts therein should always be proved.
The participation of the State is not terminated by it declaration that no collusion exists between the
parties as the courts have the duty to ordain the prosecution attorney to appear and intervene for the
State to make sure that there is no suppression of evidence and that the evidence presented before the
court is not fabricated.
The husband and the wife are the only ones who can bring a petition for declaration of nullity of a void
marriage (effective August 3, 1988)
FACTS:
Spouses Felix and Elemia died intestate leaving six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs Teofilo and
petitioner Juan. During the lifetime of Felix, he agreed to transer his estate to Teofilo in order to avoid
the payment of inheritance taxes. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to deliver and turn over the shares of
petitioner Juan. The first three parcels of land were transferred and registered in the name of Teofilo.
The fourth parcel of land was registered in the name of petitioner. Teofilo died intestate and is survived
by respondents Felicidad and Teofilo II. Upon Teofilo’s death, the fifth and the sixth parcels of land were
registered in the name of respondents.
After entering into a partial settlement agreement, a deed of extrajudicial settlement, and a
supplemental compromise agreement in relation to the first two parcels of land, the parties entered into
two more contacts dividing equally between them the third and fourth parcels of land.
However, petitioner commenced an action against respondents with a cause of action of declaration of
nullity of marriage of Teofilo and Felicidad, among others. Petitioner claimed that the marriage between
his late brother and Felicidad was a nullity as it lacked a marriage license.
Both parties respectively moved for summary judgement. The RTC rendered a decision granting
petitioner’s motion and denying respondents’. The RTC declared null and void ab initio the marriage
between the late Teofilo and Felicidad.
The CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC, It held that the rule on summary judgment does not
apply to an action to annul a marriage, and that material facts alleged in the complaint for annulment of
marriage should always be proved. Furthermore, the CA held that the burden of proof to show the nullity
of the marriage rests upon the plaintiff and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the
marriage.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied.
ISSUE:
Whether an action for declaration of nullity of marriage may be subject of summary judgement? (No)
What is the role of the State in an action for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage?
RULING:
Re: Declaration of Nullity being subject of a summary proceeding
No, the grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be proved and a no judgment on the
pleadings, summary judgment, nor a confession of judgement will be allowed.
Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and summary judgments have no place in cases of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in annulment of marriage. This has been made clear
in AM 02-11-10-SC, known as Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages. Section 17 (2) of the said Rules provides: “The grounds for declaration of absolute
nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. No judgement on the pleadings, summary judgment,
or confession of judgement shall be allowed.”
Re: Role of the State
The State, through the public prosecutor or the OSG, should check for collusion between the parties, and
appear and intervene in the action to make sure that there is no suppression of evidence. And make sure
that the evidence presented before the court is not fabricated.
In this case, the RTC, in allowing the summary judgment, divested the State of its lawful right and duty to
intervene in the case. This should not be allowed. Aside from checking for collusion, both the Civil Code
and the Family Code ordain that the court should order the prosecuting attorney to appear and
intervene for the State to make sure that there is no suppression of evidence and that the evidence
presented before the court is not fabricated.
Re: Proper parties to bring an action for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the
wife.
Under AM 02-11-10-SC, the annulment of voidable marriages nor the petition for declaring of absolute
nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the marriage. Section 2 (a) of the said Rules
makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriage. Compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or the State do not have a legal right to file
the petition as they only have inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor. Thus, compulsory
or intestate heirs may only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a
spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spoused filed in the regular
courts. Furthermore, even if the said Rules only apply to marriages entered into during the effectivity of
the Family Code, such does not give license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case of
marriages prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Procedural law dictates that every action must be
prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. On who has no material interest to
protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as plaintiff in an action.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is MODIFIED as follows:
1. xxx
2. xxx the RTC is strictly INSTRUCTED to DISMISS the action for nullity of marriage for lack of cause of
action;
3. The disposition of the RTC in Nos. 1 to 8 of the fallo of its decision is VACATED AND SET ASIDE.
The Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to conduct trial on the merits with dispatch and to give this case
priority in its calendar.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.