Antonia Calisterio vs Marietta Calisterio

Facts:

Teodorico Calisterio was the 2nd husband of Marietta who had previously been married to James
Williams Bounds in 1946. In 1947 James disappeared for 11 years.

Teodorico and Marrietta married in 1958 without securing a court declaration that her former husband
James, was presumptively dead.

In Aprill 1992 Teodorico Calisterio died leaving several parcels of land with an estimate value of 604,750
pesos to her Wife Marietta(the sole suriving heir). On Oct 1992 Antonia Calisterio, a sister of Teodorico
filed a petition, claiming that the marriage between Marietta and Teodorico is bigamous and thereby it
is null and void from the beginning, she prayed that her son Sinfroniano should be appointed as an
administrator of the estate and the inheritance must be declared to her.

Respondent on the otherhand contends that her first marriage had been dissolved because of his
absence for several years and that she only married Teodorico after 11years, claiming that she should be
prioritized in appointing who is the administrator of the estate.

The Rtc rendered its decision declaring that the Petitioner’s son is the administrator of the estate, Not
satisfied with the judgement Marietta Appealed and CA reversed the decision of the lower court
declarining that Marietta’s marriage between Teodorico remains valid and the declared to be the
cumpolsary heir. Hence the appeal in supreme court.

Issue:the issue related in our discussion under article 41 is, Whether or Not the marriage between
Teodorico and Marietta is valid under article 83 of the civil code.

Ratio/Held:

Yes the court stressed out under Article 256 of the Family Code, that the retroactive effectivity would
only take effect to cases that ther will be no impairment of vested rights or acquired rights in accordance
with the Civil Code or other laws. The governing provision in this case is article 83 given the retroactive
effectivity of article 256 of the family code and since the marriage between Teodorico and Marietta was
solemnized prior the promulgation of the family code in 1988. The court also said that their marriage
remains valid since the provision gives exception and does not require securing a declaration of nullity
as long as the spouse who contracted another marriage proved that his/her spouse was absent for 7
consecutive years under par. 2 of the said provision, clearly in this case Marietta was able to establish
the burden of proof that her marriage was not bigamous since she only contracted her 2 nd marriage after
11years.