School Work

2-Ty vs CA (2000)

of 9
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 127406. November 27, 2000]OFELIA P. TY,  petitioner, vs. THE CORT OF APPEAL!, #$E%GAR%O &. REYE!, respondents. % E C I ! I O N 'I!&(ING, J  .) This appeal seeks the reversal of the decision dated July 24 ! # of the Court of  $ppeals in C%$% & '%(% CV )*+ * ,hich affir-ed the decision of the (e.ional TrialCourt of /asi. 0ranch !#1 declarin. the -arria.e contract et,een private respondentEd.ardo 3% (eyes and petitioner Ofelia /% Ty null and void    ab initio % It also orderedprivate respondent to pay /!111%11 as -onthly support for their children 5aye Eloise(eyes and (achel $nne (eyes% $s sho,n in the records of the case private respondent -arried $nna 3aria (e.inaVillanueva in a civil cere-ony on 3arch 2  ! ** in 3anila% Then they had a church,eddin. on $u.ust 2* ! **% 6o,ever on $u.ust 4 ! +1 the Juvenile and Do-estic(elations Court of 7ue8on City declared their -arria.e null and void    ab initio  for lack of a valid -arria.e license% The church ,eddin. on $u.ust 2* ! ** ,as also declarednull and void ab initio  for lack of consent of the parties%Even efore the decree ,as issued nullifyin. his -arria.e to $nna 3aria privaterespondent ,ed Ofelia /% Ty herein petitioner on $pril 4 ! *  in cere-onies officiatedy the 9ud.e of the City Court of /asay% On $pril 4 ! +2 they also had a church,eddin. in 3akati 3etro 3anila%On January ) ! ! private respondent filed a Civil Case !+):J ,ith the (TC of /asi. 0ranch !#1 prayin. that his -arria.e to petitioner e declared null and void  % 6ealle.ed that they had no -arria.e license ,hen they .ot -arried% 6e also averred thatat the ti-e he -arried petitioner he ,as still -arried to $nna 3aria% 6e stated that atthe ti-e he -arried petitioner the decree of nullity of his -arria.e to $nna 3aria had noteen issued% The decree of nullity of his -arria.e to $nna 3aria ,as rendered only on $u.ust 4 ! +1 ,hile his civil -arria.e to petitioner took place on $pril 4 ! * %/etitioner in defendin. her -arria.e to private respondent pointed out that hisclai- that their -arria.e ,as contracted ,ithout a valid license is untrue% Shesu-itted their 3arria.e ;icense No% *) 1 issued at (osario Cavite on $pril )! *  as E<h% !! !2 and !2:$% 6e did not =uestion this docu-ent ,hen it ,assu-itted in evidence% /etitioner also su-itted the decision of the Juvenile andDo-estic (elations Court of 7ue8on City dated $u.ust 4 ! +1 ,hich declared null  and void   his civil -arria.e to $nna 3aria (e.ina Villanueva celerated on 3arch 2 ! ** and his church -arria.e to said $nna 3aria on $u.ust 2* ! **% Thesedocu-ents ,ere su-itted as evidence durin. trial and accordin. to petitioner aretherefore dee-ed sufficient proof of the facts therein% The fact that the civil -arria.e of private respondent and petitioner took place on $pril 4 ! *  efore the 9ud.-entdeclarin. his prior -arria.e as null and void   is undisputed% It also appears indisputalethat private respondent and petitioner had a church ,eddin. cere-ony on $pril 4 ! +2% >!? The /asi. (TC sustained private respondent@s civil suit and declared his -arria.eto herein petitioner null and void ab initio in its decision dated Nove-er 4 ! !% 0othparties appealed to respondent Court of $ppeals% On July 24 ! # the appellate courtaffir-ed the trial court@s decision% It ruled that a 9udicial declaration of nullity of the first-arria.e Ato $nna 3ariaB -ust first e secured efore a suse=uent -arria.e could evalidly contracted% Said the appellate court e can accept ,ithout difficulty the doctrine cited y defendant@s counsel that no 9udicial decree is necessary to estalish the invalidity of void It does not say ho,ever that a second -arria.e -ay proceed even ,ithout a 9udicial decree% hile it is true that if a -arria.e is null and void ab initio  there is in fact no susistin. -arria.e ,e are un,illin. to rule that the -atter of ,hether a -arria.e is valid or not is for each -arried spouse to deter-ine for hi-self & for this ,ould e the conse=uence of allo,in. a spouse to proceed to a second -arria.e even efore a co-petent court issues a 9udicial decree of nullity of his first -arria.e% The results ,ould e dis=uietin. to say the least and could not have een the intend-ent of even the no,:repealed provisions of the Civil Code on -arria.e% < < < 6E(E5O(E upon the fore.oin. ratiocination e -odify the appealed Decision in this ,ise !% The -arria.e contracted y plaintiff:appellant >herein private respondent? Eduardo3% (eyes and defendant:appellant >herein petitioner? Ofelia /% Ty is declared nulland void ab initio F2% /laintiff:appellant Eduardo 3% (eyes is ordered to .ive -onthly support in thea-ount of /!111%11 to his children 5aye Eloise (eyes and (achel $nne (eyesfro- Nove-er 4 ! !F and)% Cost a.ainst plaintiff:appellant Eduardo 3% (eyes% SO O(DE(ED% >2? /etitioner@s -otion for reconsideration ,as denied% 6ence this instant petitionassertin. that the Court of $ppeals erred  I. 0OT6 IN T6E DECISION $ND T6E (ESO;GTION IN (E7GI(IN' 5O( T6E V$;IDITH O5 /ETITIONE(@S 3$((I$'E TO (ES/ONDENT $ JGDICI$; DEC(EE NOT (E7GI(ED 0H ;$% II IN T6E (ESO;GTION IN $//;HIN' T6E (G;IN' IN DOMINGO VS. COURT OF APPEALS % III IN 0OT6 T6E DECISION $ND (ESO;GTION IN NOT CONSIDE(IN' T6E CIVI; E55ECTS O5 T6E (E;I'IOGS ($TI5IC$TION 6IC6 GSED T6E S$3E 3$((I$'E ;ICENSE% I* IN T6E DECISION NOT '($NTIN' 3O($; $ND EE3/;$(H D$3$'ES TO T6E DE5END$NT:$//E;;$NT% The principal issue in this case is ,hether the decree of nullity of the first -arria.eis re=uired efore a suse=uent -arria.e can e entered into validly To resolve this=uestion ,e shall .o over applicale la,s and pertinent cases to shed on theassi.ned errors particularly the first and the second ,hich ,e shall discuss 9ointly%In sustainin. the trial court the Court of $ppeals declared the -arria.e of petitioner to private respondent null and void for lack of a prior 9udicial decree of nullity of the-arria.e et,een private respondent and Villanueva% The appellate court re9ectedpetitioner@s clai- that People v. Mendoza >)?   and  People v. Aa!on >4?   are applicale in thiscase% 5or these cases held that ,here a -arria.e is void   fro- its perfor-ance no 9udicial decree is necessary to estalish its invalidity% 0ut the appellate court said thesecases decided efore the enact-ent of the 5a-ily Code AE%O% No% 21 as a-ended yE%O No% 22*B no control% $ indin. decree is no, needed and -ust e read intothe provisions of la, previously otainin.% >? In refusin. to consider petitioner@s appeal favoraly the appellate court also said Tee v. Attone Tee# Ad$. Ca%e No. &'()# ' *+l ,))&   is -andatory precedent for this case% $lthou.h decided y the 6i.h Court in ! 2 the facts situate it ,ithin the re.i-e of the no,:repealed provisions of the Civil Code as in the instant case% < < <  5or purposes of deter-inin. ,hether a person is free to contract a second -arria.e a 9udicial declaration that the first -arria.e ,as null and void ab initio is essential% % % % >#?  $t the outset ,e -ust note that private respondent@s first and second -arria.escontracted in ! ** and ! *  respectively are .overned y the provisions of the CivilCode% The present case differs si.nificantly fro- the recent cases of -obi% v.-obi% >*?   and Meado v. Tan# >+?   oth involvin. a cri-inal case for i.a-y ,here the i.a-ous-arria.e ,as contracted durin. the effectivity of the 5a-ily Code > ?  under ,hich a 9udicial declaration of nullity of -arria.e is clearly re=uired%/ertinent to the present controversy $rticle +) of the Civil Code provides that  $rt% +)% $ny -arria.e suse=uently contracted y any person durin. the lifeti-e of the first spouse of such person ,ith any person other than such firstspouse shall e and void fro- its perfor-ance unlessA!B The first -arria.e ,as annulled or dissolvedF or A2B The first spouse had een asent for seven consecutive years at the ti-e of the second -arria.e ,ithout the spouse present havin. ne,s of the asentee ein. alive or if the asentee thou.h he has een asent for less than seven years is .enerally considered as dead and efore any person elieved to e so y the spouse present at the ti-e of contractin. such suse=uent -arria.e or if the asentee is presu-ed dead accordin. to articles ) 1 and ) !% The -arria.e so contracted shall e valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void y a co-petent court%  $s to ,hether a 9udicial declaration of nullity of a void -arria.e is necessary theCivil Code contains no e<press provision to that effect% Jurisprudence on the -atterho,ever appears to e conflictin.%Ori.inally in People v. Mendoza  >!1?   and  People v. Aa!on  >!!?  this Court held that no 9udicial decree is necessary to estalish the nullity of a void -arria.e% 0oth casesinvolved the sa-e factual -ilieu% $ccused contracted a second -arria.e durin. thesusistence of his first -arria.e% $fter the death of his first ,ife accused contracted athird -arria.e durin. the susistence of the second -arria.e% The second ,ife initiateda co-plaint for i.a-y% The Court ac=uitted accused on the .round that the second-arria.e is void havin. een contracted durin. the e<istence of the first-arria.e% There is no need for a 9udicial declaration that said second -arria.e isvoid% Since the second -arria.e is void and the first one ter-inated y the death of his,ife there are no t,o susistin. valid 6ence there can e noi.a-y% Justice $le< (eyes dissented in oth cases sayin. that it is not for thespouses ut the court to 9ud.e ,hether a -arria.e is void or not%

3-Go vs CA(1997)

Jul 26, 2017

pl 39

Jul 26, 2017
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!