Facts:
In 1977, private respondent Edgardo married Ana Maria. However, the Juvenile and Domestic Relatives declared their marriage null and void ab initio lack of a valid marriage license. In 1979, before the decree was issued nullifying his marriage to Anna Maria, Edgardo married petitioner Ofelia. In 1991, Edgardo filed a civil case with the RTC praying that his marriage with Ofelia be declared null and void on the ground that there was no marriage license when they got married. He also averred at that time he married Ofelia, he was still married to Anna Maria since the decree of nullity of his marriage to Anna Maria was rendered only on August 4, 1980.
Ofelia, in defending her marriage, submitted their Marriage License. However, the fact that the civil marriage of Edgardo and Ofelia in 1979 before the judgment declaring his prior marriage as null and void is undisputed.
The trial court ruled in favor of Edgardo and declared his marriage to Ofelia void.
In 1977, private respondent Edgardo married Ana Maria. However, the Juvenile and Domestic Relatives declared their marriage null and void ab initio lack of a valid marriage license. In 1979, before the decree was issued nullifying his marriage to Anna Maria, Edgardo married petitioner Ofelia. In 1991, Edgardo filed a civil case with the RTC praying that his marriage with Ofelia be declared null and void on the ground that there was no marriage license when they got married. He also averred at that time he married Ofelia, he was still married to Anna Maria since the decree of nullity of his marriage to Anna Maria was rendered only on August 4, 1980.
Ofelia, in defending her marriage, submitted their Marriage License. However, the fact that the civil marriage of Edgardo and Ofelia in 1979 before the judgment declaring his prior marriage as null and void is undisputed.
The trial court ruled in favor of Edgardo and declared his marriage to Ofelia void.
Issues:
1. Is a decree of nullity of the first marriage required before a subsequent marriage can be entered into validly?
2. May the Family Code be given retroactive effect to the instant case?
3. Is Ofelia entitled to moral damages as indemnity for Edgardo’s filing of a baseless complaint?
2. May the Family Code be given retroactive effect to the instant case?
3. Is Ofelia entitled to moral damages as indemnity for Edgardo’s filing of a baseless complaint?
Held:
1. Yes. A declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is now explicitly required (Art. 40, FC). Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
2. The second marriage of private respondent was entered into in 1979. At that time, the prevailing rule was found in Odayat, Mendoza and Aragon, wherein there was no need for judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage for lack of license and consent, before such person may contract a second marriage. The first marriage of private respondent being void for lack of license and consent, there was no need for judicial declaration of its nullity before he could contract a second marriage. Edgardo’s second marriage to Ofelia Ty is therefore valid.
Moreover, the provision of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied where to do so would prejudice the vested rights of a party and her children. The Family Code has retroactive effect unless there is impairment of vested rights. In the present case, that impairment of vested rights of petitioner and the children is patent.
3. No damages should be awarded in the present case. Petitioner wants her marriage to private respondent held valid and subsisting. She is suing to maintain her status as legitimate wife. In the same breath, she asks for damages from her husband for filing a baseless complaint for annulment of their marriage which caused her mental anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, social humiliation and alienation from her parents. Should we grant her prayer, we would have a situation where the husband pays the wife damages from conjugal or common funds. To do so, would make the application of the law absurd. Logic, if not common sense, militates against such incongruity. Moreover, our laws do not comprehend an action for damages between husband and wife merely because of breach of a marital obligation. There are other remedies (legal separation, or prosecution for adultery or concubinage). (Ty vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 127406, November 27, 2000)
2. The second marriage of private respondent was entered into in 1979. At that time, the prevailing rule was found in Odayat, Mendoza and Aragon, wherein there was no need for judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage for lack of license and consent, before such person may contract a second marriage. The first marriage of private respondent being void for lack of license and consent, there was no need for judicial declaration of its nullity before he could contract a second marriage. Edgardo’s second marriage to Ofelia Ty is therefore valid.
Moreover, the provision of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied where to do so would prejudice the vested rights of a party and her children. The Family Code has retroactive effect unless there is impairment of vested rights. In the present case, that impairment of vested rights of petitioner and the children is patent.
3. No damages should be awarded in the present case. Petitioner wants her marriage to private respondent held valid and subsisting. She is suing to maintain her status as legitimate wife. In the same breath, she asks for damages from her husband for filing a baseless complaint for annulment of their marriage which caused her mental anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, social humiliation and alienation from her parents. Should we grant her prayer, we would have a situation where the husband pays the wife damages from conjugal or common funds. To do so, would make the application of the law absurd. Logic, if not common sense, militates against such incongruity. Moreover, our laws do not comprehend an action for damages between husband and wife merely because of breach of a marital obligation. There are other remedies (legal separation, or prosecution for adultery or concubinage). (Ty vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 127406, November 27, 2000)
0 Comments
Post a Comment