Castillo v. Castillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Lea P. De Leon Castillo (Lea) married Benjamin Bautista on May 25, 1972. Subsequently, Lea married petitioner Renato A. Castillo on January 6, 1979. Renato filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, alleging that Lea had a prior subsisting marriage to Bautista and that Lea was psychologically incapacitated. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage between Renato and Lea null and void ab initio on the ground of bigamy, holding that the prior marriage to Bautista was subsisting when Lea married Renato, and that a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was necessary. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, holding that the Civil Code was applicable as the marriages were celebrated before the Family Code's effectivity, and under the Civil Code, a judicial decree was not necessary to establish the nullity of a void marriage. The CA further ruled that Lea's first marriage was null and void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license, which rendered her subsequent marriage to Renato valid. The Petition: Petitioner Renato A. Castillo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA Decision and Resolution that affirmed the CA's reversal of the RTC's declaration of nullity.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent was not prevented from contracting a second marriage if the first one was an absolutely nullity and did not have to await a final decree of nullity of the first marriage. Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the RTC's declaration of nullity of the second marriage.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 April 2009 and Resolution dated 16 September 2009 in CA-G.R. CV No. 90153 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue: The Court reiterated that the validity of a marriage is determined by the law in effect at the time of its celebration. Since both marriages in this case were celebrated before the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988), the Civil Code is the applicable law. Under the Civil Code, a void marriage is considered nonexistent and can be attacked collaterally without the necessity of a judicial decree. The Court cited People v. Mendoza, People v. Aragon, and Odayat v. Amante which held that the Civil Code contains no express provision on the necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage. Therefore, Lea's first marriage to Bautista, being void ab initio for lack of a marriage license, did not require a judicial declaration of nullity before she could contract a second marriage. The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of her first marriage only served to strengthen the validity of her second marriage to Renato. The Court emphasized that the Family Code, particularly Article 40, now expressly requires a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a previous marriage for purposes of remarriage. A second marriage contracted prior to this declaration is considered bigamous and void. However, this requirement does not apply retroactively to marriages celebrated before the effectivity of the Family Code, as doing so would prejudice vested rights. The Court clarified that cases involving marriages celebrated before the Family Code's effectivity continue to be governed by the rulings in Odayat, Mendoza, and Aragon, where no judicial decree was necessary to establish the invalidity of void marriages. On the second issue: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the second marriage between Renato and Lea is valid. This is because Lea's first marriage to Bautista was declared null and void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license. Consequently, her first marriage was considered nonexistent from the beginning. Since the first marriage was void, the second marriage contracted by Lea with Renato was not bigamous. The fact that Lea did not obtain a judicial decree declaring her first marriage void before contracting the second marriage is immaterial under the Civil Code, which was the governing law at the time.
Main Doctrine
Under the Civil Code, a marriage that is void due to the subsistence of a prior marriage does not require a judicial declaration of nullity to be considered void, especially when the second marriage was celebrated prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. However, for marriages celebrated after the effectivity of the Family Code, a judicial declaration of nullity of the previous marriage is required before contracting a subsequent marriage.