David v. Calilung
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute stems from the declaration of nullity of the marriage between Rene F. Aguas and Lucila David due to psychological incapacity. This nullity was declared in 2005, and the court ordered the division of their conjugal property, a house and lot in Sunset Valley Estate, and the delivery of presumptive legitimes to their five children. However, these orders were not registered or implemented. Subsequently, Rene married Cherry S. Calilung in 2006. Rene passed away intestate in 2015. 2. Procedural History: Following Rene's death, Cherry filed a petition for the settlement of his intestate estate. The heirs of Rene (the Aguas heirs) filed a Comment/Opposition, arguing that Rene's marriage to Cherry was void due to non-compliance with Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code regarding the partition of properties and delivery of legitimes from the previous marriage. Subsequently, Lucila and the Aguas heirs filed a separate petition for the declaration of nullity of Rene and Cherry's marriage. This petition was initially handled by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Angeles City, Branch 59 (Family Court), which then ordered its transmittal to a court of general jurisdiction, citing that such a petition constitutes a collateral attack and is not within a Family Court's jurisdiction. The case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 60, which dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The denial of a motion for reconsideration led to the present direct recourse to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Lucila David and the heirs of Rene F. Aguas, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They challenge the RTC's dismissal of their petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Their primary arguments are that the dismissal was procedurally flawed, that the referral back to the Family Court was improperly denied, and that the RTC erred in holding it lacked jurisdiction. They contend that the marriage between Rene and Cherry is void due to the failure to comply with the requirements of Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code concerning the partition of properties and delivery of presumptive legitimes from Rene's prior marriage to Lucila.
Issue(s)
Whether Branch 59 or Branch 60 has jurisdiction over the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Whether Branch 60 erred in dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Whether the petitioners are the real parties-in-interest to file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It affirmed the dismissal of the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. The Aguas heirs may challenge the validity of Rene and Cherry's marriage in the settlement of Rene's estate, and Lucila David may file a separate action for partition.
Ratio Decidendi
On Jurisdiction: The Court reiterated that jurisdiction over petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage is vested exclusively in Family Courts pursuant to R.A. No. 8369. Since Angeles City has a designated Family Court (Branch 59), other branches of the RTC, like Branch 60, do not have jurisdiction over such cases. The Court noted that Branch 59 improperly ordered the re-raffle of the case, as the proper ground for dismissal, if any, would be failure to state a cause of action, not lack of jurisdiction. However, the Transmittal Order of Branch 59 had become final. On Dismissal by Branch 60: Branch 60 correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the subject matter, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, exclusively falls under the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Since Branch 60 is not a designated Family Court, it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case. Any act performed by a court without jurisdiction is void. Therefore, Branch 60 could not order the transfer of the case back to Branch 59. On Real Party-in-Interest: The Court held that the petitioners, Lucila David and the Aguas heirs, are not the real parties-in-interest to file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Citing A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages), only the husband or wife may file such a petition. The Aguas heirs, as compulsory heirs, have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor and can only question the validity of the marriage in a proceeding for the settlement of the deceased spouse's estate. Lucila, not being the wife in the marriage sought to be annulled (as her marriage to Rene was already declared void), is also not an aggrieved or injured spouse with legal standing to file the petition. The ground for the petition was not bigamy, thus the ruling in Juliano-Llave was not applicable.
Main Doctrine
A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. Compulsory or intestate heirs cannot file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage; they may, however, question the validity of a marriage collaterally in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse.