Domingo v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Delia Soledad A. Domingo filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to petitioner Roberto Domingo, alleging that their marriage on November 29, 1976, was bigamous as Roberto had a prior valid and existing marriage to Emerlina dela Paz since April 25, 1969. Delia, who worked abroad, discovered Roberto's cohabitation with another woman and his disposition of her properties, acquired from her earnings, during her absence. She sought a restraining order, a declaration of nullity of their marriage, and the separation and administration of her properties by her attorney-in-fact. Procedural History: Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that a judicial declaration of nullity was unnecessary for a void marriage and that private respondent had no property in his possession. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, citing jurisprudence requiring a judicial declaration of nullity for void marriages, even if void ab initio, and noting that property possession was a matter for trial. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Instead of filing an answer, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding that the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss was not attended by grave abuse of discretion, as the case involved separation of property alongside the declaration of nullity, which could be adjudicated in the same proceeding. The Petition: Petitioner seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, primarily arguing that a petition for the judicial declaration of a void marriage is only necessary for remarriage and that the petition filed by private respondent lacked this specific purpose. He contends that the underlying marriage was void ab initio and thus required no judicial decree for its invalidity. Petitioner also argues that an ordinary civil action, not a special proceeding for nullity, should have been filed for the separation of property. The petition before the Supreme Court raises the necessity of a judicial declaration of a void marriage and whether the instant petition is the proper remedy for property recovery.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary, and whether such a declaration is limited to purposes of remarriage. Whether the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property is the proper remedy for the private respondent to recover properties allegedly belonging to her exclusively.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The ruling of the Court of Appeals affirming the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage: The Court reiterated that while previous rulings suggested that no judicial decree was necessary for a void marriage, subsequent jurisprudence established the need for a judicial declaration. The Family Code definitively settled this by explicitly requiring a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage as a basis for legal actions or defenses. Article 40 states that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage solely on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. The Court clarified that a judicial declaration is not limited to remarriage but can be invoked for other purposes, such as the liquidation and partition of properties. On the propriety of the remedy for separation of property: The Court held that the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property is the proper remedy. When a marriage is declared void ab initio, Article 50 of the Family Code mandates that the final judgment shall provide for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties of the spouses. Therefore, the prayer for separation of property is a necessary consequence of the judicial declaration of nullity and can be adjudicated in the same proceeding. The RTC, having jurisdiction over the nullity of marriage, is also clothed with jurisdiction to decide incidental questions regarding the couple's properties. Thus, the CA did not commit reversible error in finding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
Main Doctrine
A petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is necessary not only for purposes of remarriage but also for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties acquired during the void marriage, and the Family Code settled the conflicting jurisprudence by requiring a judicial declaration of nullity.