Enrico v. Medinaceli Heirs

GR 173614

Facts:

Trinidad and Eulogio Medinaceli were married on June 14, 1962 and had 7 children. When Trinidad died on May 1, 2004, Eulogio married Lolita Enrico on August 26, 2004 and they begot 2 children. They were solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan. 6 months later, Eulogio passed away. Herein respondent assailed the second marriage of their father stating that they were not granted a marriage license for they could have not lived together violative of the 5-year cohabitation period and that they lacked marriage ceremony due to Eulogio’s serious illness which made its performance impossible. Petitioner countered that she and Eulogio had been under one roof for 21 years, openly and publicly.

This case tries to reconcile A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC “Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriages” and the case of Nial v. Bayadog. The former states that only the husband or wife who is allowed to file an action for nullity for such right is purely personal and is not transmissible upon death while the case of Nial held that the heirs of a deceased person may file for declaration after his death so as not prejudice their successional rights.

Issue: W/N the heirs may validly file the declaration of nullity of marriage between Lolita and Eulogio

Held: 
          No. The marriage or petitioner and Eulogio was celebrated on August 2004 and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which contends that an action for nullity is covered by the Family Code that took effect on August 3, 1988. The marriage impugned in the Nial case was celebrated before the existence of the Family Code that is why the Court granted the heirs their petition. Be that as it may, laws are prospective in nature hence, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs wherein Sec 2(a) thereof provides that “… petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs for they do not have such legal right. They only have inchoate rights and can only question the validity of the marriage…”. They can raise their successional interests in a proceeding for settlement of estate filed in regular courts, not a proceeding for nullity of marriage. 

Bolos v. Bolos

GR 186400
October 20, 2010


Facts:

            On the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Cynthia Bolos dated July 10, 2003, RTC rendered a decision dated August 2, 2006 declaring the marriage celebrated by the parties on February 14, 1980 null and void ab initio on the grounds of psychological incapacity on the part of both parties. Danilo received the decision on August 25, 2006 and immediately filed Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2006. RTC denied Notice of Appeal in an order dated Sept 19 for Danilo’s failure to file required motion for reconsideration or new trial in violation of Sec 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC otherwise known as “Rule on declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages”. CA reversed denial stating that motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply in the case because it was only applicable “to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988”. But petitioner insists A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs this case.

Issue: W/N A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is applicable at bar

Held: 

          No. SC upholds decision of CA. Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC states the scope in this wise “this Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines”. The Family Code only took effect on August 3, 1988. It being a clear and plain, it must be given its literal meaning and there is no room for interpretation or construction, only application.