WIEGEL VS SEMPIO-DIY To illustrate Article 40 of the Family Code, the Supreme Court consistently cites the case of Wiegel

v. Sempio- iy.!"#$ %ere, &arl Wiegel sought the declaration of nullity of his marriage to 'ilia Wiegel, (hich (as cele)rated in *#+,, on the ground of 'ilia-s previous e.isting marriage to a certain /duardo 0a.ion, (hich (as cele)rated in *#+1. While admitting that her marriage to 0a.ion e.isted, 'ilia claimed it to )e null and void )ecause they (ere allegedly forced to enter the marital union. Contesting the validity of the pre-trial court order, 'ilia as2ed that she )e a)le to present evidence )efore the court not only that the first marriage (as vitiated )y force, )ut also to prove that 0a.ion (as already married to some)ody else at the time she married him. 3udge Sempio- iy did not allo( the presentation of evidence since the e.istence of force e.erted on )oth parties of the first marriage had already )een agreed upon at pre-trial. 4n a side note, the 5uestion also )egs itself6 is it really possi)le under Article 4, of the Family Code!40$ and its predecessors to stipulate on the ground for nullity of a marriage7 8n upholding Sempio- iy-s order, the Supreme Court held that, first, 'ilia does not have to present evidence that her first marriage has )een vitiated )y force. A marriage vitiated )y force is merely voida)le9that is, valid until annulled. Since no annulment had yet )een made, it is clear that (hen 'ilia married Wiegel, she is still validly married to 0a.ion. Conse5uently, her marriage to Wiegel is void.. Second, 'ilia does not have to present evidence as to her hus)and-s alleged marriage at the time they married. While 'ilia and 0a.ion-s marriage is void, it still needs to )e declared void )y a court.!4*$ Thus, the Supreme Court said that since the first marriage had not )een annulled or declared void, then 'ilia (as considered a married (oman at the time she married &arl, conse5uently, her marriage (ith &arl is void. This is a proper application of Article 40, and the author agrees to the various aforementioned conclusions. %o(ever, Wiegel is not a case involving )igamy. Lilia Wiegel v. Hon. Semio-Dy 143 SCR 4!! "1!#$% Facts6 &arl %ein: Wiegel filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage (ith 'ilia Wiegel ;<etitioner '8'8A= on the ground of '8'8A-s previous e.isting marriage to /duardo 0a.ion. '8'8A admitted the e.istence of her prior marriage to 0a.ion )ut claimed that their marriage (as null and void )ecause she and 0a.ion (ere allegedly forced to enter said marital union. uring pre-trial, the issue agreed upon )y '8'8A and &arl Wiegel (as the status of the first marriage ;void or voida)le7=. '8'8A contested validity of the pre-trial order and as2ed the court for an opportunity to present evidence that6 ;*= * st marriage (as vitiated )y force e.ercised upon )oth her and 0a.ion and ;1= 0a.ion, at the time of their marriage, (as already married to someone else. %on. Sempio- y ruled against the presentation f evidence )ecause the e.istence of force e.erted on '8'8A and 0a.ion had already )een agreed upon. '8'8A assailed Sempio- y-s 4rders ;compelling to su)mit the case for resolution )ased on >agreed facts? and denying motion to present evidence in her favor= through a <etition for Certiorari alleging @A A'/3. 8ssue6 Sempio- y guilty of @A A'/37 %eld6 Ao. <etition dismissed.

There is no need for '8'8A to prove that her * st marriage (as vitiated )y force committed against )oth parties, )ecause even assuming this to )e so, marriage W8'' A4T B/ C48 )ut merely voida)le, and therefore CA'8 until annulled. Since there (as no annulment yet, it is clear that (hen she married &arl Wiegel, she (as still validly married to 0a.ion. Thus, her marriage to &arl is C48 . There is li2e(ise no need to introduce evidence a)out the e.isting prior marriage of 0a.ion at the time he and '8'8A (ere married, )ecause even if their marriage (as void, a Dudicial declaration of such fact is necessary. Without the Dudicial declaration, '8'8A ;for all legal intents and purposes= (as still regarded as a married (oman at the time she contracted her marriage (ith &arl Wiegel. Thus, marriage to &arl (ould still )e regarded as C48 under the la(.