ARTICLE 35 marriages that are not

valid
James married Karla in 1999 but eventually contracted a subsequent
marriage with a Shirley. Shirley tried James for Bigamy while at the
same time his wife Karla was moving to have his 2nd marriage annulled.
Eventually the RTC reset the hearing date long enough for James to get
the declaration of nullity order, the RTC than decided to dismiss the
case because on the bases that his 2nd marriage was already nullified,
Shirley appealed to the CA that affirmed the RTC decision while James
denied motion for recon, SC ruled on the same grounds of the CA
The SC stated that there are 4 elements of bigamy
(1) the offender has been legally married;
(2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her
spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumeddead
according to the Civil Code;
(3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
(4) that the second orSubsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity.
All were present in the case at bar the only difference being the
marriage to Shirley was annulled at some point during the criminal
proceedings. The SC stated that despite this fact James still contracted
2nd Marriage with Shirley, the point being both valid marriages were
subsisting at the same time before the first marriage was annulled.

Mirany met a Fujiki and married him however after soxme time their
relationship soured and she met another Japanese national Maekara.
However again after some time her relationship with Maekara soured
and she went back to Fujiki and Fujki decided to get a declaration of
nullity from the family courts of Japan on the grounds of Bigamy. When
they tried to get the judgement here accept however the RTC ruled
stating that Fujiki could not get a declaration of Nullity on the the
grounds that It was not the proper venue and that lack of personality, it
also cited Jurisprudence stating that what Fujiki was doing was a
collateral attack on the marriage and nullity can only be filed by the
husband or the wife it also stated that.
However the Jurisprudence cited does not apply because they did not
deal with Marriages being nullified in the context of foreign judgment
rendering the bigamous marriage nullified. In this case the SC rules
that He was proper person to file the petition because under 108 of the
rules of court states that any person who has an interest in an act
even, decree or status of a person may file for a petition for the
cancelation or modification of the entry with the RTC of the
corresponding LCR. The court further stated that this was not a
collateral attack because there was no circumvention of procedural
safeguards, Fujiki only wanted the RTC to recognize the decree by the
Japanese courts that was already tried and decided under foreign law.
WHEREFORE,weGRANTthepetition.TheOrderdated31January2011andtheResolutiondated2
March2011oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch107,QuezonCity,inCivilCaseNo.Q1168582are
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheRegionalTrialCourtisORDEREDtoREINSTATEthepetitionfor
furtherproceedingsinaccordancewiththisDecision.SOORDERED.

Elise is the biological child of Eliseo, after Eliseos death Elise decided
to file for letter of adminstratrix over the estate however her petition
was assailed by Amelia and her children. In order to prove her position
Elise presented her birth certificate with its accompanying signature
stating that Eliseo is her Father and also stated that the Marriage of her
father to Amelia was bigamous thus making it Void ab initio because
Amelias marriage with Eliseo was during the subsisting marriage of
Amelia to a certain Filipito. Amelias positing instead stated that the
case should be dismissed because it was not the proper venue stating
that the deceased resided in Capas Tarlac not las Pinas. The RTC and
CA both agreed with Elise as to her Filation and the residence of Eliseo.
Again Amelia continued on insisting that Capa Tarlic was the residence
since that was what had been written on the death certificate however
the SC took notice of the statutory construction of rule 73 of the Rules
of court and stated that residence should understood in its more
popular sense. They also took notice of the marriage certificate issued
by the diocese of Tarlac to conclude that Amelias Marriage was in fact
bigamous and that Elise was in fact an interest party eligible to file for
letters of administration being one of the surviving kin of Eliseo.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thepetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.Accordingly,theCourtof
Appealsassailed28November2008Decisionand7August2009Resolution,arcAFFIRMEDintoto

Edgardo Married Molina and after sometime contracted valid marriage

with Alagon. Edgardo than filed for declaration of nullity of marriage
with Molina. Edgardo was than charged with Bigamy by private
complainant Evelyn Alagon. Ed decided to file for an Omnibus motion
and motion quash but the RTC denied the Omnibus motion since the
facts present do constitute the crime of bigamy and the motion to
quash cannot be sustained because declaration of nullity of the first
marriage does not extinguish is criminal laiblity for bigamy. He filed for
Certorari with the CA and they approved.
Peititon for Certiorari was filed for the CA decision. The SC stated that
all the elements of bigamy where indeed present and proven by fact.
While Ed did obtain a declaration of Nullity even before he was charged
with bigamy the fact remains that he had a valid first marriage and
that he had another valid 2nd marriage while his 1st was still subsisting.
Therefore he cannot file for motion to quash because there is not
defect in the facts that establish if a crime had been committed or not.
He states that his DON with first marriage removes his criminal liability
for bigamy but this is a matter of defense that must be taken up in a
full blown trial.
The reliance of the CA and Ed on Morigo V People cannot be sustained,
that case involved the parties sigining a marriage contract without a
solemnizing officer and therefore there was no marriage to speak of.
Therefore,hewhocontractsasecondmarriagebeforethejudicialdeclarationofnullityofthefirstmarriage
assumestheriskofbeingprosecutedforbigamy.
,settledistherulethatcriminalculpabilityattachestotheoffenderuponthecommissionoftheoffenseand
fromthatinstant,liabilityappendstohim
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyGRANTED.TheCourtofAppealsDecisiondatedDecember17,
2009andResolutiondatedMarch4,2010inCAG.R.SPNo.108616areSETASIDE.CriminalCaseNo.
05235814isREMANDEDtotheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch27forfurtherproceedings.

Lourdes married Socrates but than she married Silverio at a later point
in time, Silverios daughter charged Lourdes with the crime of bigamy.
Lourdes however moved for a motion to quash stating that her
marriage with Socrates had already been declared null, that the
prescriptive period of 15 years had expired and that the marriage was
before the effectively of the family code. The RTC moved to quash and
dismissed the case.
The case was brought up to the CA that dismissed it saying the OSG
should have been the party to file and therefore the case was brought
to the SC.
The SC stated that the RTC was indeed wrong in dismissed the case
because bigamy had been indeed committed based on the elements of
the crime. Criminal liability starts from the time the act is committed.
Despite the fact that a DON was obtained Lourdes still married while
her 1st marriage was subsisting, parties themselves should not be the
ones to judge nullity, therefore he who contracts another marriage
before a DON of the first is liable for the crime of bigamy. As to the
defense raised regarding the family code the SC stated that it did
provide for retroactivity as long as it does not impair acquired or
vested rights and procedural laws are not a source of enforceable
rights.
WHEREFORE,consideringtheforegoing,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheOrderdatedSeptember24,2007
andtheResolutiondatedJanuary2,2008oftheRegionalTrialCourtofSanPedro,Laguna,Branch31,
issuedinCriminalCaseNo.4990SPL,areherebySETASIDE.CriminalCaseNo.4990SPLisordered
REMANDEDtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.SOORDERED

Aurelio vs Aurelio
The case is a bout the Aurelio couple who have deicded to file for a
declaration of nullity due to psychological incapacity. Mr. Aurelio often
humiliates his wife infront of their children, does not foot house bills, is
easily annoyed and does not take notice to the plight of his wife. Mrs
Aurellio on the other hand shows her emotions often but switches
between them often as well, she takes great satisfaction from instant
gratification and self indulgence and is emotionally immature and
cannot stand boredom. A psychological expert has diagnosed them
with histrionic personality disorder with narcissistic tendencies and
passive aggressive personality disorder respectively.
Mr. Aurelio however filed with the RTC motion to dismiss and motion to
reconsider however both were dismissed the RTC stating that the case
complied with the Molina doctrine for declaration of nullity due to
psychological incapacity
Mr. Aurellio filed for certiorari with the CA which also dismissed after
which a motion for recon was also dismissed in the dismissal the CA
instead affirming the RTC decision it thus the case at bar with the SC.
Mr. Aurelios basis is that there is insuffiscient basis to support nullity
on grounds of psycho incapacity. Namely of the 3 molina guidelines,
root cause, gravity of illness and noncomplied with marital obligation
must be stated in petition.
The SC stated that the family background discussed was enough for
root cause of their psycho incapacity, an expert had already stated as
to the gravity of their psycho illness and that the noncomplied with
marital obligation can be gleamed from the totality of the petition

under article 68 of the FC, that they must observe mutal love, respect
fidelity, help and support.

WHEREFORE, premises considered the petition is DENIED. The

October 6, 2005 Decision and October 26, 2006 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 82238, are AFFIRMED.

Reyes vs Reyes
Mr and Mrs Reyes were college sweethearts that met each other in
UPD, after sometime Mr. Reyes dropped out of college abut Mrs. Reyes
continued and graduated AB psych. The two got married and had kids
and everything was fine until the allowances that Mr.Reyes used to
give Mrs.Reyes stopped, apprelty he had quit his Job at the family
business (Aristocrat Restaurant) he tried in vain to set up a number of
business such as a sea food trading, fish ponds and scrap paper
trading but all failed. He also became even more indifferent to his wife
and his kids to the effect that he did not even give much notice the
birth of his 3rd son or even care for the well being of his wife when she
was operated for cyst. After attempts at trying to fix their marriage
such as speaking with her in-laws and even attending marriage
counseling Ms Reyes decided to file for declaration of nullity due to
psychological incapacity of her husband
The RTC ruled in favor of Ms.Reyes who presented 3 testimonies from
Dr Villegas, magno and Dayan that her husband is psychologically
incapacitated to perform marital obligations.
The CA however overturned this ruling bringing us to the SC
The SC stated that lack of personal examination and interview of
respondent does not per se invalidate the testimony and render it as
hearsay the psychodynamics of a person as stated from the manual of
mental disorders can be established on a number of different factors

such as testimonies of other parties such as the respondents son and

wife and his siblings and other relatives.
The SC also assailed the CA statement that Dr.Dayans
recommendation for treat renders the incapacity as not incurable
because in the normal course of their work Psychiatrist offer treatment
to manage behavior and Dr.Dayan further stated that Mr Reyes was
indeed psychological incapacitated to perform marital obligations
In sum, we find points of convergence & consistency in all three reports and the
respective testimonies of Doctors
Magno, Dayan and Villegas, i.e.: (1) respondent does have problems; and (2) these
problems include chronic
irresponsibility; inability to recognize and work towards providing the needs of his
family; several failed business
attempts; substance abuse; and a trail of unpaid money obligations.

In the case at bar however the factual antecedents before and after
marriage all point to psychological incapacity preventing observance of
marital obligations.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 89761 is
REVERSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon
City in Civil Case No. Q0144854
declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL and
VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code is
Ed and Rowena met in College, Ed was courting Rowenas friend but
upon learning she was taken he went for Rowena instead. The two
found themselves to share a mutual hate for their families and they
soon became close. After a few months Rowena tried to convince Ed to
Elope with her Ed at first refused but Rowena kept on pushing the
matter until he finally agreed. They left for Cebu with 80,000 as money
for living expense but it ran out in a month as both also failed at
finding work. Eventually they returned, Rowena to her uncle and Ed to
his parents home. Rowena however insisted the Ed stay with her and if
he didnt shed kill herself, she they talked to each other on the phone
but Rowena just became even more irrantional threating to kill herself
again and to scandalize the family of Ed, Ed in an effort to appease
Rowena asked what it is he could do to which she replied that marriage
was the answer. Eventually they got married in Valenzuela and Ed was
imprisoned in Rowenas house, with her uncle threatening him with his
many guns and saying that theyll have military hurt his family. but one
night Ed managed to one day escape from his prison like circumstance
after his parents had arrived. Upon explaining the situation to his
family they again decided to support him. Rowena kept calling Ed
telling him to live with her and to get his inheritance already however
Ed said he was disinherited and had no job and therefore no money
and after Rowena stopped bothering him.

Ed filed with the RTC declaration of nullity on grounds of Psych

Incapacity on part of Rowena, the RTC declared the marriage null on
grounds of both of them being Crazy.
However the OSG assailed this in its memorandum stating the
requirements of Molina were not satisfied, root cause, clinical
identification, permanence or curability of the incapacity of both
parties, no personal examination of respondent.
Essentially the issue became if the marriage is null and void based on
article 36
The SC states that they accept the diagnosis of the expert witness and
that the Psychological incapcities of the parties, Dependent PD and
narscicisitic and anti social PD found in Ed and Rowena respectively
and did impair their ability to carry out marital obligations.
Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable
psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage
which they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari
is GRANTED. The August 5, 2003
Decision and the January 19, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CAG.R. CV No. 71867 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, and the Decision, dated July 30, 2001, REINSTATED.
RA vs CA and Molina
In the case Ms.Molina filed for a declaration of nullity based on
psychological incapacity. The basis for her claim was that her husband
was immature and irresponsible, he always went out with his friends,
squandered his money and even lost his Job. At some point Roridel
decided to quit her Job and move in with her parents in Baguio along
with the kids effectively separating the two.
Mr.Molina contends that their frequent quarrles are due to the Roridels
on behavior an keeping her group of friends, refusal to perform certain
martial acts and failure to run the household and manage finances.
The RTC declared the marriage Null and void the RTC affirmed the
decision
The issue is W/N the CA made an erroneous decision in granting the
nullity on Psychological incapacity.

The SC ruled in the negative, they stated that Psychological incapacity

must be characterized by, gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability. But in the present it it seems to just be a refusal to do
marital obligations, irreconcilable differences and conflicting
personalities. There is no proof showing incapability of performing the
marriage obligation
The court decided to go beyond the facts and invited two amicus curie
to comment on the case based on the fact that courts have long had a
difficult time applying article 36. Setting down the following Guidelines
now known as the Molina Doctrine.
1.)Burden of proof must be on the one alleging the PI
2.)Root cause of the PI must be,
-Clinically identified,
-Alleged in the complaint, permanent,
-Sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained.
3.) Incapacity must have been present during their exchange of marital
vows
4.) Incapacity must be medically incurable it however may be relative
to other persons but it must be relevant to marriage obligations
5.) Illness be grave enough to bring about disability in a party to
assume essential marriage oglibations.
6.) Marital obligations not fulfilled must be those in art 68-71 of the FC
and Art 220, 221 and 225 of the FC
7.) Interpretations of the National Appellate matrimonial tribunal of the
Catholic Church of the Philippines is given respect by the courts but it
is not controlling.

RP vs Cesar Encelan
Cesar Married Lolita however CESAR became an OFW and worked in
Saudi Arabia. However he learned while in Saudi that Lolita was
engaged in an extra marital affair with Alvin Perez and had left the
conjugal home. Cesar decided to file a case of nullification of marriage
in ground of Psychological Incapacity.
Lolita denied that she had a relationship with Alvin stating that the
former was just a colleague from work and she left the home due to
differences with her Mother in Law.

Cesar during the trial presented evidence from a psychologist stating

that Lolita was not suffering from any mental illness but had not been
able to meet the expectations of a long lasting marital relationship and
that her refusal to go with Cesar abroad is shows she does not want to
have good marital and family relations.
The RTC declared their marriage void, the CA set aside the verdict
finding infidelity and abandonment of the home as invalid grounds for
declaration of nullity based on PI. However the CA on recon reversed
its earlier decision citing the following as grounds for PI
1.) Inability of Lolita to fulfill marriage obligations
2.) Her abandonment of the conjugal home
The SC ruled in the Negative, It has stressed that psychological
incapacity is outright inability to perform marital obligations not mere
refusal. Cesar failed to prove his wifes PI, infidelity and abandonment
do not constitute PI unless there is evidence that it does so to which
there was none. His reliance on the Doctors findings was also invalid,
since they were based on her work relationships, which were not
established to be related to her marital relationship. The Doctor also
made a hasty generalization when he said that her refusal to go abroad
was a sign of refusal to work out a good martial relationship.
CA DESCISION AFFIRMED

RP vs Nestor Galang
Nestor Galang and his wife were married and resided in Pampanga
where nestor worked as an artist illustrator. However their marriage
suffered from his wifes being a kleptomaniac and swindler. Nestor
stated that she likes to engage in gambling, stole his ATM card,
borrows money from friends on the pretext that their son is sick. She

does not make breakfast, nor takes care of the Kid she only leaves him
with their neighbor.
Nestor got a Psychologist to analyze his and his wife who failed to
appear for personal examination. The psychologist stated that Nestor
is generally well adjusted but suffered self esteem issues, depression
and emotional tension due to his wifes behavior.The shrink stated that
the wife was, lazy and irresponsible, likes gambling, an estafador,
neglectful, immature and has no initiative to change despite Nestors
attempts at forgetting and forgiving and trying to appease her through
vacations, special care, cooking her favorite food etc. Thus she is PI to
perform marital obligation.
RTC affirmed the petition and so did the CA
The SC granted the petition, stating that given the guidelines provided
by previous cases such as Leouel Santos and Molina the evidence of
Nestor is not sufficient. The Wifes actions were just neglect, refusal
and difficulty in performing certain marriage obligations not outright
disability. There must have been an integral element in the personality
structure of the person that prevents them from fulfilling their marital
obligation.
The Psychologists report is also not valid since it was only based on
Nestors own account. It also only stressed her negative traits and did
not identify a root cause of her behavior nor site tests as a basis for her
conclusions, nor did it state the actual PD of his wife, or the gravity and
extent of the alleged condition including its curability or not as well is
if the condition was present during the exchange of martial vows and
her testimony was nothing more than a rehashing of her psychological
report.
The case was dismissed with RTCA AND CA DECISIONS SET ASIDE.

Tyrone and Maylin met in 1973 and got married in HK they had 4 kids,
Rio, Ria, Miggy and Jay

After the birth of jay Maylin learned that Tyrone had an extra marital
affair with a Jocelyn. In 1985 Maylin left the conjugal home with her 4
kids and Tyrone starting living with Jocelyn whom he had 3 kids with.
He left Maylin and his kids in Valle Verde with a driver and househelp.
The kids stayed with maylin on the weekends. Rio and Ria asked for
permission to go Japan for a week but Maylin found out they actually
went to the states to live Tyrone but Ria returned after 1 year to live
with her mom. Tyrone and Jocelyn returned to the Philippines and
resumed custody of jay and Miggy according to MCaaylin the kids
stopped going to her house on the weekends in order to chill with their
dad.
Tyrone filed for declaration of Nullity due to PI with the RTC. The RTC
ruled to nullify marriage on account of both of them having PI. The CA
reversed the decision.
Tyrone got a Dr.Gates and a Canon Law expert who said that She had
NPD because she was always going on nights out and neglects her
duties as a mother and comes from a family background lacking a
maternal role model.
M
aylin in her defense got stated that she did have relationship problems
with Tyrone but was a good mother to her kids but ultimately both
suffer from PI stating that Maylin is Dependent, Narcissistic and
compulsive while Tyrone has commitment issues.
The SC held that Tyrone had failed to prove the psychological
incapacity of his wife as was his burden as the petitioner. The Doctors
that he got to make findings made those findings on acts and
behaviors that were not proven relying on Tyrones account. His
account of his wifes infidelity as to the Hyatt incident did not have
enough evidence to support it, The kids likewise confirmed that their
mother played mahjong but thrice a week only not 5 as Tyrone stated
and that she took care of them to the best of her ability. The allegation
that she went with friends and met other men was based on
assumptions.

RP vs Reghis and Olivia

Reghis and Olivia met in Baguio city when Olivia got stuck on Kennon
road and Reghis assisted her. Olivias parents played match maker.
Olivia wanted to get married but Reghis refused stating that they were
just students. Olivia tried to stay with Reghis but Reghis refused so he
arranged for her to stay at a dorm. Olivias parents thought they
eloped so planned that they get married. Reghis objected but Olivia
assured him her parents would take care of everything until they were
able. Reghis agreed out of the kidness of Olivias parents.
The couple had a turbulent marriage with lots of fights, Reghis still
bitter about being pressured into marriage with Olivia. It worsened
when Reghist got a Job as Med rep because he got so focused on work
that he negletcted Olivia and in 1986 they parted ways.
Reghis filed for nullity due to PI on his account stating he married not
out of love, was not prepared to fulfill his marital obligations and that
Olivia had an affair with Eddie Garcia and presented findings from a
Psychologist that he has OCPD that makes him engrossed in his work
to the detriment of his other obligations and thus a cause for his
marital problems. It also stated his reluctance to get married in the
first place.
The RTC affirmed and the CA did so too.
The SC stated that all people have their own quirks that can be related
to certain PDs but the PI is reserved the most serious of cases. It must
be grave enough to incapacitate the party, have Juridical Antecdence
and be incurable. It must be a downright incapacity so things like
mood changes and occasional outburst dont count. The review of the
records do not show this since Reghis own testimony shows he
complied with his Marital Obligations, providing for the family,
contributing to buying a house and loves his kids. His reasons for
marriage though dont count since while it may not be Love any other
purpose is valid.
The psychologist report was also not given credence since the Dr did
not explain anything about OCPD such as cause, symptoms,
classification or cure nor what extent if afflicts Nestor. Thus absent any
sufficient evidence to prove PI
Petition granted, CA decision reversed and set aside.

Leoul Santos vs CA
1st Lt. Santos Met his wife Julia in Iloilo and the two got married but the
ecstacy did not last long. Qurrels arised due to the meddling of Julias
parents in their family affairs and quarrels over when where they
should live together. However Julia eventually left for the states to be a
nurse but only called Santos after 7months. Santos was sent to the
states for further training but could not get in touch with Julia.Failing at
getting Julia to come home he filed for a petition of nullity under article
36.
RTC dismissed the case and the CA affirmed on appeal.
The SC stated that while there is no definite term for PI the discussion
of the code committee can help gift insight into it.
Judge Diy stated that insanity has Lucid intervals and therefore the
appearance of consent makes it only a ground for annulment but in PI
the main issue is to the fulfillment of marital obligations.
In sum the code committee decided to adopt the provision with les
specificity to allow it some resiliency in its application and make its
application based on a case to case basis. It is true that a number of
other bahaviors such as homosexuality or drug dependence and can
be signs of PI but their severity and gravity as to the extent that it
disables someone from fulfilling marital vows must be determined by
medicine and the psychological discipline.
Petition is DENIED

Vda Carungcung vs People of the Philippines and Sato

Mediatrix Carungcung, adminsteatrix of her passed mothers estate
filed an estafa case against her brother in-law William Sato a Japanese
national. She stated that William Sato through fraudulent means
secured the signature of her Mother on an SPA giving her
niece/Williams daughter the ability to sell the Tagay tay Properties.
William told Molita that what she was signing was related to her taxes,
she being blind just believed in what William told her. The SPA was
signed in the presence Wendy, Belinda, the maid and the second wife
of William Sato Governor Ramirez. The properties were sold for a total
of 22m but Will never delivered the proceeds to Manolita
The City prosecutor filed an estafa case against Sato in the RTC
however the motion to quash was granted on the basis of Art 332 that
there is no criminal liability if the act was done by and against a family
member to another.
The case was brought to the CA which ruled the same way as the RTC
When the Case reached the SC the SC stated that the affinity between
William and his in laws was still subsisting. The court cited two views,
terminated affinity that holds that death or divorce of the parties
terminates affinity with the exception that there are no living issue of
the marriage, ie kids. The other view is continuing affinity where in the
marriage subsists even if the tie is severed by death regardless if they
had kids or not.
The court ruled in favor of continuing affinity stating that terminated
affinity is applied only in cases of incest while continued affinity is
applied to interpret laws beneficial to step relatives or in-laws. To
which art 332 (1) is. Also The constitution declared protecting the
solidariy and harmony of the family and the 2 nd view is more in accord
with family solidarity and harmony.

However the court stated that Sato committed Estafa through

falsification of documents. While he may no longer have liability due to
article 332 it only provides simply for ESTAFA not the complex crime of
ESTAFA through falsification of documents. This is because Art 332
deals with property rights of a family relation but because there was
falsification of public documents thus there was breach of public
interest.
CA decision set aside, case remanded to the trial court.

SSC vs EDNA Azote

Edna and Ed got married in Legaspi City where they had 6 children, Ed
submitted SSS for E-4 indicating his children as beneficiaries. When Ed
died Edna decided to get the SSS benefits however the SS found that
Ed had submitted a form in 1982 with different beneficiaries,
Rosemarie and Elmer. Her claim as denied but her kids were
considered as beneficiaries with her as the guardian but the benefits
will stop when they turn 21.
Edna filed to claim for benefits again with the SSC but it was denied,
the case was brought to the CA, which reversed the SSC decision
stating Rosemarie and Elmber made no constest, Ed had manifested
his will to change the beneficiaries.
The SC cited section 8 subsection e and k that it is clear that only the
legal spouse is entitled to benefits, the family code provides under
Article 41 that any subsequent marriage becomes null and void if the
previous does not have JDN unless before the contracting of marriage
the previous spouse was absent for 4 years or 2 in cases in
circumstances of danger.
Edna did not prove that the previous marriage was null based on the
parameters set by article 41 and that she is therefore the right full
beneficiary. The use of form E-4 however is not a determinative factor
since it must still conform to the statues and therefore the denial of
Ednas claim was correct since it determined it by the data available to
them as permited by RA 8282 or Social Security Law
Petition Granted, CA decision set aside claim for SSS benefits denied.

The RTC of Tarlac Declared Celerina presumptively dead after her

husband Ricardo filed for the petition in order for him to remarry. The
couple got married and lived in San Juan Managing a buy and sell
business that filed so they moved back to Tarlac, Celerina however
decided to work as DH in HK and after leaving never came back. He
said nobody knew where she was for 12 years.
Celerina learned of Ricardos petition on 2008 when she noticed she
could not avail of petition, relief, appeal and other remedies. Celerina
filed for a petition for annulment of judgment on grounds of fraud
stating Ricardo lied about everything, she never went to Tarlac, she
lived for the past 12 years in Commonwealth the real conjugal home
and that it was Ricardo that left in order to cohabit with another
woman in Tarlac.
The CA dismissed her petition stating that she should instead go to the
LCR and get record her reappearance instead. Celerina filed for recon
but was denied.
The SC found the petition meritous it stated that if she recorded her
reappearance it would likewise declare that their marriage terminated
when she was declared presumptively dead. They also stated that if

the subsequent marriage was contracted in bad faith than it would be

void and bigamous.
Therefore if Ricardo was lying than his subsequent marriage is void for
lacking well founded belief that Celerina was dead. Since Celerina
wants the marriage terminated and to nullfy the effects of her
presumed death she is allowed to file for nullification of Judgement.
Case Remanded to the Court of appeals

Robert married Marina, Marina went to Singapore in 1994. After several

years Robert learned from one of his town mates in La Union who had
returned from Singapore that Marina was already Living with a
Singaporean husband. Robert than filed for a juridical presumption of
death or absence of Marina.
The RTC affirmed the decision however the OSG through the CA
appealed the decision but it was denied. The OSG filed for recon that
was also denied and brought to the SC
The SC agreed, citing article 41 the present spouse must file for
summary proceedings for declaration of presumptive death to contract
a subsequent marriage. The SC stated that the OSG made a mistake in
filing for appeal instead they should have filed for certiorari since that
is the remedy for questioning a summary proceeding. The OSG failed
to do this and so the prescriptive period to file for certiorari kept ticking
away until the present moment that they can now no longer filed it.
Petition Denied the RTC court of La Union is Final and Executory.