1

CASE DIGEST ON ATIENZA V. BRILLANTES

CASE DIGEST ON ATIENZA V. BRILLANTES [243 SCRA 32 (1995)] - F: This is an administrative

complaint filed by Atienza for Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety against J.
Brillantes, Presiding Judge of MTC, Mla. It was alleged in the complaint that Brillantes has been
cohabiting w/ Yolanda De Castro (w/ whom Atienza had 2 children) when he (Brillantes) was
already married to one Zenaida Ongkiko w/ whom he has 5 children. xxx Resp. denies having
been married to Ongkiko, although he admits having 5 children w/ her. He alleges that while he
and Ongkiko went through a marriage ceremony, the same was not valid for lack of marriage
license. The second marriage bet. the two also lacked the required license. He claims that when
he married De Castro in LA, California, he believed, in all GF and for all legal intents and
purposes, that he was single bec. his first marriage was solemnized w/o a license.
HELD: Under the FC, there must be a judicial decl. of the nullity of a previous marriage bef. a
party thereto can enter into a 2nd marriage. (Art. 40.) Art. 40 is applicable to remarriages
entered into after the effectivity of the FC regardless of the date of the first marriage. Said art. is
given "retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance w/ the NCC or other laws." (Art. 256, FC.) This is particularly true w/ Art. 40 w/c is a
rule of procedure. Resp. has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of
Art. 40 to his case.
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not preclude their
retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not
violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is that
as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws.

MANZANO VS SANCHEZ

March 8, 2001

Facts:

Herminia and David married on May 21, 1966 and had four children

Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano, the lawful wife of the late David Manzano, charges
respondent JudgeSanchez with gross ignorance of the law. Facts

On 22 March 1993, David contracted another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before
respondent Judge whichhe solemnized knowing that such is void and bigamous, as the marriage
contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were separated.

The respondent claimed that he did not know that Manzano was legally married, and had he
known such facts, heshould have advised David Manzano not to marry again. What he knew was
that the two had been living together ashusband and wife for seven years already without the
benefit of marriage, as manifested in their joint affidavit.

Respondent Judge filed a Manifestation reiterating his plea for the dismissal of the complaint and
setting aside hisearlier Comment. He therein invites the attention of the Court to two separate
affidavits of the late Manzano and of Payao, which were allegedly unearthed by a member of his
staff upon his instruction. In those affidavits, bothManzano and Payao expressly stated that they
were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo Relos, and that sincetheir respective marriages had
 2

been marked by constant quarrels, they had both left their families and had nevercohabited or
communicated with their spouses anymore.

Respondent Judge alleged that he believed Manzano and Payao so he solemnized marriage in
accordance withArticle 34 of the FC which states that no marriage license is necessary for two
persons cohabitating provided thatthey follow these following requisites*The man and woman
must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before
themarriage;*The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;*The fact of
absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of marriage;*The
parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years [and
arewithout legal impediment to marry each other]; and*The solemnizing officer must execute a
sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the partiesand that he had found
no legal impediment to their marriage.Issue: W/N the respondent demonstrated gross ignorance
of the law when he solemnized the marriage.Held:One of the requisites of Article 34 is that
parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other. Consideringthat both parties have
subsisting marriage

, as indicated in their marriage contract that they are both separated is an

impediment that would make their subsequent marriage null and void. Just like separation,
free and voluntary cohabitationwith another person for at least 5 years does not severe the tie
of a subsisting previous marriage. Clearly, respondent JudgeSanchez demonstrated gross
ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage.

Maria Apiag et.al v Judge Esmeraldo Cantero

AM No. MTJ-95-1070 [February 12, 1997]

Reyes, J.B.L.

FACTS:

The wedding of Maria Apiag (one of the complainants) and Esmeraldo Cantero(respondent-judge)
took place on August 11, 1947. They begot two children, Teresita andGlicero (complainants).
Thereafter, Esmeraldo left the conjugal home and abandoned his wifeand children without any
means of support. Later on, the complainants learned that Esmeraldocontracted another
marriage with Nieves Ygay and they have 5 children of their own. In all thedocuments filed by
Esmeraldo such as his sworn statement of assets and liabilities, personaldata sheet, income tax
return, and insurance policy with GSIS, he misrepresented himself asbeing married to Nieves.
Herein complainants charged Esmeraldo with gross misconduct forallegedly having committed
bigamy and for falsifying public documents.In his comment, Esmeraldo denied the validity of the
marriage alleging that it wasdramatized and that his parents called him to appear in a certain
drama marriage and wasforced to sign a duly prepared marriage contract. He pressed the idea
that his consent was notfreely given. The fact, however, is undisputed that he and Maria were
engaged in a love affairwhich resulted in the pregnancy
of the latter prior to the marriage. It is only for thepreservation of the family name that their
parents agreed to their marriage but not to livetogether as husband and wife.To bolster his
defense, Esmeraldo alleged that Maria has been living with another manduring her public service
as a teacher and have begotten a child, named Manuel Apiag. Heargued the he who seek justice
 3

must seek justice with clean hands. He didnt file

anyannulment or judicial declaration of the alleged marriage because he believed that saidmarri
age was void from the beginning. Thus, nothing is to be nullified because the marriagenever
existed. However, in view of the complainants request in their letter to the respondentdated
September 21, 1993, both parties have agreed that Teresita shall: (1) get of theretirement that
Esmeraldo will receive from GSIS; (2) be included as one of the beneficiaries incase of the latters
death; (3) inherit the properties of the latter; and (2) receive and collect Php4000 monthly as
support.The issues presented and decisions held by the investigating judge and courtadministrat
or are as follows:

1.That the first marriage with the complainant, Maria Apiag on August 11, 1947 is void;

No. Respondent knows that the marriage cannot be dissolved without a judicial declaration
of death. Respondent's second marriage with Nieves Ygay was therefore bigamous for it
was contracted during the existence of a previous marriage.

2.The absence of his first wife complainant Maria Apiag for more than seven (7) years raise
thepresumption that she is already dead, that there was no need for any judicial declaration;

No. Theres still a need for judicial declaration presumptive death and of nullity of marriage.