Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli, G.R. No.

173614, September 28, 2007

PARTIES:
Petitioner: Lolita Enrico Second wife of Eulogio Medinaceli
Respondent: Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli, children of Eulogio with his first wife, Trinidad.

FACTS: On 17 March 2005, respondents, heirs of Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli (Eulogio) and Trinidad
Catli-Medinaceli (Trinidad) filed with the RTC, an action for declaration of nullity of marriage of Eulogio
and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico. Substantially, the complaint alleged, inter alia, that Eulogio and Trinidad
were married on 14 June 1962, in Lal-lo, Cagayan. 3 They begot seven children, herein respondents,
namely: Eduardo, Evelyn, Vilma, Mary Jane, Haizel, Michelle and Joseph Lloyd. 4 On 1 May 2004,
Trinidad died. 5 On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married petitioner before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo,
Cagayan. 6 Six months later, or on 10 February 2005, Eulogio passed away.

The RTC dismissed the complaint at first and cited Sec 2 (a) A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which provides that a
petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the
wife. However, it reinstated its decision and it stated the ruling in Ninal v Badayog, where the Supreme
Court held that the heirs of a deceased person may file a petition for the declaration of his marriage after his
death.

ISSUE: Whether Section 2 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the ruling in Ninal should apply in the case at
bar

LAWS INVOLVED: Section 2 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and declaration
of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petitions cannot be filed by the compulsory or intestate heirs of
the spouses or by the State.

HELD: A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs the instant case.

RATIO: While it is true that Nial in no uncertain terms allowed therein petitioners to file a petition for the
declaration of nullity of their father's marriage to therein respondent after the death of their father, we
cannot, however, apply its ruling for the reason that the impugned marriage therein was solemnized prior to
the effectivity of the Family Code. The Court in Nial recognized that the applicable law to determine the
validity of the two marriages involved therein is the Civil Code, which was the law in effect at the time of
their celebration. 23 What we have before us belongs to a different milieu, i.e., the marriage sought to be
declared void was entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code. As can be gleaned from the facts,
petitioner's marriage to Eulogio was celebrated in 2004.

DOCTRINE: Where the void second marriage was entered into in 2004, or during the effectivity of the
Family Code, the Supreme Court ruled that the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is applicable to marrriages
entered into during the Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.

Carlos s. Sandoval, GR 179922, December 16, 2008

PARTIES:
Petitioner: JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS, brother of Teofilo Carlos

Respondent: FELICIDAD SANDOVAL, Spouse of Teofilo Carlos

FACTS: Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. They left six parcels of land to their
compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. During the lifetime of Felix Carlos,
he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo to avoid inheritance taxes. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to deliver
and turn over the share of the other legal heir, petitioner Juan de Dios Carlos. Eventually, the first three (3)
parcels of land were transferred and registered in the name of Teofilo. Parcel No. 4 was registered in the
name of Juan De Dios Carlos.
Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad and their son, Teofilo Carlos II (Teofilo
II). Upon Teofilo's death, Parcel Nos. 5 & 6 were registered in the name of respondent Felicidad and co-
respondent, Teofolo II. The parties executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, dividing the remaining land of
the first parcel between them. Consequently, petitioner commenced an action against respondents of: (a)
declaration of nullity of marriage of Felicidad and his brother due to lack of marriage license.

RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio for lack of the requisite
marriage license. The CA reversed the decision and said that the first paragraph of Article 88 and 101 of the
Civil Code expressly prohibit the rendition of decree of annulment of a marriage upon a stipulation of facts
or a confession of judgment.

ISSUE: WON Juan De Dios Carlos may file for the nullification of the marriage of his brother, Teofilo, and
Felicidad, the respondent NO.

RATIO: A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband
or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code. Sec 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC provides:

Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a
legal right to le the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the
death of their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses
upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse
filed in the regular courts.

DOCTRINE: ONLY a spouse can initiate an action to sever the marital bond for marriages solemnized
during the effectivity of the Family Code, except cases commenced prior to March 15, 2003, because A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC became effective only on March 15, 2003.

Ablaza v Republic, G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010

PARTIES:
Petitioner: Isidro Ablaza, brother of Cresenciano Ablaza
(Private) Respondent: Leonila Honato, wife of Cresenciano Ablaza

FACTS: On December 26, 1949, Leonila Honato and Cresenciano Ablaza wed. On Oct. 17, 2000,
petitioner filed a nullification of a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage
between his late brother and Leonila on the ground that the marriage license was issued only on Jan 9,
1950.

The RTC and CA dismissed the petition since Isidro is not a party to the marriage

ISSUE: whether the petitioner is a real party in interest in the action to seek the declaration of nullity of the
marriage of his deceased brother. YES

RULING: Section 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly provides the limitation that a
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife.
Such limitation demarcates a line to distinguish between marriages covered by the Family Code and those
solemnized under the regime of the Civil Code. 9 Specifically, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC extends only to
marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, but, being a procedural rule
that is prospective in application, is confined only to proceedings commenced after March 15, 2003.
Considering that the marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila was contracted on December 26, 1949, the
applicable law was the old Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
Hence, the rule on the exclusivity of the parties to the marriage as having the right to initiate the action for
declaration of nullity of the marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had absolutely no application to the
petitioner.