BINDING EFFECT ESTRELITA JULIANO-LLAVE vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

TITULAR, JOANA MARIE

CASE NO. 8 March 30, 2011 DEL CASTILLO, J.
KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

Doctrine: A new law ought to affect the future, not what is past hence; in the case of subsequent marriage laws, no vested
rights shall be impaired which pertains to the protection of the legitimate union of a married couple.
RECIT-READY / SUMMARY
Sen. Tamano married Estrellita twice, first, under the Islamic laws and tradition on May 27, 1993 and subsequently, under a
civil ceremony officiated by an RTC judge, 11 months before his death. Sen. Tamano declared his civil status as divorced in
their marriage contracts and Estrellita represented herself to the whole world as his wife and his widow upon his death.
Haja Putri Zorayda and her son, Adib Ahmad A. Tamano filed a complaint with the RTC for the declaration of nullity of
marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano for being bigamous. RTC ruled that the marital ties between Zorayda and Sen.
Tamano were never severed, declaring Estrellitas marriage with Sen. Tamano as void ab initio for being bigamous under
Art. 35 of the Family Code of the Philippines and Art. 83 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The Supreme Court denied
Estrellitas petition and affirmed Court of Appeals decision as well as its subsequent Resolution.

FACTS
1. 11 months before his death, Sen. Tamano married Estrellita twice- under the Islamic laws and tradition and
subsequently, under a civil ceremony where Sen. Tamano declared his civil status as divorced in his marriage
contract.
2. Private respondents, Haja Putri Zorayda and Adib Ahmad A. Tamano filed a complaint with the RTC for declaration
of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano for being bigamous.
3. The marriage between Zorayda and Sen. Tamano was contracted under New Civil Code and is therefore governed
by this law.
4. Estrellita filed for:
RTC: MOTION TO DISMISS where it was DENIED and asserted its jurisdiction
SC: Petition for Certiorari, referred to Court of Appeals and subsequently DENIED
5. Subsequent to the promulgation of Court of Appeals, RTC ordered Estrellita to present her evidence but instead
asked for postponement prompting Zorayda to file a Motion for Decision. RTC ruled that Sen. Tamanos subsequent
marriage with Estrellita as void ab initio because his marriage with Zorayda is still subsisting. Moreover, his
divorced status has no factual or legal basis because the deceased never divorced Zorayda and could not have
validly done because divorce is not allowed under the New Civil Code.
6. In the same vein, the deceased did not and could not have divorced complainant Zorayda by invoking P.D. 1083,
also known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, because the marriage of the deceased with Zorayda was never
contracted under Muslim law as provided under Art. 186 (2) of P.D. 1083 since mutual desire to be covered by this
law was never expressed.
7. The Court of Appeals DENIED Estrellitas appeal and the Supreme Court has subsequently DENIED her
petition for review on certiorati and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision as well as its subsequent
resolution.
ISSUES ARTICLES/LAWS/STATCON MAXIM INVOLVED
1. Whether or not the marriage between Estrellita and New Civil Code
the late Sen. Tamano was bigamous P.D. 1083
Art. 35 of the Family Code
Art 83 of the Civil Code
RA 394

HELD / RATIO / RULING

A new law ought to affect the future, now what is past. The only law in force governing marriage relationships between
Muslims and non-Muslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950 which states that only one marriage can exist. The marriage
provisions in the Civil Code do not recognize divorce except when RA 394 was enforced which was not availed by either of
the concerned party. This elucidates that Estrellitas marriage with Sen. Tamano cannot be legally valid because of the
latters subsisting marriage with Zorayda. Despite Sen. Tamanos decalaration of divorced civil status in his marriage
contract with Estrellita, the deceaseds marriage with Zorayda cannot be severed by way of divorce under P.D. 1083.
Estrellita cannot benefit from P.D. 1083 because it does not provide for a situation for parties whose marriage were
solemnized both in civil and Muslim rites. Additionally, the Muslim Code which later took effect cannot override the
contracted marriage of Zorayda and Sen. Tamano under the Civil Code as this law cannot be applied retroactively but
prospectively. Hence, the petition for review on certiorari is denied.
BINDING EFFECT ESTRELITA JULIANO-LLAVE vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. TITULAR, JOANA MARIE
CASE NO. 8 March 30, 2011 DEL CASTILLO, J.

OPINION (CONCURRING) OPINION (DISSENTING)