Antonia Calisterio Armas vs Marietta Calisterio

In reference to Art 41 of the New Civil Code

Marietta Calisterio had a second marriage to Teodorico Calisterio who died in April 24, 1992,
leaving several parcels of land with an estimated value of P604,750.00.
Marietta who had previously been married to James William Bounds on 13 January 1946 at
Caloocan City. James Bounds disappeared without a trace on 11 February 1947. Teodorico and
Marietta were married eleven years later, or on 08 May 1958, without Marietta having priorly
secured a court declaration that James was presumptively dead.
On 09 October 1992, herein petitioner Antonia Armas y Calisterio, a surviving sister of Teodorico,
filed with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Quezon City, Branch 104, a petition entitled, "In the
Matter of Intestate Estate of the Deceased Teodorico Calisterio y Cacabelos, Antonia Armas,
Petitioner," claiming to be inter alia, the sole surviving heir of Teodorico Calisterio, the marriage
between the latter and respondent Marietta Espinosa Calisterio being allegedly bigamous and
thereby null and void. She prayed that her son Sinfroniano C. Armas, Jr., be appointed
administrator, without bond, of the estate of the deceased and that the inheritance be adjudicated to
her after all the obligations of the estate would have been settled.
Respondent Marietta opposed the petition. Marietta stated that her first marriage with James Bounds
had been dissolved due to the latter's absence, his whereabouts being unknown, for more than
eleven years before she contracted her second marriage with Teodorico. Contending to be the
surviving spouse of Teodorico, she sought priority in the administration of the estate of the
decedent. February 5, 1993, the trial court issued an order appointing jointly Sinfroniano C. Armas,
Jr., and respondent Marietta administrator and administratrix, respectively, of the intestate estate of
Teodorico. However January 17, 1996, the lower court handed down its decision in favor of Antonia
Calisterio.
Respondent Marietta appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, arguing that
her marriage to the deceased is valid under the Civil Code, that the marriage is not of bigamous
nature for failing to secure a declaration of presumptive death of her first husband James Bound. In
August 31, 1998, Court of Appeals revised and set aside the RTC decision, hereby setting that the
marriage between Marietta and Teodorico is valid. Thereby, the estate of Teodorico is divided to her
and her heirs and the other half to Antonio Calisterio as surviving kin. Also, the court ordered the
trial court to determine the competence of Marietta as the administrator of the estate, if not, the
court should determine who among the deceased's next kin is competent. However Antonia Armas
filed motion for reconsideration but was denied by CA. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the second marriage of the respondent (Marietta) to the deceased is valid

RULING: Yes. The marriage between the deceased and the respondent remains valid given at that
period the law in force was the Civil Code which in Art 83 states that a marriage contracted during
the subsistence of a marriage shall be illegal and void unless the first spouse had been absent for
less than seven years, is generally considered dead. The marriage of the deceased was contracted in
May 8, 1958 , eleven years after the disappearance of the James Bound. Therefore, the marriage is
valid notwithstanding the absence of a judicial declaration of presumptive death of James Bounds.
Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS the CA decision, however finding that CA erred in awarding the

other half of the estate to the nephew ( Antonia's son) the respondent is solely the owner of said
estate it is hereby declared that the other half of the deceased's estate is owned by the respondent's
children.
Notes: Below is the full text of Art 83 which is amended and is now Art 41 in the New Civil Code,
pls take note the difference. The above mentioned statement is for simplicity and conciseness. :)
"Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse
of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its
performance, unless:
"(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or
"(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second
marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee,
though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as dead and believed
to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the
absentee is presumed dead according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be
valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court."
Under the foregoing provisions, a subsequent marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first
spouse is illegal and void ab initio unless the prior marriage is first annulled or dissolved.
Paragraph (2) of the law gives exceptions from the above rule. For the subsequent marriage
referred to in the three exceptional cases therein provided, to be held valid, the spouse present (not
the absentee spouse) so contracting the later marriage must have done so in good faith. Bad faith
imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong - it partakes of
the nature of fraud, a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will.[7] The
Court does not find these circumstances to be here extant.
A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not necessary as long as the prescribed
period of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are,
by the explicit mandate of Article 83, to be deemed valid "until declared null and void by a
competent court."