Castillo v.
FACTS RELEVANT LAWS
De Leon On May 25, 1972 respondent, Lea De Leon Castillo,
Castillo married Benjamin Bautista. On January 6, 1979, Lea
married petitioner, Renato Castillo.
G.R. No.
On May 28, 2001 - Castillo filed before the RTC a Petition
189607.
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, praying that his
April 18, marriage to Lea be declared void due to her subsisting
2016 marriage.
Lea opposed the petition stating that her marriage with
Bautista was null and void because
1) They were not able to secure a license
2) Neither of them was a member of the
denomination that the solemnizing officer
belonged
In 2002, Lea filed to declare her marriage with Bautista
void – this was granted by the RTC.
Lea, filed Demurrer to evidence stating that Renato’s proof
is insufficient to warrant a declaration of nullity of marriage.
Renato stated that regardless of the judicial decree of
nullity that was granted to Lea for her first marriage. At the
time of their marriage Lea still had a valid and subsisting
marriage. – RTC Denied Demurrer of evidence.
RTC declared the marriage between Lea and Renato void
ab initio on the ground that it was a bigamous marriage
under Art. 41 of the FC. Also, Lea failed to obtain a judicial
decree of nullity for her first marriage before entering her
second marriage.
Lea – moved for Reconsideration – Denied
CA reversed and set aside decision of RTC and upheld the
validity of Renato and Lea’s marriage
 Lea’s marriages were solemnized in
1972 and 1979 – prior to the effectivity
of the FC
 CC is the applicable Law since it is the
law in effect at the time of the
celebration of the marriages.
 CC does not state that a judicial Decree
is necessary to establish the nullity of
marriage.
Hence the Petition for Review.
ISSUE + RULING
Art. 41 FC WoN the CA was correct in holding thus and
consequentially reversing the RTC's declaration of
nullity of the second marriage
Article 80 CC
Yes. The validity of a marriage and all its incidents must be
determined in accordance with the law in effect at the time
of its celebration.
In this case the law in force at the time Lea contracted both
marriages was the Civil Code.
Under the Civil Code, a void marriage differs from a voidable
marriage in the following ways:
(1) a void marriage is nonexistent — i.e., there was no
marriage from the beginning — while in a voidable
marriage, the marriage is valid until annulled by a
competent court;
(2) a void marriage cannot be ratified, while a voidable
marriage can be ratified by cohabitation;
(3) being nonexistent, a void marriage can be collaterally
attacked, while a voidable marriage cannot be collaterally
attacked;
(4) in a void marriage, there is no conjugal partnership and
the offspring are natural children by legal fiction, while in
voidable marriage there is conjugal partnership and the
children conceived before the decree of annulment are
considered legitimate; and
(5) "in a void marriage no judicial decree to
establish the invalidity is necessary," while in a
voidable marriage there must be a judicial
decree.
The Court thus concludes that the subsequent marriage of
Lea to Renato is valid in view of the invalidity of her first
marriage to Bautista because of the absence of a marriage
license. That there was no judicial declaration that the first
marriage was void ab initio before the second marriage was
contracted is immaterial as this is not a requirement under the
Civil Code.
Nonetheless, the subsequent Decision of the RTC of
Parañaque City declaring the nullity of Lea's first marriage
only serves to strengthen the conclusion that her subsequent
marriage to Renato is valid.
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the CA did not err in
upholding the validity of the marriage between petitioner and
respondent.
Petition – denied.
Pacasum FACTS RELEVANT LAWS ISSUE + RULING
Sr. v.
Zamoranos

G.R. No.
193719.
March 21,
2017

Agustin v. FACTS RELEVANT LAWS ISSUE + RULING

Sales

G.R. No.
189289.
August 31,
2016

Chua v. FACTS RELEVANT LAWS ISSUE + RULING

Republic

G.R. No.
231998.
November
20, 2017