Orlando and Lila got married on april 13 1988 in Puerto Princesa

Palawan. However after 4 years Orlando decided to file for annulment

on the grounds that his consent was vitiated and that he was forced to
marry her because she was pregnant and that the child was not his,
the child however was prematurely born on aug 1988.
Lila claims that Orlando was not forced, that he even lived with her in
Palawan for a year. She states he was fully aware of the pregnancy and
that he wrote letters and visited her when he went to Manila.
The RTC denied the petition butt Orlando was order to pay 100k ED
and 70k AF and COS
The CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE:W/N Orlandos consent was vitiated.
The SC partially granted the decision on the following grounds. The
court notes that he waited 4 years before taking steps to annul the
marriage and it can be seen by the fact that he has bigamy case where
in he was found guilty, he was using this case in order to acquit himself
of the charge. There is no evidence to show that he was being
threatened by harassing calls, visits by three men in UE and threats
from an NPA Ka Celso. Not to mention that he was a security guard at a
bank and therefore had the ability to defend himself or at least keep
himself away from harm. Despite this however he never informed the
authorities or the solemnizing officer. The threat therefore didnt exists
or was not that overwhelming.
His excuse that he could not have impregnated his wife because he
could not get an erection is flimsy at best. His counsel conceded the
fact that he and his wife went to a hotel to have sex wherein she was
on top.
Undermining the credibility of the date of the Childs death is
immaterial aswell, 1989 instead of 88, a year off as it states in the
Palawan LCR (aug 88) is unfounded. The court will not throw this case
just cos the dates were mixed up. Therefore there was no evidence to
attribute pregnancy by another man and deceived into marrying her.
As for the letters he confirmed 7 of them which were warm and loving
but later denied them clearly because he noticed that they held great
weight against him. The absence of co-habitation also is not a ground
for annulment unless it was a consequence of any of the other valid
grounds.

Affirmed but award of MED is deleted since Lila didnt show that she
suffered emotional trauma, sleepless nights, ruined reputation and
thus failed to establish right to such damages.

Philip Sin a Portuguese National Married Florencce in St.Jude Catholic

church. Howver after sometime they petitioned for JDNM on Article 36
PI. Florence filed the petition with the RTC but the RTC denied the
petition and Florence appealed it to the CA which also denied the case,
Motion for reconsideration is denied.
The SC stated that even if the RTC prevented the evil the state as
provided for in Article 48 of the civil code did not participate at any
point in the trial. The state is not just suppose to protect valid
marriages but expose invalid ones too. Only a manifestation was filed
with the trial court by the state. Therefore the SC will not rule on the
factual disputes of the case and declare it ready for re-trial.
For retrial guide the SC would like to reiterate the Molina guidelines.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the appealed
decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R.
CV No. 51304, promulgated on April 30, 1998 and the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 158, Pasig City
in Civil Case No. 3190, dated June 16, 1995.
Let the case be REMANDED to the trial court for proper trial.

Juliano-Llave vs. Republic

March 30, 2011
G.R. No. 169766
Ponente: Del Castillo, J
Relation to NCC 18 In the case of Llave v Republic, respondent,
Zorayda and Tamano, both Muslims, were married on 1958 under the
1950 Civil Code. Petitioner asserts that the previous marriage of
Tamano was divorced under the Muslim Code of 1977.
In this case, SC ruled that as the marriage of Zorayda and Tamano
were celebrated under the 1950 Civil Code, they are married under
civil rites. Regardless if they undertook a divorce under the Muslim
Code, they are still married pursuant to the Civil Code as it was the
existing law for marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims when the
union took place.
Facts:
May 31, 1958, Tamano married Zorayda under civil rites.
February 4, 1977, the Muslim Code, P.D. 1083 took effect.
May 27, 1993, Tamano married Estrellita under the Muslim Code.
June 2, 1993, Tamano married Estrellita under a civil cermony officiated
by an RTC Judge. Tamanos civil status indicated as divorced.
May 1994, Tamano died.
November 23, 1994 Zorayda and Adib filed for the declaration of nullity
of marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano as under civil rites,
their marriage remained subsisting when Tamano married Estrellita in
1993.
Upon being summoned by the RCT on December 19, 1994, Estrellita
asked for an extension of 30 days to file her answer. Instead of filing
her answer, she filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 1995
asserting that under the Muslim Code, jurisdiction on Muslim marriages
fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Sharis courts.
Certiorari petition questioning the denial of her Motion to Dismiss was
filed by Estrellita. RTC continued to try the case while certiorari petition

was in CA. CA denied her petition and Estrellita was ordered by RTC to
present her evidence on June 26, 1997. At the same time, Estrellita has
escalated her petiotion for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
After multiple delays in appearing in court with her evidence, on
ground that she was waiting for the outcome of her certiorari petition,
the RTC proceeded with trial and rendered Estrellitas marriage with
Tamano as void ab initio on August 18, 1998.
Estrellita appealed to the CA arguing that she was denied here right to
be heard as the RTC rendered judgment without waiting for finality on
her certiorari petition. CA upheld that ruling of the RTC stating that she
was given ample opportunity to be heard and that her marriage with
Tamano was bigamous, as the marriage of Zorayda and Tamano is
governed by the Civil Code, which does not provide for an absolute
divorce.
Issues:

1.) WoN the CA erred in affirming the trial courts judgment, which the
petitioner supposes to be premature for the following reasons
a. Judgment was rendered without the SCs final resolution of her
certiorari petition (G.R. No. 126603)
b. she has not yet filed her answer and thus denied due process
c. public prosecutor did not conduct investigation on whether there
was collusion
2.) WoN the marriage between Estrelita and the late Sen. Tamano was
bigamous.
3.) WoN Zorayda and Adib have the legal standing to have Estrellitas
marriage declared void ab initio.

Held:

1.) No. The trial courts judgment was not premature.

a. Certiorari is an independent action which is not part of a
continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the
judgment complained of. Hence, it cannot be a reason to put
trial on hold.
b. Estrellita failed to file an answer and refused to present her
evidence even after her multiple requests for delay were already
granted
c. The lack of participation of a public prosecutor does not
invalidate the proceedings in the trial. (Tuason v Court of
Appeals)
2.) Yes. The marriage of Tamano and Zorayda was solemnized under and
governed by the 1950 Civil Code as it was the only existing law
governing marriage relations between Muslims and non-Muslims at the
time of their marriage in 1958. And since there was no declaration of
nullity of void marriage of Zorayda and Tamanos union, the
subsequent marriage of Estrelita and Tamano is adjudged void ab
initio.

3.) Yes. Zorayda and Adib, have legal standing to file for declaration of
nullity of marriage. It has been held that in a void marriage, any
interested party may attact the marriage directly or collaterally without
prescription. Zorayda and Adib, being the wife and heir respectively,
are considered interested parties.