Article 52 of the Family Code (FC) requires that the judgment of absolute nullity of marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registry of properties. Failure to comply with these requirements will render the subsequent marriage of any of the spouses in the nullified marriage also void, by filing the proper petition pursuant to Article 53 of the Family Code (FC). But who can file said petition if one of the spouses dies? Can the heirs file it? These are the questions resolved in the case for today.
This case is about Rolly, who first married Lina and begot five children with her – namely, Angie, Candy, Pat, Miko and Nina. After about 22 years of marriage, Rolly filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage to Lina on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity.
In said petition, Rolly declared as conjugal properties a parcel of land located in a first-class subdivision covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 80923) and the merchandise inventory in their business.
After hearing the petition, the Regional Trial Court declared the marriage of Rolly and Lina null and void on the ground of Lina’s psychological incapacity and ordered the division of their conjugal properties as well as support and delivery of the presumptive legitimes of their children.
However, said decision and its certificate of finality were not registered with the Office of the Civil Registry of the city. So, it was not annotated in the TCT of their house and lot and no actual partition was undertaken. The presumptive legitimes of their children were not also delivered.
One year after said decision nullifying his marriage to Lina, Rolly married a woman by the name of Cely. But nine years thereafter, he died. So, Cely filed a petition for the settlement of Rolly’s intestate estate.
Rolly’s five children with his former wife Lina filed a Comment/Opposition to the said petition, alleging that while the marriage of Rolly and Lina was nullified, it was not recorded in the civil registry and no separation and liquidation of the properties acquired during such marriage and delivery of their presumptive legitimes were made pursuant to Article 102 of the FC.
So, they contended that the subsequent marriage of their father to Cely was null and void, according to Article 52 in relation to Article 53 of the FC. The children also claimed that pursuant to Article 92 of the FC, the properties acquired during the previous marriage of Rolly and their mother Lina should not have been included in the property regime of their father and Cely.
Pursuant to this Comment/Opposition, Lina and her five children with Rolly also filed a petition with the RTC for Declaration of Nullity of the marriage of Rolly and Cely on the ground that the said marriage was entered into without complying with the provisions of Article 52 and 53 regarding the decision of the RTC on the nullity of the first marriage to Lina. Were they the real parties in interest in filing the petition?
The Supreme Court said that they are not the real parties in interest to file this petition. Pursuant to Section 2(a) of Administrative Circular 02-11-10-SC, only the aggrieved or injured husband or wife has the sole right to file the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the subsequent marriage of Rolly and Cely. Obviously, the children and heirs of Rolly cannot file said petition.
On the other hand, Lina is not the “wife” in the marriage that she and her children sought to annul. She is not the spouse of Rolly as their marriage had already been declared void from the beginning. The prior spouse Lina can file the petition for nullity if the subsequent marriage is bigamous. In this case, the petition filed was not anchored on the ground of bigamy, but on non-compliance with the provisions of Articles 52 and 53 of the FC. So, there is no existing marriage to speak of which would render Rolly and Cely’s marriage bigamous. As such, Lina cannot be considered as an injured spouse in a bigamous marriage that entitles her to file a petition for nullity of the subsequent marriage of Rolly to Cely. Her remedy is to file a separate civil action for partition against the appointed administrator of Rolly’s estate.
As to the five children who are heirs of Rolly, they filed the petition on the assumption that the validity or invalidity of Rolly and Cely’s marriage would affect their successional rights and share in Rolly’s estate. While they are not the real party in interest in this case, it does not mean that they are already without recourse under the law. They can amply protect their successional rights by collaterally raising the validity of Rolly and Cely’s marriage in the petition filed by Cely for the settlement of the estate of Rolly.
So, the petition for Declaration of Nullity of the subsequent marriage of Rolly and Cely should be dismissed without prejudice to the right of the five children of Rolly to challenge the validity of said marriage in the proceeding for the settlement of his estate.
On the other hand, Lina can file a separate civil action for partition of their conjugal properties, particularly the house and lot located in a first-class subdivision consisting of 500 sq. m. covered by TCT No. 80923. (This is the ruling in the case of David and the Heirs of Aguas vs. Calilung, G.R. 241036, Jan. 26, 2021).