cisions / Signed Resolutions

FIRST DIVISION
[G. R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011]
ESTRELLITA JULIAJVO-LLAVE, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HAJA
PUTRI ZORAYDA A. TAMANO AND ADIB AHMAD A. TAMANO, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
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 that pertain to the protection of the legitimate union of a married couple.
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision [1] dated August 17, 2004 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-GR. CVNo. 61762 and its subsequent Resolution [2]dated September 13, 2005, which affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89 declaring petitioner Estrellita JulianoLlave's (Estrellita) marriage to Sen. Mamintal AJ. Tamano (Sen. Tainano) as void ab initio.
Factual Antecedents
Around 11 months before his death, Sen. Tamano married Estrellita twice -initially under the Islamic laws
and tradition on May 27, 1993 in Cotabato City[3] and, subsequently, under a civil ceremony officiated by an
RTC Judge at Malabang, Lanao del Sur on June 2, 1993. [4] In their marriage contracts, Sen. Tamano's civil
status was indicated as 'divorced.'
Since then, Estrellita has been representing herself to the whole world as Sen. Tamano's wife, and upon his
death, his widow.
On November 23,1994, private respondents Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda) and her son Adib
Ahmad A. Tamano (Adib), in their own behalf and in behalf of the rest of Sen. Tamano's legitimate children
with Zorayda,[5] filed a complaint with the RTC of Quezon City for the declaration of nullity of marriage
between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano for being bigamous. The complaint [6] alleged, inter alia, that Sen.
Tamano married Zorayda on May 31, 1958 under civil rites, and that this marriage remained subsisting when
he married Estrellita in 1993. The complaint likewise averred that:
11. The marriage of the deceased and Complainant Zorayda, having been celebrated under the New Civil
Code, is therefore governed by this law. Based on Article 35 (4) of the Family Code, the subsequent
marriage entered into by deceased Mamintal with Defendant Llave is void ab initio because he contracted
the same while his prior1 marriage to Complainant Zorayda was still subsisting, and his status being
declared as "divorced" has no factual or legal basis, because the deceased never divorced Complainant
Zorayda in his lifetime, and he could not have validly done so because divorce is not allowed under the New
Civil Code;
11.1 Moreover, the deceased did not and could not have divorced Complainant Zorayda by invoking the
provision of P.D. 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Persona! Laws, for the simple reason that
the marriage of the deceased with Complainant Zorayda was never deemed, legally and factually, to have
been one contracted under Muslim law as provided under Art. 186 (2) of P.D. 1083, since they (deceased
and Complainant Zorayda) did not register their mutual desire to be thus covered by this law; [7]

Summons was then served on Estrellita on December 19, 1994. She then asked from the court for an
extension of 30 days to file her answer to be counted from January 4, 1995, [8] and again, another 15
days[9] or until February 18, 1995, both of which the court granted. [10]
Instead of submitting her answer, however, Estrellita filed a Motion to Dismiss [11] on February 20, 1995
where she declared that Sen. Tamano and Zorayda are both Muslims who were married under the Muslim
rites, as had been averred in the latter's disbarment complaint against Sen. Tamano. [12] Estrellita argued that
the RTC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1083,
or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (Muslim Code), questions and issues involving Muslim
marriages and divorce fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of shari'a courts.
The trial court denied Estrellita's motion and asserted its jurisdiction over the case for declaration of nullity.
[13]
Thus, Estrellita filed in November 1995 a certiorari petition with this Court questioning the denial of her
Motion to Dismiss. On December 15, 1995, we referred the petition to the CA [14] which was docketed thereat
as CA-GR. SP No. 39656.
During the pendency of CA-GR. SP No. 39656, the RTC continued to try the case since there can be no
default in cases of declaration of nullity of marriage even if the respondent failed to file an answer. Estrellita
was allowed to participate in the trial while her opposing parties presented their evidence. When it was A
Estrellita's turn to adduce evidence, the hearings set for such purpose [15] were postponed mostly at her
instance until the trial court, on March 22, 1996, suspended the proceedings [16] in view of the CA's
temporary restraining order issued on February 29,1996, enjoining it from hearing the case. [17]
Eventually, however, the CA resolved the petition adverse to Estrellita in its Decision dated September 30,
1996.,[18] Estrellita then elevated the appellate court's judgment to this Court by way of a petition for review
on certiorari docketed as GR.No. 126603.[19]
Subsequent to the promulgation of the CA Decision, the RTC ordered Estrellita to present her evidence on
June 26, 1997.[20] As Estrellita was indisposed on that day, the hearing was reset to July 9, 1997. [21] The
day before this scheduled hearing, Estrellita again asked for a postponement. [22]
Unhappy with the delays in the resolution of their case, Zorayda and Adib moved to submit the case for
decision[23], reasoning that Estrellita had long been delaying the case. Estrellita opposed, on the ground that
she has not yet filed her answer as she still awaits the outcome of GR. No. 126603. [24]
On June 29, 1998, we upheld the jurisdiction of the RTC of Quezon City,[25] stating as one of the reasons that
as shari'a courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction in cases of marriages celebrated
under both the Civil Code and PD 1083, the RTC, as a court of general jurisdiction, is not precluded from
assuming jurisdiction over such cases. In our Resolution dated August 24,1998, [26] we denied Estrellita's
motion for reconsideration[27] with finality.
A few days before this resolution, or on August 18,1998, the RTC rendered the aforementioned judgment
declaring Estrellita's marriage with Sen. Tamano as void ab initio.[28 ]
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC, finding that the marital ties of Sen. Tamano and Zorayda were never severed, declared Sen.
Tamano's subsequent marriage to Estrellita as void ah initio for being bigamous under Article 35 of the
Family Code of the Philippines and under Article 83 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. [29] The court said:
A comparison between Exhibits A and B (supra) immediately shows that the second marriage of the late
Senator with [Estrellita] was entered into during the subsistence of his first marriage1 with [Zorayda]. This
renders the subsequent marriage void from the very beginning. The fact that the late Senator declared his

civil status as "divorced" will not in any way affect the void character of the second marriage because, in this
jurisdiction, divorce obtained by the Filipino spouse is not an acceptable method of terminating the effects of
a previous marriage, especially, where the subsequent marriage was solemnized under the Civil Code or
Family Code.[30]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In her appeal,[31] Estrellita argued that she was denied her right to be heard as a the RTC rendered its
judgment even without waiting for the finality of the Decision of the Supreme Court in GR. No. 126603. She
claimed that the RTC should have required her to file her answer after the denial of her motion to dismiss.
She maintained that Sen. Tamano is capacitated to marry her as his marriage and subsequent divorce with
Zorayda is governed by the Muslim Code. Lastly, she highlighted Zorayda's lack of legal standing to question
the validity of her marriage to the deceased.
In dismissing the appeal in its Decision dated August 17, 2004; [32] the CA held that Estrellita can no longer
be allowed to file her answer as she was given ample opportunity to be heard but simply ignored it by
asking for numerous postponements. She never filed her answer despite the lapse of around 60 days, a
period longer than what was prescribed by the rules. It also ruled that Estrellita cannot rely on her pending
petition for certiorari with the higher courts since, as an independent and original action, it does not
interrupt the proceedings in the trial court.
As to the substantive merit of the case, the CA adjudged that Estrellita's marriage to Sen. Tamano is void ab
initio for being bigamous, reasoning that the marriage of Zorayda and Sen. Tamano is governed by the Civil
Code, which does not provide for an absolute divorce. It noted that their first nuptial celebration was under
civil rites, while the subsequent Muslim celebration was only ceremonial. Zorayda then, according to the CA,
had the legal standing to file the action as she is Sen. Tamano's wife and, hence, the injured party in the
senator's subsequent bigamous marriage with Estrellita.
In its September 13, 2005 Resolution,[33] the CA denied Estrellita's Motion for Reconsideration/Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration where it debunked the additional errors she raised. The CA noted that the
allegation of lack of they public prosecutor's report on the existence of collusion in violation of both Rule 9,
Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court[34] and Article 48 of the Family Code[35] will not invalidate the trial court's
judgment as the proceedings between the parties had been adversarial, negating the existence of collusion.
Assuming that the issues have not been joined before the RTC, the same is attributable to Estrellita's refusal
to file an answer. Lastly, the CA disregarded Estrellita's allegation that the trial court erroneously rendered
its judgment way prior to our remand to the RTC of the records of the case ratiocinating that GR. No.
126603 pertains to the issue on the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, and not to the issue of the validity of
Estrellita's marriage to Sen. Tamano.
The Parties'Respective Arguments
Reiterating her arguments before the court a quo, Estrellita now argues that the CA erred in upholding the
RTC judgment as the latter was prematurely issued, depriving her of the opportunity to file an answer and to
present her evidence to dispute the allegations against the validity of her marriage. She claims that Judge
Macias v. Macias[36] laid down the rule that the filing of a motion to dismiss instead of an answer suspends
the period to file an answer and, consequently, the trial court is obliged to suspend proceedings while her
motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction has not yet been resolved with finality. She maintains
that she merely participated in the RTC hearings because of the trial court's assurance that the proceedings
will be without prejudice to whatever action the High Court will take on her petition questioning the RTC's
jurisdiction and yet, the RTC violated this commitment as it rendered an adverse judgment on August 18,
1998, months before the records of GR. No. 126603 were remanded to the CA on November 11, 1998. [37]
She also questions the lack of a report of the public prosecutor anent a finding of whether there was
collusion, this being a prerequisite before further proceeding could be held when a party has failed to file an
answer in a suit for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Estrellita is also steadfast in her belief that her marriage with the late senator is valid as the latter was
already divorced under the Muslim Code at the time he married her. She asserts that such law automatically
applies to the marriage of Zorayda and the deceased without need of registering their consent to be covered
by it, as both parties are Muslims whose marriage was solemnized under Muslim law. She pointed out that
Sen. Tamano married all his wives under Muslim rites, as attested to by the affidavits of the siblings of the
deceased.[38]
Lastly, Estrellita argues that Zorayda and Adib have no legal standing to file suit because only the husband
or the wife can file a complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Supreme Court Resolution
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.[39]
Refuting the arguments, the Solicitor General (Sol Gen) defends the CA's reasoning and stresses that
Estrellita was never deprived of her right to be heard; and, that filing an original action for certiorari does
not stay the proceedings of the main action before the RTC.
As regards the alleged lack of report of the public prosecutor if there is collusion, the Sol Gen says that this
is no longer essential considering the vigorous opposition of Estrellita in the suit that obviously shows the
lack of collusion. The Sol Gen also supports private respondents' legal standing to challenge the validity of
Estrellita's purported marriage with Sen. Tamano, reasoning that any proper interested party may attack
directly or collaterally a void marriage, and Zorayda and Adib have such right to file the action as they are
the ones prejudiced by the marital union.
Zorayda and Adib, on the other hand, did not file any comment
Issues
The issues that must be resolved are the following:
1. Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's judgment, even though the latter was rendered
prematurely because: a) the judgment was rendered without waiting for the Supreme Court's final
resolution of her certiorari petition, i.e., GR. No. 126603; b) she has not yet filed her answer and thus was
denied due process; and c) the public prosecutor did not even conduct an investigation whether there was
collusion;
2.

Whether the marriage between Estrellita and the late Sen. Tamano was bigamous; and

3. Whether Zorayda and Adib have the legal standing to have Estrellita's marriage declared void ab initio.
Our Ruling
Estrellita s refusal to file an answer eventually led to the loss
of her right to answer; and her pending petition for
certiorari/review on certiorari questioning the denial of the
motion to dismiss before the higher courts does not at all
suspend the trial proceedings of the principal suit before the
RTC of Quezon City.

Firstly, it can never be argued that Estrellita was deprived of her right to due process. She was never
declared in default, and she even actively participated in the trial to defend her interest.
Estrellita invokes Judge Macias v. Macias [40]to justify the suspension of the period to file an answer and of
the proceedings in the trial court until her petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the denial of her
Motion to Dismiss has been decided by this Court. In said case, we affirmed the following reasoning of the
CA which, apparently, is Estrellita's basis for her argument, to wit

However, she opted to file, on April 10, 2001, a 'Motion to Dismiss? instead of filing an Answer to
the complaint The filing of said motion suspended the period for her to file her Answer to the
complaint. Until said motion is resolved by the Respondent Court with finality, it behooved the
Respondent Court to suspend the hearings of the case on the merits. The Respondent Court, on April
19,2001, issued its Order denying the 'Motion to Dismiss' of the Petitioner. Under Section 6, Rule 16 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure [now Section 4], the Petitioner had the balance of the period provided for in
Rule 11 of the said Rules but in no case less than five (5) days computed from sendee on her of the
aforesaid Order of the Respondent Court within which to file her Answer to the complaint x x x [41]' (Emphasis
supplied.)
Estrellita obviously misappreciated Macias. All we pronounced therein is that the trial court is mandated to
suspend trial until it finally resolves the motion to dismiss that is filed before it. Nothing in the above excerpt
states that the trial court should suspend its proceedings should the issue of the propriety or impropriety of
the motion to dismiss be raised before the appellate courts. In Macias, the trial court failed to observe due
process in the course of the proceeding of the case because after it denied the wife's motion to dismiss, it
immediately proceeded to allow the husband to present evidence ex parte and resolved the case with undue
haste even when, under the rules of procedure, the wife still had time to file an answer. In the instant case,
Estrellita had no time left for filing an answer, as she filed the motion to dismiss beyond the extended period
earlier granted by the trial court after she filed motions for extension of time to file an answer.
Estrellita argues that the trials court prematurely issued its judgment, as it should have waited first for the
resolution of her Motion to Dismiss before the CA and, subsequently, before this Court. However, in
upholding the RTC, the CA correctly ailed that the pendency of ,a petition for certiorari does not suspend the
proceedings before the trial court. "An application for certiorari is an independent action which is not part or
a continuation of the trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of." [42] Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court is explicit in stating that "[t]he petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case
unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public
respondent from further proceeding in the case."[43] In fact, the trial court respected the CA's temporary
restraining order and only after the CA rendered judgment did the RTC again require Estrellita to present her
evidence.
Notably, when the CA judgment was elevated to us by way of Rule 45, we never issued any order precluding
the trial court from proceeding with the principal action. With her numerous requests for postponements,
Estrellita remained obstinate in refusing to file an answer or to present her evidence when it was her turn to
do so, insisting that the trial court should wait first for our decision in GR. Mo. 126603. Her failure to file an
answer and her refusal to present her evidence were attributable only to herself and she should not be
allowed to benefit from her own dilatory tactics to the prejudice of the other party. Sans her answer, the trial
court correctly proceeded with the trial and rendered its Decision after it deemed Estrellita to have waived
her right to present her side of the story. Neither should the lower court wait for the decision in GR. No.
126603 to become final and executory, nor should it wait for its records to be remanded back to it because
GR. No. 126603 involves strictly the propriety of the Motion to Dismiss and not the issue of validity of
marriage.
The Public Prosecutor issued a report as
to the non-existence of collusion.
Aside from Article 48 of the Family Code and Rule 9, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10SC)[44] also requries the participation of the public prosecutor in cases involving void marriages. It
specifically mandates the prosecutor to submit his investigation report to determine whether there is
collusion between the parties:
Sec. 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor.- (1) Within one month after receipt of the court order
mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor shall submit a report to the court

stating whether the parties are in collusion and serve copies thereof on the parties and their respective
counsels, if any.
(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall slate the basis thereof in his report. The
parties shall file their respective comments on the finding of collusion within ten days from receipt of a copy
of the report. The court shall set the report for hearing and if convinced that the parties are in collusion, it
shall dismiss the petition.
(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the court shall set the case for pre-trial. It shall
be the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial.
Records show that the trial court immediately directed the public prosecutor to submit the required report,
[45]
which we find to have been sufficiently complied with by Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo T. Paragua in
his Manifestation dated March 30,1995,[46] wherein he attested that there could be no collusion between the
parties and no fabrication of evidence because Estrellita is not the spouse of any of the private respondents.
Furthermore, the lack of collusion is evident in the case at bar. Even assuming that there is a lack of report
of collusion or a lack of participation by the public prosecutor, just as we held in Tuason v. Court of Appeals,
[47]
the lack of participation of a fiscal does not invalidate the proceedings in the trial court:
The role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal in annulment of marriage and legal separation proceedings is to
determine whether collusion exists between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not suppressed
or fabricated. Petitioner's vehement opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the conclusion that
collusion existed between the parties. There is no allegation by the petitioner that evidence was suppressed
or fabricated by any of the parties. Under these circumstances, we are convinced that the nonintervention of
a prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the validity
of the proceedings in the trial court.[48]
The Civil Code governs the marriage of Zorayda and the late
Sen. Tamano; their marriage was never invalidated by PD
1083. Sen. Tamano's subsequent marriage to Estrellita is
void ab initio.

The marriage between the late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda was celebrated in 1958, solemnized under civil
and Muslim rites.[49] The only law in force governing marriage relationships between Muslims and nonMuslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950, under the provisions of which only one marriage can exist at any
given time.[50]Under the marriage provisions of the Civil Code, divorce is not recognized except during the
efifectivity of Republic Act No. 394[51] which was not availed of during its effectivity.
As far as Estrellita is concerned, Sen. Tamano's prior marriage to Zorayda has been severed by way of
divorce under PD 1083,[52] the law that codified Muslim personal laws. However, PD 1083 cannot benefit
Estrellita. Firstly, Article 13(1) thereof provides that the law applies to "marriage and divorce wherein both
parties are Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in
accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any part of the Philippines." But we already ruled in GR. No.
126603 that "Article 13 of PD 1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were married both in
civil and Muslim rites."[53]
Moreover, the Muslim Code took effect only on February 4, 1977, and this law cannot retroactively override
the Civil Code which already bestowed certain rights on the marriage of Sen. Tamano and Zorayda. The
former explicitly provided for the prospective application of its provisions unless otherwise provided:
Art. 186 (1). Effect of code on past acts. Acts executed prior to the effectivity of this Code shall be
governed by the laws in force at the time of their execution, and nothing herein except as otherwise

specifically provided, shall affect their validity or legality or operate to extinguish any right acquired or
liability incurred thereby.
It has been held that:
The foregoing provisions are consistent with the principle that all laws operate prospectively, unless the
contrary appears or is clearly, plainly and unequivocably expressed or necessarily implied; accordingly, every
case of doubt will be resolved against the retroactive operation of laws. Article 186 aforecited enunciates the
general rule of the Muslim Code to have its provisions applied prospectively, and implicitly upholds the force
and effect of a pre-existing body of law, specifically, the Civil Code - in respect of civil acts that took place
before the Muslim Code's enactment.[54]
An instance of retroactive application of the Muslim Code is Article 186(2) which states:
A marriage contracted by a Muslim male prior to the effectivity of this Code in accordance with non-Muslim
law shall be considered as one contracted under Muslim law provided the spouses register their mutual
desire to thiseffect.
Even granting that there was registration of mutual consent for the marriage to be considered as one
contracted under the Muslim law, the registration of mutual consent between Zorayda and Sen. Tamano will
still be ineffective, as both are Muslims whose marriage was celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws.
Besides, as we have already settled, the Civil Code governs their personal status since this was in effect at
the time of the celebration of their marriage. In view of Sen. Tamano's prior marriage which subsisted at the
time Estrellita married him, their subsequent marriage is correctly adjudged by the CA as void ab initio.
Zorayda andAdib, as the injured parties, have the legal
personalities to file the declaration of nullity of marriage.
A.M. No. 02-11-10SC, which limits to only the husband or
the wife the filing of a petition for nullity is prospective in
application and does not shut out the prior spouse from filing
suit if the ground is a bigamous subsequent marriage.

Her marriage covered by the Family Code of the Philippines,"[55] Estrellita relies on A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
which took effect on March 15, 2003 claiming that under Section 2(a) [56] thereof, only the husband or the
wife, to the exclusion of others, may file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity, therefore only she and
Sen. Tamano may directly attack the validity of their own marriage.
Estrellita claims that only the husband or the wife in a void marriage can file a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage. However, this interpretation does not apply if the reason behind the petition is bigamy.
In explaining why under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC only the spouses may file the petition to the exclusion of
compulsory or intestate heirs, we said:
The Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders explicates on Section 2(a) in the following manner,viz:
(1) Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petitions cannot be filed by the compulsory or
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. [Section 2; Section 3, paragraph a]
Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the
spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the
petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and
hence can only question.the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a

proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other
hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution. [57]
Note that the Rationale makes it clear that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the "aggrieved or
injured spouse." If Estrellita's interpretation is employed, the prior spouse is unjustly precluded from filing
an action. Surely, this is not what the Rule contemplated.
The subsequent spouse may only be expected to take action if he or she had only discovered during the
connubial period that the fnarriage was bigamous, and especially if the conjugal bliss had already vanished.
Should parties in a subsequent marriage benefit from the bigamous marriage, it would not be expected that
they would file an action to declare the marriage void and thus, in such circumstance, the "injured spouse"
who should be given a legal remedy is the one in a subsisting previous marriage. The latter is clearly the
aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only threatens the financial and the property ownership
aspect of the prior marriage but most of all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse. The
subsequent marriage will always be a reminder of the infidelity of the spouse and the disregard of the prior
marriage which sanctity is protected by the Constitution.
Indeed, Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC precludes the son from impugning the subsequent marriage.
But in the case at bar, both Zorayda and Adib have legal personalities to file an action for nullity. Albeit the
Supreme Court Resolution governs marriages celebrated under the Family Code, such is prospective in
application and does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15,2003. [58]
Zorayda and Adib filed the case for declaration of nullity of Estrellita's marriage in November 1994.
While the Family Code is silent with respect to the proper party who can file a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage prior to A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, it has been held that in a void marriage, in which no
marriage has taken place and cannot be the source of rights, any interested party may attack the mairiage
directly or collaterally without prescription, which may be filed even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the
marriage.[59] Since A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply, Adib, as one of the children of the deceased who
has property rights as an heir, is likewise considered to be the real party in interest in the suit he and his
mother had filed since both of them stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. [60]
Since our Philippine laws protect the marital union of a couple, they should be interpreted in a way that
would preserve their respective rights which include striking down bigamous marriages. We thus find the CA
Decision correctly rendered.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed August 17, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-GR. CV No. 61762, as well as its subsequent Resolution issued on September 13, 2005, are
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Corana, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, and Perez, JJ., concur.

CA rollo, pp. 129-142; penned by Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman and concurred in by
Associate Justices Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and Rebecca do Guia-Salvador.
[1]

[2]

Id. at 205-210.

[3]

Records, p. 103.

[4]

Id. at 13.

[5]

Namely Jamila, Jacob, Amina, Macapanton, Ysmael, Soraya, Adel and Aquil.

[6]

Rollo, pp. 54-60.

[7]

Id.

[8]

Records, pp. 14-15,25-26.

[9]

Id. at 25-26.

at 57.

[10]

Id. at 17,29.

[11]

Id.at 32-38.

[12]

Id. at 38-40.

[13]

Id. at 109-111, 123.

[14]

Id. at 143.

[15]

Id. at 151, 153, 173. 174.

[16]

Id. at 213.

[17]

Id. at 176.

[18]

Id. at 230-236.

[19]

Tamano v. Hon. Ortiz, 353 Phil. 775 (1998).

Records, p. 237. The trial court erred in stating that 'let reception of plaintiff's evidence herein be set on
June 26, 1997 x x x" when in fact, it was already defendant's turn.
[20]

[21]

Id. at 240.

[22]

Id. at 242-244.

[23]

Id. at 315-318.

[24]

Id. at 319-322.

[25]

Rollo, pp. 69-76.

[26]

Records, p. 367.

[27]

Id. at 354-362.

[28]

Rollo, pp. 77-82; penned by Judge Elsa de Guzman.

[29]

FAMILY CODE, Article 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

xxxx

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41;
xxxx
NEW Civil CODE, Article 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;
xxxx
[30]

Rollo, p. 80.

[31]

CA rollo, pp. 17-41.

[32]

Rollo, pp. 34-46.

[33]

Id. at 48-53.

RULES OF Court, Rule 9, Section 3(e) Where no defaults allowed. If the defending party in an action
for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall
order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if
there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not
fabricated.
[34]

FAMILY CODE, Article 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the
Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take
steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed.
[35]

In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts
or confession of judgment.
[36]

457 Phil 463 (2003).

[37]

Rollo, p. 217.

[38]

Id. at 133, 135.

[39]

Inadvertently referred to as A.M. No. 00-11-01-SC.

[40]

Supra note 36.

[41]

Id. at 468.

[42]

Sps. Diaz v, Diaz, 387 Phil 314, 334 (2000).

[43]

RULES or COURT, Rule 65, Section 7.

[44]

Dated March 4, 2003, with an effectivity dale of March 15, 2003.

[45]

Records, p. 30.

[46]

Id, at 56.

[47]

326 Phil 169(1996).

[48]

Id. at 181.

Supra note 12, where Zorayda's disbarment complaint stated that the marriage was conducted under
both rites.
[49]

[50]

Malang v. Judge Moson, 398 Phil. 41 (2000).

An Act Authorizing For A Period Of Twenty Years Divorce Among Moslems Residing In Non-Christian
Provinces In Accordance With Moslem Customs and Practices (approved on June 18, 1949), Section 1 of
which provides:
[51]

Section 1. For a period of twenty years from the date of the approval of this Act, divorce among Moslems
residing in non-Christian provinces shall be recognized and be governed by Moslem customs and practices.
[52]

Under Articles 45-57.

[53]

Tamano v. Ortiz, supra note 19 at 781.

[54]

Malang v. Judge Moson, supra note 50 at 57.

[55]

EXECUTIVE Order No. 209, which took effect on August 3, 1988.

[56]

Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.-

(a) Who may file.A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the
husband or the wife.
Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli, G.R. No. 173614, September
28, 2007, 534 SCRA 418, 429, citing Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders.
[57]

Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 116, 132 citing Enrico v. Heirs of
Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and Trinidad Carli-Medmaceli, supra note 57 at 428.
[58]

[59]

Nial v. Bayadog, 384 Phil 661, 673 (2000).

[60]

RULES OF C0URT, Rule 3, Section 2.