Llave Vs Republic GR 169766

G.R. No.
169766: March 30, 2011

ESTRELLITA JULIANO-LLAVE,Petitioner,v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
HAJA PUTRI ZORAYDA A. TAMANO and ADIB AHMAD A. TAMANO, Respondents.
FACTS:
Around 11 months before his death, Sen. Tamano married Estrellita twice initially under the
Islamic laws and tradition and under a civil ceremony officiated by an RTC Judge at Malabang,
Lanao del Sur.In their marriage contracts, Sen. Tamanos civil status was indicated as divorced.
Private respondents Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda) and her son Adib Ahmad A.
Tamano (Adib filed a complaint with the RTC of Quezon City for the declaration of nullity of
marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano for being bigamous.
It was further alleged that since Zorayda and deceased were married when the NCC was already
in effect, the subsequent marriage to Estrellita is void ab initio since divorce is not allowed under
the NCC. 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 Personal 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.
Instead of filing an Answer, Estrellita filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied Estrellitas
motion and asserted its jurisdiction over the case for declaration of nullity. Thus, Estrellita filed
acertioraripetition before the SC questioning the denial of her Motion to Dismiss which was
referred to and subsequently denied by the CA. This prompted Estrellita to file a petition for
review on certiorari before the SC (GR No. 126603)
Subsequent to the promulgation of the CA Decision, the RTC ordered Estrellita to present her
evidence but she asked for postponement. Unhappy with the delays in the resolution of their
case, Zorayda and Adib moved to submit the case for decision, 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 G.R. No. 126603.
The RTC rendered the aforementioned judgment declaring Estrellitas marriage with Sen. Tamano
as void ab initio. On appeal to the CA, Estrellita argued that she was denied due process as the
RTC rendered its judgment even without waiting for the finality of the Decision of the Supreme
Court in G.R. No. 126603. The CA denied the appeal as she was given ample opportunity to be
heard but simply ignored it by asking for numerous postponements. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage of Estrellita and Tamano was bigamous
HELD:
The marriage between the late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda was celebrated in 1958, solemnized
under civil and Muslim rites. The only law in force governing marriage relationships between
Muslims and non-Muslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950, under the provisions of which only
one marriage can exist at any given time.Under the marriage provisions of the Civil Code,
divorce is not recognized except during the effectivity of Republic Act No. 394which was not
availed of during its effectivity.

As far as Estrellita is concerned, Sen. Tamanos prior marriage to Zorayda has been severed by
way of divorce under PD 1083,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 G.R. 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."
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.
DENIED.

Llave Vs Republic GR 169766

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Llave Vs Republic GR 169766

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Llave Vs Republic GR 169766

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

169766: March 30, 2011

availed of during its effectivity.

You might also like