Ablaza v Republic

Parties in Interest | G.R. No. 158298 | Bersamin, J.

DOCTRINE (for topic): Interest means material interest, or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or
judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere incidental interest

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Cause of Action Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Nature Petition for Review on Certiorari of a Decision of the CA

Parties Pet. – Isidro Ablaza

Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage contracted on December 26, 1949
between his late brother Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Honato. Petitioner alleged that the marriage between
Cresenciano and Leonila had been celebrated without a marriage license, due to such license being issued only
on January 9, 1950, thereby rendering the marriage void ab initio for having been solemnized without a marriage
license. He insisted that his being the surviving brother of Cresenciano who had died without any issue entitled
him to one-half of the real properties acquired by Cresenciano before his death, thereby making him a real party
in interest; and that any person, himself included, could impugn the validity of the marriage between Cresenciano
and Leonila at any time, even after the death of Cresenciano, due to the marriage being void ab initio.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

RTC Petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage for his late
Cataingan, brother. Contention: marriage is void for having been solemnized without a marriage license
Masbate
(Br. 49) a. Ruling: Dismissed
- petition is filed out of time
- petitioner is not a party to the marriage

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration

CA Petitioner appealed
a. Ruling: Affirmed dismissal order of RTC
- While an action to declare the nullity of a marriage considered void from the beginning does
not prescribe, the law nonetheless requires that the same action must be filed by the proper
party, which in this case should be filed by any of the parties to the marriage. Actions for
annulment of marriage will not prosper if persons other than those specified in the law file the
case.
- A surviving brother of the deceased spouse is not the proper party to file the subject petition.
More so that the surviving wife, who stands to be prejudiced, was not even impleaded as a
party to said case.

SC Petitioner appealed
a. Ruling: Granted
ISSUES with HOLDING:

1) W/N petitioner is a real party in interest in the action to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage
of his deceased brother — YES

1.
a. General Rule: the nature of the marriage already celebrated cannot be changed by a subsequent
amendment of the governing law. The validity of a marriage is tested according to the law in force at the
time the marriage is contracted.

b. SC’s illustration:
i. A marriage between a stepbrother and a stepsister was void under the Civil Code, but is not anymore
prohibited under the Family Code; yet, the intervening effectivity of the Family Code does not affect the
void nature of a marriage between a stepbrother and a stepsister solemnized under the regime of the
Civil Code.
ii. The Civil Code marriage remains void, considering that the validity of a marriage is governed by the law
in force at the time of the marriage ceremony.
2.
a. Rule: Sec. 2, par (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife.
i. Such rule extends only to marriage covered by the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 2008,
but, being a procedural rule that is prospective in application, is confined only to proceedings
commenced after March 15, 2003.
ii. Carlos v. Sandoval: The following actions for declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage are excepted
from the limitation —
1. Those commenced before March 15, 2003, the effectivity date of A.M. No. 02- 11-10-SC
2. Those filed vis-a-vis marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code and, those
celebrated under the regime of the Family Code prior to March 15, 2003

b. Application in case: Marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila was contracted on December 1949 of
which the applicable law was the old Civil Code. Hence, the rule on the exclusivity of the parties to the
marriage as having the right to initiate the action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under A.M. No.
02-11-10- SC had absolutely no application to the petitioner.
3.
a. Rule: The old and new Civil Codes contain no provision on who can, and when to, file a petition to declare
the nullity of a marriage.
i. The absence of a provision in the old and new Civil Codes cannot be construed as giving license to just
any person to bring an action to declare the absolute nullity if a marriage.
ii. Carlos v. Sandoval:
1. The plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled
to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted
and defended in the name of the real party in interest.
2. Definition: Interest means material interest, or an interest in issue to be affected by the
decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question
involved or a mere incidental interest
3. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the case is dismissible on the ground of
lack of cause of action.
b. Application in case:
i. Petitioner alleged himself to be the late Cresenciano’s brother and surviving heir. Assuming that the
petitioner was as he claimed himself to be, then he has a material interest in the estate of Cresenciano
that will be adversely affected by any judgment in the suit.
ii. A brother like the petitioner, albeit not a compulsory heir under the laws of succession, has the right to
succeed to the estate of a deceased brother under the conditions stated in Article 1001 and Article 1003
of the Civil Code.
4.
a. Rules
Article 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be
entitled to one half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.

Article 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral
relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in accordance with the following articles.

b. Application in case: The right of the petitioner to bring the action hinges upon a prior determination of
whether Cresciano had any descendant, ascendant, or children (legitimate or illegitimate), and of
whether the petitioner was the late Cresciano’s surviving heir.

2) W/N Cresciano’s wife should be impleaded — YES

a. Rule: Section 11, Rule 3, Rules of Court states that neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a
ground for the dismissal of an action.

b. Application:

i. Omission to impleade Leonila and Leila (alleged daughter of the spouses) is not immediately fatal to
the present action.
ii. The petitioner can still amend his initiatory pleading in order to implead her, for under the same rule,
such amendment to implead an indispensable party may be made on motion of any party or on (the
trial courts) own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.

- Not all marriages celebrated under the old Civil Code required a marriage license for their validity.
o Hence, her participation in this action is necessary in order to shed light on whether the marriage had
been celebrated without a marriage license and whether the marriage might have been a marriage
excepted from the requirement of a marriage license. She was an indispensable party who must be
joined herein.
o The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for
want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is granted.

“Special Case No. 117 entitled In Re: Petition for Nullification of Marriage Contract between
Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Honato; Isidro Ablaza, petitioner, is reinstated, and its
records are returned to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, in Cataingan, Masbate, for
further proceedings, with instructions to first require the petitioner to amend his initiatory
pleading in order to implead Leonila Honato and her daughter Leila Ablaza Jasul as parties-
defendants; then to determine whether the late Cresenciano Ablaza had any ascendants,
descendants, or children (legitimate or illegitimate) at the time of his death as well as
whether the petitioner was the brother and surviving heir of the late Cresenciano Ablaza
entitled to succeed to the estate of said deceased; and thereafter to proceed accordingly.”