Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Wiegel Vs Simpio Dy

    Uploaded by

    Riley
    The petitioner Lilia Oliva Wiegel filed a petition for certiorari challenging orders from the respondent judge regarding her nullity case. Lilia admitted to a prior marriage to Eduardo Maxion in 1972 but claimed it was void due to force. However, even if force was used, the prior marriage would only be voidable, not void, and thus valid until annulled. As the prior marriage had not been annulled, Lilia was still validly married when she married the respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel, making their marriage void under the law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the orders, finding no need for Lilia to present further evidence since her marriage to the respondent is void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Wiegel Vs Simpio Dy

    Uploaded by

    Riley
    20 views2 pages
    The petitioner Lilia Oliva Wiegel filed a petition for certiorari challenging orders from the respondent judge regarding her nullity case. Lilia admitted to a prior marriage to Eduardo Maxion in 1972 but claimed it was void due to force. However, even if force was used, the prior marriage would only be voidable, not void, and thus valid until annulled. As the prior marriage had not been annulled, Lilia was still validly married when she married the respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel, making their marriage void under the law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the orders, finding no need for Lilia to present further evidence since her marriage to the respondent is void.

    Original Title

    wiegel vs simpio dy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Lilia Oliva Wiegel filed a petition for certiorari challenging orders from the respondent judge regarding her nullity case. Lilia admitted to a prior marriage to Eduardo Maxion in 1972 but claimed it was void due to force. However, even if force was used, the prior marriage would only be voidable, not void, and thus valid until annulled. As the prior marriage had not been annulled, Lilia was still validly married when she married the respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel, making their marriage void under the law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the orders, finding no need for Lilia to present further evidence since her marriage to the respondent is void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Wiegel Vs Simpio Dy

    Uploaded by

    Riley
    The petitioner Lilia Oliva Wiegel filed a petition for certiorari challenging orders from the respondent judge regarding her nullity case. Lilia admitted to a prior marriage to Eduardo Maxion in 1972 but claimed it was void due to force. However, even if force was used, the prior marriage would only be voidable, not void, and thus valid until annulled. As the prior marriage had not been annulled, Lilia was still validly married when she married the respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel, making their marriage void under the law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the orders, finding no need for Lilia to present further evidence since her marriage to the respondent is void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    227 Phil.

    457

    SECOND DIVISION
    [ G.R. No. L-53703, August 19, 1986 ]
    LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V.
    SEMPIO-DIY (AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE AND
    DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF CALOOCAN CITY) AND KARL
    HEINZ WIEGEL, RESPONDENTS.

    DECISION

    PARAS, J.:

    In an action (Family Case No. 483) filed before the erstwhile Juvenile and Domestic
    Relations Court of Caloocan City, herein respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel (plaintiff therein)
    asked for the declaration of Nullity of his marriage (celebrated on July, 1978 at the Holy
    Catholic Apostolic Christian Church Branch in Makati, Metro Manila) with herein
    petitioner Lilia Oliva Wiegel (Lilia, for short, and defendant therein) on the ground of
    Lilia's previous existing marriage to one Eduardo A. Maxion, the ceremony having been
    performed on June 25, 1972 at our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City.  Lilia, while
    admitting the existence of said prior subsisting marriage claimed that said marriage was
    null and void, she and the first husband Eduardo A. Maxion having been allegedly forced
    to enter said marital union.  In the pre-trial that ensued, the issue agreed upon by both
    parties was the status of the first marriage (assuming the presence of force exerted against
    both parties):  was said prior marriage void or was it merely voidable?  Contesting the
    validity of the pre-trial order, Lilia asked the respondent court for an opportunity to
    present evidence -
    (1)     that the first marriage was vitiated by force exercised upon both her and the first
    husband; and

    (2)     that the first husband was at the time of the marriage in 1972 already married
    to someone else.
    Respondent judge ruled against the presentation of evidence because the existence of
    force exerted on both parties of the first marriage had already been agreed upon.  Hence,
    the present petition for certiorari assailing the following Orders of the respondent Judge
    –
    (1)    the Order dated March 17, 1980 in which the parties were compelled to submit the
    case for resolution based on "agreed facts"; and
    (2)    the Order dated April 14, 1980, denying petitioner's motion to allow her to present
    evidence in her favor.
    We find the petition devoid of merit.

    There is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force
    committed against both parties because assuming this to be so the marriage will not be
    void but merely voidable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid until annulled.  Since
    no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married respondent she was
    still validly married to her first husband, consequently, her marriage to respondent is
    VOID (Art. 80, Civil Code).

    There is likewise no need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage of her
    first husband at the time they married each other, for then such a marriage though void
    still needs according to this Court a judicial declaration[1] of such fact and for all legal
    intents and purposes she would still be regarded as a married woman at the time she
    contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel); accordingly, the marriage
    of petitioner and respondent would be regarded VOID under the law.

    WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit and the Orders
    complained of are hereby AFFIRMED.  Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like