27. enrico vs heirs of medinaceli

8/9/2019 27. Enrico vs Heirs of Medinaceli

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 173614 September 28, 2007

LOLIT !. ENRICO, Petitioner,vs."EIRS O# SPS. EULOGIO $. ME!INCELI N! TRINI!! CTLI%ME!INCELI, REPRESENTE! $& 'ILMM. RTICULO, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

C"ICO%N(RIO, J.:

The instant Petition for !ertiorari filed under Rule "# of the $%%& Rules of !ivil Procedure assails the Order,$dated 'Ma( )**" of the Re+ional Trial !ourt RT!- of parri, !a+a(an, /ranch ", in !ivil !ase No. II01*#&, +rantin+reconsideration of its Order,) dated $$ October )**#, and reinstatin+ respondents2 !o3plaint for Declaration ofNullit( of Marria+e.

On $& March )**#, respondents, heirs of Spouses ulo+io /. Medinaceli ulo+io- and Trinidad !atli0MedinaceliTrinidad- filed 4ith the RT!, an action for declaration of nullit( of 3arria+e of ulo+io and petitioner 5olita D. nrico.Substantiall(, the co3plaint alle+ed, inter alia, that ulo+io and Trinidad 4ere 3arried on $1 6une $%"), in 5al0lo,!a+a(an.' The( be+ot seven children, herein respondents, na3el(7 duardo, vel(n, Vil3a, Mar( 6ane, Hai8el,Michelle and 6oseph 5lo(d.1 On $ Ma( )**1, Trinidad died.# On )" u+ust )**1, ulo+io 3arried petitioner beforethe Municipal Ma(or of 5al0lo, !a+a(an." Si9 3onths later, or on $* :ebruar( )**#, ulo+io passed a4a(.&

In i3pu+nin+ petitioner2s 3arria+e to ulo+io, respondents averred that the sa3e 4as entered into 4ithout there;uisite 3arria+e license. The( ar+ued that rticle '1 hence, the( 4ere e9e3pted fro3 the re;uire3ent of a 3arria+e license. :ro3 their union4ere born lvin nrico and Marco nrico, all surna3ed Medinaceli, on )< October $%


2/4

be filed solel( b( the husband or the 4ife. The rule is clear and une;uivocal that onl( the husband or the 4ife 3a(file the petition for Declaration of bsolute Nullit( of a Void Marria+e. The readin+ of this !ourt is that the ri+ht tobrin+ such petition is e9clusive and this ri+ht solel( belon+s to the3. !onse;uentl(, the heirs of the deceasedspouse cannot substitute their late father in brin+in+ the action to declare the 3arria+e null and void. $) 3phasissupplied.-

The dispositive portion of the Order, thus, reads7

?HR:OR, @theA Motion to Dis3iss raised as an affir3ative defense in the ans4er is hereb( BRNTD.

ccordin+l(, the !o3plaint filed b( the @respondentsA is hereb( DISMISSD 4ith costs de officio. $'

Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof. :ollo4in+ the filin+ b( petitioner of her !o33ent to the said3otion, the RT! rendered an Order $1 dated ' Ma( )**", reversin+ its Order of $$ October )**#. Hence, the RT!reinstated the co3plaint on the ratiocination that the assailed Order i+nored the rulin+ in NiCal v. /a(ado+,$#4hich4as on the authorit( for holdin+ that the heirs of a deceased spouse have the standin+ to assail a void 3arria+eeven after the death of the latter. It held that Section )a- of .M. No. *)0$$0)*0S!, 4hich provides that a petition fordeclaration of absolute nullit( of void 3arria+e 3a( be filed solel( b( the husband or the 4ife, applies onl( 4hereboth parties to a void 3arria+e are still livin+.$" ?here one or both parties are deceased, the RT! held that the heirs3a( file a petition to declare the 3arria+e void. The RT! e9pounded on its stance, thus7

The ;uestioned Order disre+arded the case of NiCal vs. /a(ado+, ')< S!R $)) March $1, )***- in 4hich the

Supre3e !ourt, :irst Division, held that the heirs of a deceased person 3a( file a petition for the declaration of his3arria+e after his death. The Order subect of this 3otion for reconsideration held that the case of NiCal vs./a(ado+ is no4 superseded b( the ne4 Rule on Declaration of bsolute Nullit( of Marria+es hereinafter referred toas the Rule- because the Supre3e !ourt has reected the case of NiCal vs. /a(ado+ b( approvin+ the Rule onNullit( of Void Marria+es. The Order further held that it is onl( the husband or the 4ife 4ho is sic- the onl( partiesallo4ed to file an action for declaration of nullit( of their 3arria+e and such ri+ht is purel( personal and is nottrans3issible upon the death of the parties.

It is ad3itted that there see3s to be a conflict bet4een the case of NiCal vs. /a(ado+ and Section )a- of the Rule.In vie4 of this, the !ourt shall tr( to reconcile the case of NiCal vs. /a(ado+ and the Rule. To reconcile, the !ourt4ill have to deter3ine @theA basic ri+hts of the parties. The ri+hts of the le+iti3ate heirs of a person 4ho entered intoa void 3arria+e 4ill be preudiced particularl( 4ith respect to their successional ri+hts. Durin+ the lifeti3e of theparent@,A the heirs have onl( an inchoate ri+ht over the propert( of the said parents. Hence, durin+ the lifeti3e of theparent, it 4ould be proper that it should solel( be the parent 4ho should be allo4ed to file a petition to declare his3arria+e void. Ho4ever, upon the death of the parent his heirs have alread( a vested ri+ht over 4hatever propert(left b( the parent. Such vested ri+ht should not be frustrated b( an( rules of procedure such as the Rule. Rules ofProcedure cannot repeal ri+hts +ranted b( substantive la4. The heirs, then, have a le+al standin+ in !ourt.

If the heirs are prohibited fro3 ;uestionin+ the void 3arria+e entered b( their parent, especiall( 4hen the 3arria+eis ille+al and feloniousl( entered into, it 4ill +ive pre3iu3 to such union because the +uilt( parties 4ill seldo3, if everat all, as= for the annul3ent of the 3arria+e. Such void 3arria+e 4ill be +iven a se3blance of validit( if the heirs 4illnot be allo4ed to file the petition after the death of the parent.

:or these reasons, this !ourt believes that Sec. )a- of the Rules on Declaration of bsolute Nullit( of Marria+e isapplicable onl( 4hen both parties to a sic- void 3arria+e are still livin+. Epon the death of an(one of the +uilt( part(

to the void 3arria+e, his heirs 3a( file a petition to declare the the sic- 3arria+e void, but the Rule is not applicableas it 4as not filed b the husband or the 4ife. It shall be the ordinar( rule of civil procedure 4hich shall beapplicable.$&

Perforce, the decretal portion of the RT! Order of ' Ma( )**" states7

In vie4 of the fore+oin+, the !ourt +rants the 3otion for reconsideration dated October '$, )**# and reinstate thiscase.$<

++rieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the fore+oin+ Order> ho4ever, on $ 6une )**", the RT!denied the said 3otion on the +round that no ne4 3atter 4as raised therein.$%

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt19


3/4

Hence, the instant Petition under Rule "# of the $%%& Rules of !ivil Procedure on the sole ;uestion of 4hether thecase la4 as e3bodied in NiCal, or the Rule on Declaration of bsolute Nullit( of Void Marria+es and nnul3ent ofVoidable Marria+es, as specified in .M. No. *)0$$0$*0S! of the Supre3e !ourt applies to the case at bar.

t the outset, 4e note that petitioner too= an abbreviated route to this !ourt, countenancin+ the hierarch( of courts.

?e have earlier e3phasi8ed that 4hile the Supre3e !ourt has the concurrent urisdiction 4ith the !ourt of ppealsand the RT!s for 4rits enforceable 4ithin their respective re+ions-, to issue 4rits of 3anda3us, prohibition orcertiorari, the liti+ants are 4ell advised a+ainst ta=in+ a direct recourse to this !ourt. )* Instead, the( should initiall(

see= the proper relief fro3 the lo4er courts. s a court of last resort, this !ourt should not be burdened 4ith the tas=of dealin+ 4ith causes in the first instance. ?here the issuance of an e9traordinar( 4rit is concurrentl( 4ithin theco3petence of the !ourt of ppeals or the RT!, liti+ants 3ust observe the principle of hierarch( ofcourts.)$ Ho4ever, it cannot be +ainsaid that this !ourt has the discretionar( po4er to brush aside procedural lapsesif co3pellin+ reasons, or the nature and i3portance of the issues raised, 4arrant the i33ediate e9ercise of its

urisdiction.)) Moreover, not4ithstandin+ the dis3issibilit( of the instant Petition for its failure to observe the doctrineon the hierarch( of courts, this !ourt 4ill proceed to entertain the case +rounded as it is on a pure ;uestion of la4.

Petitioner 3aintains that .M. No. *)0$$0$*0S! +overns the instant case. contrario, respondents posit that it isNiCal 4hich is applicable, 4hereb( the heirs of the deceased person 4ere +ranted the ri+ht to file a petition for thedeclaration of nullit( of his 3arria+e after his death.

?e +rant the Petition.

In reinstatin+ respondents2 !o3plaint for Declaration of Nullit( of Marria+e, the RT! acted 4ith +rave abuse ofdiscretion.

?hile it is true that NiCal in no uncertain ter3s allo4ed therein petitioners to file a petition for the declaration ofnullit( of their father2s 3arria+e to therein respondent after the death of their father, 4e cannot, ho4ever, appl( itsrulin+ for the reason that the i3pu+ned 3arria+e therein 4as sole3ni8ed prior to the effectivit( of the :a3il( !ode.The !ourt in NiCal reco+ni8ed that the applicable la4 to deter3ine the validit( of the t4o 3arria+es involved thereinis the !ivil !ode, 4hich 4as the la4 in effect at the ti3e of their celebration.)' ?hat 4e have before us belon+s to adifferent 3ilieu, i.e., the 3arria+e sou+ht to be declared void 4as entered into durin+ the effectivit( of the :a3il(!ode. s can be +leaned fro3 the facts, petitioner2s 3arria+e to ulo+io 4as celebrated in )**1. 1âwphi1

The Rule on Declaration of bsolute Nullit( of Void Marria+es and nnul3ent of Voidable Marria+es as contained in .M. No. *)0$$0$*0S! is e9plicit in its scope, to 4it7

Section $. Scope. F This Rule shall +overn petitions for declaration of absolute nullit( of void 3arria+es andannul3ent of voidable 3arria+es under the :a3il( !ode of the Philippines.

The Rules of !ourt shall appl( suppletoril(. 3phasis supplied.-

The cate+orical lan+ua+e of .M. No. *)0$$0$*0S! leaves no roo3 for doubt. The covera+e e9tends onl( to those3arria+es entered into durin+ the effectivit( of the :a3il( !ode 4hich too= effect on ' u+ust $%


4/4

a- ?ho 3a( file. F petition for declaration of absolute nullit( of void 3arria+e 3a( be filed solel( b( the husbandor the 4ife. n- 3phasis supplied.-

There is no a3bi+uit( in the Rule. bsolute sententil e9positore non indi+et. ?hen the lan+ua+e of the la4 is clear,no e9planation of it is re;uired. Section )a- of .M. No. *)0$$0$*0S!, 3a=es it the sole ri+ht of the husband or the4ife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullit( of void 3arria+e.

The Rationale of the Rules on nnul3ent of Voidable Marria+es and Declaration of bsolute Nullit( of VoidMarria+es, 5e+al Separation and Provisional Orders e9plicates on Section )a- in the follo4in+ 3anner, vi87

$. Onl( an a++rieved or inured spouse 3a( file petitions for annul3ent of voidable 3arria+es and declaration ofabsolute nullit( of void 3arria+es. Such petitions cannot be filed b( the co3pulsor( or intestate heirs of the spousesor b( the State. @Section )> Section ', para+raph aA

Onl( an a++rieved or inured spouse 3a( file a petition for annul3ent of voidable 3arria+es or declaration ofabsolute nullit( of void 3arria+es. Such petition cannot be filed b( co3pulsor( or intestate heirs of the spouses or b(the State. The !o33ittee is of the belief that the( do not have a le+al ri+ht to file the petition. !o3pulsor( orintestate heirs have onl( inchoate ri+hts prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence can onl( ;uestion thevalidit( of the 3arria+e of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceedin+ for the settle3ent of the estate ofthe deceased spouse filed in the re+ular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve 3arria+eand not to see= its dissolution.)# 3phasis supplied.-

Respondents clearl( have no cause of action before the court a ;uo. Nonetheless, all is not lost for respondents.?hile .M. No. *)0$$0$*0S! declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullit( of void 3arria+e 3a( be filedsolel( b( the husband or the 4ife, it does not 3ean that the co3pulsor( or intestate heirs are alread( 4ithout an(recourse under the la4. The( can still protect their successional ri+ht, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on

nnul3ent of Voidable Marria+es and Declaration of bsolute Nullit( of Void Marria+es, 5e+al Separation andProvisional Orders, co3pulsor( or intestate heirs can still ;uestion the validit( of the 3arria+e of the spouses, not ina proceedin+ for declaration of nullit(, but upon the death of a spouse in a proceedin+ for the settle3ent of theestate of the deceased spouse filed in the re+ular courts.

?HR:OR, the Petition is BRNTD. !ivil !ase No. II01*#& filed before the Re+ional Trial !ourt of parri,!a+a(an, /ranch ", is ORDRD DISMISSD 4ithout preudice to challen+in+ the validit( of the 3arria+e of 5olita

D. nrico to ulo+io /. Medinaceli in a proceedin+ for the settle3ent of the estate of the latter. No costs.

SO ORDRD.

MINIT '. C"ICO%N(RIO ssociate 6ustice

? !ON!ER7

CONSUELO &NRES%SNTIGO ssociate 6ustice

!hairperson

M. LICI USTRI%MRTINE( ssociate 6ustice

NTONIO E!UR!O $. NC"UR ssociate 6ustice

RU$EN T. RE&ES ssociate 6ustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_173614_2007.html#fnt25

27. enrico vs heirs of medinaceli

Documents