Hello

everyone.


Re Celerina Santos vs. Ricardo Santos, GR No. 187061, Oct 8, 2014. 737 SCRA 637


I. What the Supreme Court (J. Leonen) said:

1. Annulment of judgment as preferred remedy / chosen remedy of Celerina Santos
(Celerina) was alright since her goal was to "annul" not simply "terminate" the marriage.

2. Celerina’s action “This was less than two years from the July 27, 2007 decision declaring
her presumptively dead and about a month from her discovery of the decision in October
2008. The petition was therefore filed within the four year period allowed by law in case of
extrinsic fraud, and before the action is barred by laches, which is the period allowed in case
of lack of jurisdiction.” (737 SCRA, page 646; See also footnote 46).


3. The Court also held that the “Termination” under Article 42, FC may vest legitimacy to the
subsequent marriage, if no “annulment of judgment” based on extrinsic fraud was instituted.
Since, citing Art. 42, FC,

"The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding article shall be
automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent
spouse unless there is a previous judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it
void ab initio.

A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the
civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any
interested person, without due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and
without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is
disputed.” (Ibid, Page 647)

... Reappearance of the absent or presumptively dead spouse will cause termination of the
subsequent marriage only when all the conditions enumerated in the Family Code are
present. (Ibid, 647-648).


4. Also SC conceded that bigamy may be present if all the elements required for termination
are proven. (Ibid, Penultimate Paragraph, 651).

5. But, at the same time, the SC held that a “Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages” may be filed solely by the husband or wife . This means that even if Celerina
is a real party-in-interest who stand to be benefited or injured by the outcome of an action to
s
nullity the second marriage, this remedy is not available to her.

Therefore, .... Celerina’s choice to file an action for annulment of judgment will, therefore,
lie.” (Ibid, Page 652)


II. My Take

The Supreme Court pronouncement though sympathetic (who would not be) to Celerina,
nonetheless FAILED to offer sound legal reasoning. Consider the following:


1. On Annulment of Judgment With Prescriptive Period of Four Years (Rule 47, Section 3).
To recall, the SC said:

“This was less than two years from the July 27, 2007 decision declaring her
presumptively dead and about a month from her discovery of the decision in October
2008. The petition was therefore filed within the four year period allowed by law in
case of extrinsic fraud, and before the action is barred by laches, which is the period
allowed in case of lack of jurisdiction.” (737 SCRA, page 646; See also footnote 46).

Clearly, and understandably, the Court was sympathetic to Celerina. Unfortunately, the
reasoning and justification offered by the Court were wrong, contrary to existing
jurisprudence.

The action should have been based on Article 35 (4) of the FC. The subsequent marriage
being void bigamous marriage; the action is imprescriptible. (Article 39, FC).

Annulment of judgment based on Rule 47, Rules of Court is inapplicable. If one follows the
Court’s logic, and assuming Celerina’s action for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic
fraud BEYOND THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, would that mean that the
subsequent marriage (fraudulently obtained) would be valid? What of the FIRST and
SUBSISTING marriage between Celerina and Ricardo?

It is nonsensical. The correct procedure is Article 40 in relation to Articles 35(4) and 39 of
the Family Code.


2. Do note that an Article 41 Proceeding is SUMMARY in nature. And the way to end it is also
summary i.e., Article 42, by execution of affidavit, its filing and registration and with due
notice to the parties.


All that Art 42 covered is the matter of termination (after compliance with requirements).
The “effects” of the termination may be gleaned from Articles 43 and - necessarily implying
judicial inquiry, not simple filing and recording of the affidavit of reappearance. But other
judicial proceedings, given the circumstances, would have been warranted.

Would these other judicial proceedings be summary too? Answer: No, unless covered by
Article 253 and the Title on Summary Proceedings of the Family Code.


3. One asks: If the annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud was the correct remedy -
remember that the litigants were Celerina and Ricardo only; the subsequent/second spouse
and the children are not parties -– what happens then to the “effects” of the subsequent
marriage? Will not these “effects” be litigated, and judicially determined still, vide Arts. 43 &
44, FC?


4. Also, an Article 41 proceeding is SUMMARY in nature. Compare with the FULL BLOWN
proceeding entailed/required by AM 02-11-10. The point of the comparison is to emphasize
the limited nature and purpose of “termination” under Article 42, i.e., without prejudice to
other proceedings (certainly not annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud). Is this not
obvious?


5. The Court (and Celerina) incorrectly appreciated the meaning, scope and extent of
“Termination” under Article 42.

From the facts, Celerina, after finding out about the remarriage (a month after) did not take
legal action until after two years. She must have been terribly confused by “termination”
under Art. 42 and effects under Article 43 etcetera on the one hand and nullity of marriages
on the other hand.


6. Article 41, IF properly obtained, is an EXCEPTION to Article 35(4). Their origin is Article 83
of the NCC. The difference is that under Article 83, NCC – the classification is void bigamous
(now Article 35 (4) FC) or voidable bigamous (now Terminable under Article 41, FC).

Where there is NO compliance with Article 41 requirements, the subsequent marriage is
VOID BIGAMOUS under Article 35 (4). The action is nullity based thereon, which is
imprescriptible; NOT annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud within four years.


7. The innocence of the Court was manifest when it found that, and I quote:

“Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages” may be filed solely by the
husband or wife. This means that even if Celerina is a real party-in-interest who stand to be
benefited or injured by the outcome of an action to nullity the second marriage, this remedy
is not available to her.

Therefore, .... Celerina’s choice to file an action for annulment of judgment will, therefore,
lie.” (Ibid, Page 652)

This is patently wrong. Celerina has FULL STANDING to institute a civil or criminal action for
bigamy. See Fujiki v. Marinay and other cases.



Conclusion.

Interesting reading.



Note: Thank you for the question. I forgot all about it and the whole thing did not register
until the question was asked this morning. I appreciate that.

You should continue to ask. It is the way to learn for me (and hopefully, for you too).

A recitation grade of 90 will be given to the questioner for this excellent query. Your name
and class number please!


Cheers

Dzl