Carlos vs. Sandoval

A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be resolved through judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment; the grounds for nullity must be proved in a full trial. Under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, only the husband or wife may file such petition for marriages celebrated under the Family Code, except for cases commenced before March 15, 2003; for marriages solemnized under the Civil Code, a collateral relative may file the action if he is a real party-in-interest, which is contingent on the absence of compulsory heirs descending from the decedent.

Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate, leaving six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. During Felix Carlos's lifetime, he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo to avoid inheritance taxes, with Teofilo undertaking to deliver petitioner's share. Teofilo married respondent Felicidad Sandoval on May 14, 1962, and they had a son, Teofilo Carlos II. Teofilo died intestate on May 13, 1992. The dispute arose from petitioner's attempt to nullify the marriage and disclaim Teofilo II's filiation in order to claim successional rights over Teofilo's estate, which had been partly transferred to respondents.

Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate, leaving six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. During Felix's lifetime, he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo to avoid inheritance taxes, with Teofilo undertaking to deliver petitioner's share. The first three parcels were eventually transferred and registered in Teofilo's name, while Parcel No. 4 was registered in petitioner's name. On May 13, 1992, Teofilo died intestate, survived by respondent Felicidad Sandoval and their son, Teofilo Carlos II. Upon Teofilo's death, Parcels Nos. 5 and 6 were registered in the names of respondents Felicidad and Teofilo II.

In 1994, petitioner instituted a suit against respondents before the RTC in Muntinlupa City, docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1964. The parties submitted and caused the approval of a partial compromise agreement acknowledging their respective shares in the proceeds from the sale of a portion of the first parcel. On September 17, 1994, the parties executed a deed of extrajudicial partition dividing the remaining land of the first parcel. In a separate case, Rillo vs. Carlos, 2,331 square meters of the second parcel were adjudicated to the plaintiffs, and the remaining 10,000-square-meter portion was divided between petitioner and respondents through a supplemental compromise agreement executed on August 17, 1994. The parties also entered into two more contracts in August 1994, equally dividing the third and fourth parcels between them.

In August 1995, petitioner commenced an action, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-135, before the RTC in Muntinlupa, seeking: (a) declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) sum of money and damages. Petitioner asserted that the marriage between his late brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a nullity for absence of a marriage license, and that Teofilo was neither the natural nor adoptive father of Teofilo II. He sought avoidance of the contracts with Felicidad, cancellation of the certificates of title issued in respondents' names, and reconveyance of the properties and sums received by respondents.

Respondents denied the material averments, contending that the dearth of details regarding the marriage license did not invalidate the marriage and declaring that Teofilo II was the illegitimate child of the deceased Teofilo with another woman. They prayed for dismissal on grounds of lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. Before pre-trial, respondents moved for summary judgment, attaching the affidavit of the justice of the peace who solemnized the marriage and the Certificate of Live Birth of Teofilo II. Petitioner opposed and filed a counter-motion for summary judgment, presenting a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Calumpit, Bulacan, that there was no record of Teofilo II's birth, and incorporating Felicidad's testimony in another case where she narrated that Teofilo II was her child with Teofilo. The Office of the City Prosecutor submitted a report discounting the possibility of collusion.

On April 8, 1996, the RTC granted petitioner's counter-motion for summary judgment, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio for lack of a marriage license, declaring Teofilo II not the child of Teofilo, ordering reconveyance of properties and payment of ₱18,924,800.00, and cancelling respondents' titles. Respondents appealed to the CA, which on October 15, 2002 reversed and set aside the RTC ruling, holding that summary judgment was contrary to law and public policy in annulment cases, that the material facts must be proved, and that the absence of a marriage license number on the contract was not fatal given the solemnizing officer's affidavit. The CA found that the issues of marriage validity and Teofilo II's filiation required a trial on the merits.

• Applicability of Civil Code Provisions: Petitioner argued that the CA committed grave reversible error in applying Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code, as the circumstances of the case differ from those contemplated by law.
• Wrong Rule Applied: Petitioner maintained that the CA erred in applying Section 1, Rule 19 (now Section 1, Rule 34) on judgment on the pleadings instead of Rule 35 governing summary judgments.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner contended that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion, disregarded judicial admissions, made findings based on speculations, surmises, and conjectures, and misapplied the law and misapprehended the facts.

• Validity of Marriage License: Respondents countered that the dearth of details regarding the requisite marriage license did not invalidate Felicidad's marriage to Teofilo, supported by the affidavit of the solemnizing officer.
• Filiation of Teofilo II: Respondents argued that Teofilo II was the illegitimate child of the deceased Teofilo Carlos with another woman, as evidenced by the Certificate of Live Birth designating Teofilo and Felicidad as parents.
• Lack of Cause of Action and Jurisdiction: Respondents prayed for dismissal on the grounds of lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

• Summary Judgment in Nullity Cases: Whether a marriage may be declared void ab initio through a judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment without the benefit of a trial.
• Standing to File Nullity Petition: Whether a person who is not a spouse may bring an action for declaration of nullity of marriage, specifically whether petitioner, as a collateral relative, is a real party-in-interest.
• Filiation of Teofilo II: Whether the case should be remanded to determine the filiation of respondent Teofilo Carlos II and its effect on petitioner's standing.

• Summary Judgment in Nullity Cases: No. Neither judgment on the pleadings nor summary judgment is allowed in cases for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage; the grounds must be proved in a full trial, pursuant to Section 17 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
• Standing to File Nullity Petition: Conditional. Under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, only the husband or wife may file for marriages under the Family Code, except cases commenced before March 15, 2003; for Civil Code marriages, a collateral relative may file if he is a real party-in-interest, contingent on the absence of compulsory heirs.
• Filiation of Teofilo II: Yes, remand is proper. The filiation of Teofilo II must be determined in a full trial, as it is decisive of petitioner's standing; Felicidad's declaration against Teofilo II's legitimacy is proscribed by Article 167 of the Family Code.

• Summary Judgment in Nullity Cases: The Court found that both rules on judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment have no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. Section 17 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly provides that the grounds for declaration of absolute nullity must be proved and that no judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed. The Court cited Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, which excluded actions for nullity or annulment of marriage from the application of summary judgments. The State's right and duty to intervene is not terminated by the public prosecutor's declaration of no collusion; the State must be given the opportunity to present controverting evidence. The public prosecutor must ensure no suppression or fabrication of evidence. The CA correctly reversed the RTC's summary judgment, as the trial court rendered judgment without a full trial, thereby divesting the State of its lawful right to intervene.

• Standing to File Nullity Petition: The Court held that under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife, as the Rule recognizes that spouses alone are the architects of their marital life. However, the Rule is prospective and applies only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988) and cases commenced after March 15, 2003. Since the marriage was celebrated on May 14, 1962 under the Civil Code, and the case was filed in 1995, the Civil Code governs. The Civil Code is silent on who may bring a nullity action, but the absence of a provision does not grant anyone a license to sue; the plaintiff must be a real party-in-interest with a material interest affected by the judgment. A brother is not a compulsory heir under Article 887 of the Civil Code, but under Articles 1001 and 1003, collateral relatives succeed if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse. Thus, petitioner's standing is contingent: if Teofilo II is proven not to be a legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo, petitioner succeeds to half the estate (the other half going to the widow) and is a real party-in-interest; if Teofilo II is proven to be a child of Teofilo, petitioner has no successional right and lacks standing.

• Filiation of Teofilo II: The Court agreed with the CA that petitioner's bare allegation that Teofilo II was adopted from an indigent couple was insufficient without trial. However, the Court disagreed with the CA's pronouncement that Felicidad's declaration of Teofilo II's illegitimate filiation was more credible. Article 167 of the Family Code provides that a child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy. Felicidad's declaration against the legitimate status of Teofilo II is the very act proscribed by Article 167. The Court also vacated the RTC's disposition on reconveyance, recovery of property, and sum of money, as those were based on the erroneous finding that the marriage was void ab initio.

• Prohibition on Summary Judgment in Nullity/Annulment Cases — Under Section 17 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. No judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed. This is rooted in the State's interest in preserving marriage and the need for the public prosecutor to actively participate to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence. The Court applied this doctrine by reversing the RTC's summary judgment and remanding for trial on the merits.

• Real Party-in-Interest in Nullity Cases — Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest, meaning one who has a material interest in the issue to be affected by the judgment. Under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, only the husband or wife may file a petition for declaration of nullity for Family Code marriages. For Civil Code marriages, the silence of the law does not open the door to anyone; the plaintiff must stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment. The Court applied this by holding that petitioner's standing is contingent on whether Teofilo II is proven not to be a child of Teofilo, as the presence of a descendant excludes collateral relatives from succession under Articles 1001 and 1003 of the Civil Code.

• Presumption of Legitimacy (Article 167, Family Code) — A child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as adulteress. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that Felicidad's declaration against the legitimate status of Teofilo II cannot affect the child's legitimacy, and the CA erred in according such declaration credence.

• Prospective Application of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages took effect on March 15, 2003 and is prospective in application, covering only marriages under the Family Code. It does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003. The Court applied this by holding that since petitioner filed the case in 1995 and the marriage was celebrated in 1962 under the Civil Code, the Rule's restriction on who may file does not apply.

• "The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. No judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed." — This is the Court's citation of Section 17 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, articulating the controlling rule that nullity and annulment cases require a full trial and cannot be resolved through abbreviated procedures.

• "A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife." — This quotation from Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC states the rule limiting standing in nullity cases to spouses, a principle the Court applied prospectively only to Family Code marriages.

• "The child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as adulteress." — This is the Court's citation of Article 167 of the Family Code, underscoring the presumption of legitimacy that protects a child's status from the mother's contrary declaration.

• "Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State." — This quotation from the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages explains the policy basis for limiting standing, while the Court clarified that heirs may still question marriage validity in settlement of estate proceedings.

• Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152154, November 18, 2003 — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that actions for nullity or annulment of marriage are excluded from the application of summary judgments, save for annulment, nullity, or legal separation, summary judgment is applicable to all kinds of actions.

• Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli, G.R. No. 173614, September 28, 2007 — Followed. Cited for the principle that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under the Family Code and is prospective in application, and that compulsory or intestate heirs can question the validity of marriage in settlement of estate proceedings.

• Amor-Catalan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167109, February 6, 2007 — Followed. Cited for the rule that under both the Civil Code and Family Code, only a party who can demonstrate "proper interest" can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage, and that the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest.

• Niñal vs. Badayog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000 — Followed. Cited within Amor-Catalan for the holding that children have personality to file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.

• Republic vs. Cuison-Melgar, G.R. No. 139676, March 31, 2006 — Followed. Cited for the principle that the State's participation is not terminated by the public prosecutor's declaration of no collusion and that the State should have the opportunity to present controverting evidence.

• Section 17, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) — Provides that the grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment must be proved and that no judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed. Applied to hold that the RTC's summary judgment was improper.

• Section 2(a), A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Provides that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Applied prospectively to Family Code marriages; held inapplicable to this case because the marriage was celebrated under the Civil Code and the case was commenced before the Rule's effectivity.

• Section 1, Rule 34, Rules of Court (formerly Section 1, Rule 19, Revised Rules of Court) — Provides that in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. Applied to support the prohibition on judgment on the pleadings in nullity cases.

• Article 167, Family Code — Provides that a child shall be considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy. Applied to hold that Felicidad's declaration against Teofilo II's legitimacy cannot affect his status.

• Article 887, Civil Code — Enumerates compulsory heirs: legitimate children and descendants, legitimate parents and ascendants, the widow or widower, acknowledged natural children, and other illegitimate children. Applied to show that a brother is not a compulsory heir.

• Articles 1001 and 1003, Civil Code — Article 1001 provides that if brothers and sisters survive with the widow or widower, the latter gets one-half and the brothers and sisters the other half. Article 1003 provides that if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate. Applied to determine that petitioner's successional right — and thus his standing — depends on whether Teofilo II is proven to be a child of Teofilo.

• Articles 48 and 60, Family Code — Cited in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan in relation to the State's duty to intervene in nullity proceedings.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Associate Justice, Chairperson), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (Associate Justice), Minita V. Chico-Nazario (Associate Justice), and Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura (Associate Justice) concurred.