Castillo vs. De Leon Castillo

Under the Civil Code, a judicial declaration of nullity is not required to establish the invalidity of a void marriage, and a party may contract a subsequent valid marriage without such decree provided the first marriage is void ab initio; this rule applies to marriages celebrated before the effectivity of the Family Code on 3 August 1988, notwithstanding the contrary requirement under Article 40 of the Family Code.

On 25 May 1972, respondent Lea P. De Leon Castillo married Benjamin Bautista. On 6 January 1979, she contracted a second marriage with petitioner Renato A. Castillo. The parties had three children born in 1979, 1981, and 1985. In 2001, Renato initiated proceedings to declare the second marriage null, alleging that Lea's prior subsisting marriage rendered their union bigamous and void.

• The First Marriage: On 25 May 1972, respondent Lea P. De Leon Castillo married Benjamin Bautista. The marriage was solemnized without a marriage license, and neither party belonged to the religious denomination of the solemnizing officer.
• The Second Marriage: On 6 January 1979, respondent married petitioner Renato A. Castillo at the Mary the Queen Parish Church in San Juan, Metro Manila. The parties had three children born in 1979, 1981, and 1985, all during the effectivity of the Civil Code.
• Nullity Proceedings: On 28 May 2001, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC of Quezon City, alleging that the second marriage was bigamous and void because respondent's first marriage was still subsisting. Petitioner also initially alleged psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, but this ground was not pursued in the proceedings below.
• Respondent's Defense and Counter-action: Respondent opposed the petition, contending that her first marriage was void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license and improper solemnization. On 3 January 2002, she initiated separate proceedings before the RTC of Parañaque City to declare the first marriage void.
• Judicial Declaration of First Marriage's Nullity: On 22 January 2003, the Parañaque RTC issued a Decision declaring the marriage between respondent and Bautista null and void ab initio. A Certificate of Finality was subsequently issued, confirming the decision had become final and executory.
• Trial Court Ruling on Second Marriage: On 12 August 2004, respondent filed a Demurrer to Evidence arguing that petitioner failed to prove bigamy. The RTC denied the demurrer on 8 March 2005. In a Decision dated 23 March 2007, the RTC declared the second marriage null and void ab initio under Article 41 of the Family Code, ruling that the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage at the time of the second marriage rendered the latter bigamous and void.
• Appellate Proceedings: Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC on 20 April 2009, holding that the Civil Code applied to both marriages and that under the Civil Code, no judicial decree was necessary to establish the nullity of a void marriage. The appellate court denied reconsideration on 16 September 2009.

• Applicability of Article 40: Petitioner maintained that regardless of whether the first marriage was valid or void, respondent was required to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting the second marriage in 1979. Petitioner argued that the absence of such judicial declaration at the time of the second marriage rendered the latter bigamous and void.
• Retroactive Application of Family Code: Petitioner contended that the Family Code provisions requiring judicial declaration of nullity should apply to validate the RTC's declaration that the second marriage was void for being bigamous.

• Applicability of Civil Code: Respondent countered that both marriages were celebrated before the effectivity of the Family Code on 3 August 1988; hence, the Civil Code governed their validity. Under the Civil Code, void marriages are nonexistent from the beginning and do not require judicial declaration of nullity.
• Void Nature of First Marriage: Respondent argued that her first marriage was void ab initio for lack of a marriage license and improper solemnization under Article 80(3) of the Civil Code. Consequently, she was not prevented from contracting a second marriage, and the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity merely confirmed the first marriage's invalidity.

• Judicial Declaration Requirement: Whether a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is required before contracting a second marriage when both marriages were celebrated under the Civil Code.
• Retroactive Application of Family Code: Whether Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage, applies retroactively to marriages celebrated prior to its effectivity.

• Judicial Declaration Requirement: No judicial declaration of nullity is required for void marriages under the Civil Code. The Court affirmed the distinction between void and voidable marriages under the Civil Code: void marriages are nonexistent from the beginning and may be collaterally attacked, while voidable marriages require judicial decree to establish invalidity. Citing People v. Mendoza, People v. Aragon, and Odayat v. Amante, the Court reiterated that the Civil Code contains no express provision requiring judicial declaration for void marriages. Since respondent's first marriage was void for lack of a marriage license under Article 80(3) of the Civil Code, it was nonexistent from its performance; thus, respondent was not prevented from contracting a valid second marriage in 1979.
• Retroactive Application of Family Code: Article 40 of the Family Code cannot be applied retroactively to marriages celebrated before its effectivity. The Court held that the validity of marriage must be determined by the law in effect at the time of its celebration. Applying Apiag v. Cantero and Ty v. Court of Appeals, the Court ruled that the Family Code's requirement of judicial declaration before remarriage applies only to marriages celebrated after 3 August 1988. Retroactive application would impair the vested rights of the parties and their children born during the Civil Code regime, as the status of legitimacy and property relations would be adversely affected.

• Lex Loci Celebrationis — The validity of a marriage and all its incidents must be determined in accordance with the law in effect at the time of its celebration. The Court applied this principle to hold that the Civil Code, not the Family Code, governs marriages celebrated in 1972 and 1979.
• Distinction Between Void and Voidable Marriages (Civil Code) — Under the Civil Code, void marriages are nonexistent from the beginning (void ab initio), cannot be ratified, may be collaterally attacked, and do not require judicial declaration of nullity. Voidable marriages are valid until annulled by competent court, can be ratified by cohabitation, cannot be collaterally attacked, and require judicial decree to establish invalidity.
• Non-Requirement of Judicial Declaration for Void Marriages (Civil Code) — The Civil Code does not require a judicial declaration of nullity to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. A party may rely on the absolute nullity of a previous marriage as a defense in subsequent proceedings without prior judicial decree, provided the marriage is void under Articles 80, 81, or 82 of the Civil Code.
• Prospective Application of Article 40, Family Code — Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before remarriage, applies only to marriages celebrated after its effectivity on 3 August 1988. The requirement does not apply retroactively to pre-1988 marriages to avoid impairment of vested rights.
• Vested Rights Protection — Statutes, including the Family Code, have prospective effect only unless expressly provided otherwise, and cannot be applied retroactively to impair vested rights acquired under prior law. The Court applied this to protect the legitimacy status of children and conjugal property rights acquired under the Civil Code.

• "The validity of a marriage and all its incidents must be determined in accordance with the law in effect at the time of its celebration." — This passage establishes the fundamental principle of lex loci celebrationis applied by the Court to determine that the Civil Code governs the instant case.
• "Under the Civil Code, a void marriage differs from a voidable marriage in the following ways: (1) a void marriage is nonexistent - i.e., there was no marriage from the beginning - while in a voidable marriage, the marriage is valid until annulled by a competent court; ... (5) 'in a void marriage no judicial decree to establish the invalidity is necessary,' while in a voidable marriage there must be a judicial decree." — This excerpt enumerates the critical distinctions between void and voidable marriages under the Civil Code, forming the basis for the ruling that no judicial declaration was required.
• "Marriage, a sacrosanct institution, declared by the Constitution as an 'inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family;' as such, it 'shall be protected by the State.' ... For such a socially significant institution, an official state pronouncement through the courts, and nothing less, will satisfy the exacting norms of society." — Quoted from Domingo v. Court of Appeals, this passage explains the policy rationale behind Article 40 of the Family Code requiring judicial declaration, which the Court distinguished from the Civil Code regime.
• "The Family Code has retroactive effect unless there be impairment of vested rights. In the present case, that impairment of vested rights of petitioner and the children is patent." — This excerpt, citing Jison v. Court of Appeals, supports the holding that Article 40 cannot be applied retroactively to prejudice rights acquired under the Civil Code.

• People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 (1954) — Controlling precedent establishing that void marriages under the Civil Code are nonexistent from the beginning and do not require judicial declaration of nullity; followed in holding that the second marriage was valid because the first marriage was void.
• People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957) — Controlling precedent reiterating the doctrine in Mendoza that no judicial decree is necessary to establish invalidity of void marriages under the Civil Code; followed.
• Odayat v. Amante, 168 Phil. 1 (1977) — Controlling precedent reaffirming that Article 80 of the Civil Code does not require judicial declaration of nullity for void marriages; followed.
• Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, 17 September 1993 — Cited for the policy rationale behind Article 40 of the Family Code requiring judicial declaration before remarriage; distinguished as applicable only to post-1988 marriages.
• Niñal v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661 (2000) — Cited for the principle that the validity of marriage is determined by the law in effect at the time of celebration; followed.
• Apiag v. Cantero, 335 Phil. 511 (1997) — Controlling precedent holding that the Civil Code rule (no judicial declaration required) applies to marriages celebrated before the Family Code effectivity; followed.
• Ty v. Court of Appeals, 399 Phil. 647 (2000) — Controlling precedent clarifying that Odayat, Mendoza, and Aragon continue to govern pre-Family Code marriages; followed.
• Mercado v. Tan, 391 Phil. 809 (2000) — Cited for the rule that a second marriage contracted prior to judicial declaration of nullity under Article 40 is bigamous and void; distinguished as applicable only to post-1988 marriages.

• Article 40, Family Code — Provides that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. The Court held this provision inapplicable to marriages celebrated before the Family Code's effectivity on 3 August 1988.
• Article 80, Civil Code — Enumerates marriages that are void from the beginning, including those solemnized without a marriage license (paragraph 3). The Court applied this provision to establish that respondent's first marriage was void ab initio for lack of license.
• Article 83 (first paragraph), Civil Code — Declares that any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void unless the first marriage was annulled or dissolved. The Court interpreted this in conjunction with Article 80 to hold that a void first marriage does not impede a subsequent valid marriage.
• Articles 81 and 82, Civil Code — Enumerate incestuous and other void marriages. Cited to distinguish the regime of void marriages under the Civil Code from voidable marriages.
• Articles 85 and 86, Civil Code — Govern voidable marriages and their grounds. Cited to contrast with void marriages and emphasize that only voidable marriages require judicial decree.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Chief Justice; Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Lucas Bersamin; Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe; Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.