Domingo vs. Court of Appeals

A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is required for purposes other than remarriage, such as for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties acquired during the void marriage. The sole exception under Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judgment only for purposes of remarriage, does not preclude the necessity of a judicial declaration for other legal consequences flowing from the void marriage.

Private respondent Delia Soledad Avera filed a petition for "Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property" against petitioner Roberto Domingo. She alleged that their 1976 marriage was bigamous and thus void ab initio, as petitioner had a subsisting prior marriage. She further alleged that she had acquired properties with her personal earnings during their union, which petitioner was administering and disposing of without her consent. She sought the judicial declaration of nullity and the separation of properties.

• Nature of the Action: Private respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property, alleging her marriage to petitioner was bigamous and void.
• The Alleged Prior Marriage: Petitioner had a prior subsisting marriage to one Emerlina dela Paz celebrated on April 25, 1969. Private respondent claimed she discovered this only in 1983 when the first wife sued them for bigamy.
• Property Acquisition and Disposal: Private respondent alleged that from 1979, she worked abroad and used her earnings to purchase properties worth approximately P350,000.00, which were under petitioner's administration. In 1989, she discovered petitioner was cohabiting with another woman and disposing of her properties without consent.
• Petitioner's Position: Petitioner moved to dismiss, contending the marriage was void ab initio and thus no judicial declaration was necessary. He also denied possessing any of private respondent's properties.

• No Judicial Declaration Required: Petitioner argued, citing People v. Aragon and People v. Mendoza, that a void marriage is inexistent from the beginning and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its nullity.
• Interpretation of Article 40, Family Code: Petitioner maintained that a petition for declaration of nullity is required only for purposes of remarriage under Article 40. Since the petition did not allege private respondent's intent to remarry, it stated no cause of action.
• Proper Remedy for Property: Petitioner contended that an ordinary civil action for recovery of property, not a special proceeding for nullity, was the proper remedy to adjudicate ownership and possession.

• Necessity of Judicial Declaration: Respondent countered that a judicial declaration of nullity was necessary to provide a legal basis for the separation and distribution of properties acquired during the void marriage.
• Scope of Article 40, Family Code: Respondent argued that Article 40's requirement of a final judgment for remarriage does not preclude the necessity of a judicial declaration for other purposes, such as property liquidation.
• Jurisdiction over Incidental Matters: Respondent asserted that the court adjudicating the nullity of marriage has jurisdiction to resolve incidental matters like property separation, as provided in Articles 50 and 52 of the Family Code, to avoid multiplicity of suits.

• Necessity of Judicial Declaration: Whether a judicial declaration of nullity is required for a marriage that is void ab initio (bigamous) for purposes other than remarriage.
• Propriety of the Petition: Whether a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with prayer for separation of property is a proper remedy to adjudicate property rights between parties to a void marriage.

• Necessity of Judicial Declaration: A judicial declaration of nullity is required. The Court abandoned its earlier rulings in Aragon and Mendoza and adopted the doctrine from Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS and Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy. The Family Code, particularly Article 40, settled the conflicting jurisprudence by requiring a final judgment declaring a marriage void. This requirement is not limited to remarriage but applies to establish the nullity for all legal intents and purposes, protecting the sanctity of marriage as a social institution.
• Propriety of the Petition: The petition was proper. Articles 50, 52, 43, and 44 of the Family Code provide that a final judgment declaring a marriage void shall include provisions for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the spouses' properties. Therefore, the prayer for separation of property is a necessary consequence of the judicial declaration of nullity, and the court adjudicating the nullity has jurisdiction to resolve it.

• Judicial Declaration of Nullity of a Void Marriage — Under the Family Code, a marriage that is void ab initio (e.g., bigamous) still requires a judicial declaration of its absolute nullity. This declaration is necessary not only for purposes of remarriage (Article 40) but also for other legal consequences, such as the liquidation and separation of properties (Articles 50, 52). The Court emphasized that parties cannot unilaterally determine their marriage is void; an official state pronouncement through the courts is required.

• "The Family Code... took the position that parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again." — This underscores the policy shift codified in the Family Code.
• "For purposes of remarriage, why should the only legally acceptable basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute nullity be a final judgment...? Whereas, for purposes other than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable?" — The Court's rhetorical question highlights the distinction in evidentiary standards under Article 40.
• "The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation of property... It stands to reason that the lower court before whom the issue of nullity... is brought is likewise clothed with jurisdiction to decide the incidental questions regarding the couple's properties." — This confirms the trial court's jurisdiction over property matters incidental to a nullity case.

• People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957) and People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 (1954) — Earlier rulings that no judicial decree is needed to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. These were abandoned by the Court in this decision.
• Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS, 37 SCRA 315 (1971) — Adopted as the controlling precedent, holding that a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage is necessary.
• Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy, 143 SCRA 499 (1986) — Reiterated the Consuegra doctrine that a void marriage still needs a judicial declaration.
• Terre v. Terre, 211 SCRA 6 (1992) — Affirmed that for determining legal capacity to remarry, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was void is essential.

• Article 40, Family Code — Provides that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage solely on the basis of a final judgment declaring it void. The Court interpreted "solely" as qualifying "final judgment," not "for purposes of remarriage," thus allowing nullity to be invoked for other purposes with other evidence.
• Articles 50, 52, 43, and 44, Family Code — These articles detail the effects of a final judgment declaring a marriage void, including the mandatory liquidation, partition, and distribution of the spouses' properties, custody and support of children, and delivery of presumptive legitimes. They were cited to establish that property separation is an integral part of a nullity proceeding.

• Justice Abdulwahid A. Bidin
• Justice Jose C. Melo
• Justice Jose C. Vitug (concurred with a separate opinion)