Enrico vs. Heirs of Medinaceli

Only the husband or the wife may file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which governs marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code. The heirs of a deceased spouse have no cause of action to file such a petition directly, but may question the validity of the marriage in a proceeding for the settlement of the deceased spouse's estate.

The respondents are the seven children of Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli, who were married on 14 June 1962 in Lal-lo, Cagayan. The petitioner, Lolita D. Enrico, married Eulogio on 26 August 2004, after Trinidad's death on 1 May 2004. The dispute centers on the applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which took effect on 15 March 2003 and governs petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, which took effect on 3 August 1988.

Respondents, the heirs of Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli, filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage between Eulogio and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico before the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6. The complaint alleged that Eulogio and Trinidad were married on 14 June 1962 in Lal-lo, Cagayan, and begot seven children. Trinidad died on 1 May 2004, and on 26 August 2004, Eulogio married petitioner before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan. Eulogio passed away on 10 February 2005, six months after the second marriage.

Respondents impugned petitioner's marriage to Eulogio on the ground that it was entered into without the requisite marriage license. They argued that Article 34 of the Family Code, which exempts a man and a woman who have been living together for at least five years without any legal impediment from securing a marriage license, was not applicable because Eulogio's marriage to Trinidad was dissolved only upon the latter's death on 1 May 2004, barely three months before the marriage to petitioner. Respondents also raised the additional ground of lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogio's serious illness which made its performance impossible.

In her Answer, petitioner maintained that she and Eulogio lived together as husband and wife under one roof for 21 years openly and publicly, and were thus exempted from the marriage license requirement. From their union were born Elvin Enrico and Marco Enrico, surnamed Medinaceli, on 28 October 1988 and 30 October 1991, respectively. She contended that the marriage ceremony was performed in the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and solemnized by the Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative defense, she sought dismissal of the action on the ground that only the contracting parties while living can file an action for declaration of nullity of marriage.

The RTC initially dismissed the complaint on 11 October 2005, citing Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and ruling that the right to bring such a petition is exclusive to the husband or the wife. Upon respondents' motion for reconsideration, the RTC reversed itself on 3 May 2006, holding that the heirs of a deceased spouse have standing to assail a void marriage even after the death of the latter, and that Section 2(a) applies only where both parties to a void marriage are still living. The RTC reasoned that upon the death of the parent, heirs have a vested right over the parent's property that should not be frustrated by procedural rules, and that rules of procedure cannot repeal rights granted by substantive law.

• Applicability of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC: Petitioner maintained that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs the instant case, and that under Section 2(a) thereof, a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, not by the heirs.
• Lack of Cause of Action: Petitioner argued that respondents, as heirs, have no cause of action to file the complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage, as the right to bring such an action belongs exclusively to the contracting parties while living.

• Applicability of Niñal vs. Bayadog: Respondents posited that the ruling in Niñal vs. Bayadog is applicable, whereby the heirs of a deceased person were granted the right to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death.
• Vested Rights of Heirs: Respondents argued that upon the death of the parent, heirs have a vested right over whatever property is left by the parent, and such vested right should not be frustrated by procedural rules, as rules of procedure cannot repeal rights granted by substantive law.

• Applicability of the Rule: Whether A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages) or the ruling in Niñal vs. Bayadog applies to the case at bar, where the marriage sought to be declared void was celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code.
• Standing of Heirs: Whether the heirs of a deceased spouse have legal standing to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

• Applicability of the Rule: A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August 2004, during the effectivity of the Family Code, and squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which explicitly governs petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines.
• Standing of Heirs: No. Under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Respondents, as heirs, have no cause of action before the court a quo, but may question the validity of the marriage in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse.

• Applicability of the Rule: The Court held that Niñal vs. Bayadog cannot be applied to the instant case because the impugned marriage therein was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, and the Court in that case recognized that the applicable law was the Civil Code. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated in 2004, during the effectivity of the Family Code. Section 1 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly states that the Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. The categorical language of the Rule leaves no room for doubt, and there is no need to reconcile its provisions with the ruling in Niñal because they vary in scope and application. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under the Family Code and is prospective in its application.
• Standing of Heirs: Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC provides that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The Court applied the principle absolute sententia expositore non indiget — when the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required. The Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages explicitly states that only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file such petitions, and they cannot be filed by the compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee reasoned that compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. The Court further noted that while the petition was dismissible for failure to observe the doctrine on hierarchy of courts, it entertained the case because it was grounded on a pure question of law.

• Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts — While the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the RTCs to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari, litigants should initially seek the proper relief from the lower courts. The Court may brush aside procedural lapses if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction. In this case, the Court entertained the petition notwithstanding its dismissibility for failure to observe the hierarchy of courts because it was grounded on a pure question of law.
• Absolute Sententia Expositore Non Indiget — When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required. The Court applied this principle to Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which unambiguously makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage.
• Prospective Application of Procedural Rules — A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took effect on 15 March 2003 and is prospective in its application. It covers marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, which took effect on 3 August 1988. The marriage in question, celebrated on 26 August 2004, falls within its ambit.

• "The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on 3 August 1988." — This passage establishes the scope of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, distinguishing it from the earlier ruling in Niñal vs. Bayadog which applied to marriages under the Civil Code.
• "There is no ambiguity in the Rule. Absolute sententil expositore non indiget. When the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required. Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage." — This passage articulates the controlling principle of statutory interpretation applied by the Court and the core holding on standing to file petitions for declaration of nullity.
• "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 passage, quoted from the Rationale of the Rules, explains the policy behind limiting standing to the spouses and clarifies the remedy available to heirs.
• "Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts." — This passage defines the proper remedy for heirs seeking to challenge a marriage's validity, directing them to estate settlement proceedings rather than a direct action for nullity.

• Niñal vs. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661 (2000) — Distinguished. The Court in that case allowed heirs to file a petition for declaration of nullity of their father's marriage after his death, but the impugned marriage was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, making the Civil Code the applicable law. The ruling cannot be applied to marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code, which are governed by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
• Pearson vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 356 Phil. 341 (1998) — Cited for the principle of hierarchy of courts, which requires litigants to initially seek relief from lower courts before taking direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
• Tano vs. Hon. Gov. Socrates, 343 Phil. 670 (1997) — Cited for the Court's discretionary power to brush aside procedural lapses if compelling reasons or the nature and importance of the issues raised warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction.
• Del Mar vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, 400 Phil. 307 (2000) — Cited for the same principle regarding the Court's discretionary power to entertain petitions despite procedural lapses.
• Modequillo vs. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May 31, 1990, 185 SCRA 766 — Cited to establish that the Family Code took effect on 3 August 1988, one year after its publication on 4 August 1987.

• Section 1, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. The Court applied this provision to determine that the Rule governs petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and that the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.
• Section 2(a), A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Provides that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The Court applied this provision to hold that respondents, as heirs, have no cause of action to file the complaint.
• Article 34, Family Code — Exempts a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years without any legal impediment from securing a marriage license. The respondents argued this provision was inapplicable to petitioner and Eulogio because they could not have lived together for at least five years, as Eulogio's marriage to Trinidad was dissolved only upon the latter's death on 1 May 2004.
• Article 257, Family Code — Provides that the Family Code shall take effect one year after the completion of its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The Court cited this provision to establish that the Family Code took effect on 3 August 1988.

• Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Associate Justice (Chairperson)
• Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Associate Justice
• Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Associate Justice
• Ruben T. Reyes, Associate Justice

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.