Odayat vs. Amante

A marriage contracted while either party has a prior subsisting marriage is void ab initio, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity. Consequently, a person who contracts such a void marriage is not guilty of immorality for subsequently cohabiting with another person, as the void marriage does not create a legal impediment.

This is an administrative matter before the Supreme Court, which has administrative supervision over court personnel. The complainant, Pedro Odayat, filed a verified amended letter-complaint against respondent Demetrio Amante, the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance, Branch IX, Basey, Samar. The complaint was forwarded to the Court by the Secretary of Justice pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 185, which governs the procedure for administrative complaints against members of the judiciary and court personnel.

Complainant Pedro Odayat filed an administrative complaint against respondent Demetrio Amante, Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance, Branch IX, Basey, Samar, charging him with oppression, immorality, and falsification of a public document. The oppression charge stemmed from an alleged land dispute between the parties, with the complainant claiming the respondent grabbed a portion of his land and arrogantly challenged him to bring the matter to court. During the formal investigation, however, the complainant acquiesced to the dropping of this charge, admitting it involved a boundary dispute more properly a cause for a civil action.

To prove the charge of immorality, the complainant testified that respondent and Filomena Abella were married in Tacloban City on October 16, 1948 before Judge Eugenio Brillo, then Justice of the Peace. They had one son, Romeo, born on August 23, 1949 and baptized on October 1, 1949. The complainant testified that he came to know Filomena Abella only after her marriage to the respondent, when they resided in Basey, Samar for five years. He further testified that long before filing his complaint, he knew that respondent and one Beatriz Jornada were living as husband and wife in Basey, Samar, and had several children, including Maria Felisa J. Amante, born April 12, 1967, and Alma Amante y Jornada, born April 8, 1965.

The respondent admitted his marriage to Filomena Abella on October 16, 1948, and also admitted living with Beatriz Jornada, whom he married on April 4, 1964 during a religious revival in Almagro, Samar, before Rev. Fr. John Belly, a Franciscan Missionary, and with whom he begot six children. He claimed, however, that he was coerced into marrying Filomena Abella, unaware that she was already married to another man, and that they separated in 1949 after she told him of her previous marriage. To rebut the charge, respondent presented a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Pateros, Rizal, attesting that Filomena Abella was married to one Eliseo Portales on February 16, 1948, prior to her marriage to the respondent.

Regarding the charge of falsification of a public document, the complainant alleged that the respondent falsely represented his status as single in the information sheet submitted in connection with his appointment as Clerk of Court. The investigating judge found, however, that the document in question actually showed the respondent placed the word "Married" in Item 6, "Civil Status."

• Immorality: Complainant alleged that respondent was cohabiting with Beatriz Jornada, with whom he begot many children, even while his spouse Filomena Abella was still alive, constituting immorality.
• Falsification of Public Document: Complainant alleged that respondent, although married, falsely represented his status as single in the information sheet submitted in connection with his appointment to his position as Clerk of Court.
• Oppression: Complainant alleged that respondent grabbed a portion of his land and arrogantly challenged him to bring the matter to court, though this charge was later dropped at the complainant's own acquiescence.

• Void Marriage: Respondent admitted his marriage to Filomena Abella but claimed he was coerced into it, unaware she was already married to another man. He presented a certification showing Filomena Abella had previously married Eliseo Portales on February 16, 1948, rendering his marriage to her void ab initio.
• No Falsification: Respondent contended that the information sheet in question actually showed he indicated his civil status as "Married," contrary to the complainant's allegation.

• Oppression: Whether the charge of oppression against respondent should be considered, given that it involves a boundary dispute more properly a cause for a civil action.
• Immorality: Whether respondent's cohabitation with Beatriz Jornada while his marriage to Filomena Abella was subsisting constitutes immorality, given that the marriage was allegedly void ab initio due to Filomena's prior marriage.
• Falsification of Public Document: Whether respondent falsely represented his civil status as single in the information sheet submitted for his appointment as Clerk of Court.

• Oppression: No. The charge was dropped upon the complainant's acquiescence during the formal investigation, as the issue involved a boundary dispute more properly a cause for a civil action.
• Immorality: No. Respondent's marriage to Filomena Abella was void ab initio under Article 80(4) of the New Civil Code, as she had a prior subsisting marriage to Eliseo Portales, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of void marriages.
• Falsification of Public Document: No. The complainant failed to prove the charge, as the document in question showed respondent actually placed the word "Married" in Item 6, "Civil Status."

• Oppression: The complainant himself acquiesced to the dropping of this charge during the formal investigation before Judge Zosa. The issue involved a boundary dispute between the complainant and the respondent, which was admittedly more properly a cause for a civil action than an administrative complaint. The scope of the investigation was thus limited to the other two charges.

• Immorality: The Court found no question that Filomena Abella's marriage to the respondent was void ab initio under Article 80(4) of the New Civil Code, which declares a marriage void if contracted by a person whose previous marriage is still subsisting. The certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Pateros, Rizal established that Filomena Abella was married to Eliseo Portales on February 16, 1948, prior to her marriage to the respondent on October 16, 1948. Since the marriage was void from the beginning, no judicial decree was necessary to establish its invalidity, and the respondent's subsequent cohabitation with Beatriz Jornada did not constitute immorality. The Court cited People vs. Aragon and People vs. Mendoza in support of this principle.

• Falsification of Public Document: The investigating judge found that the complainant failed to prove this charge. Contrary to the complainant's allegation, the document in question showed that the respondent actually placed the word "Married" in "Item 6. Civil Status." The evidence on record thus contradicted the complainant's claim of falsification.

• Void Marriages (Article 80(4), New Civil Code) — A marriage contracted by a person whose previous marriage is still subsisting is void ab initio, meaning it is void from the beginning as if it never took place. No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of such void marriages. The Court applied this doctrine to exonerate the respondent from the immorality charge, as his marriage to Filomena Abella was void due to her prior subsisting marriage to Eliseo Portales.

• "Indeed, there is no question that Filomena Abella's marriage with the respondent was void ab initio under Article 80 [4] of the New Civil code, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of void marriages." — This passage states the controlling doctrine on void marriages and the lack of need for a judicial declaration of nullity, forming the basis for the respondent's exoneration from the immorality charge.

• "Contrary to the allegation of the complainant, the document in question, shows that the respondent actually placed in 'Item 6. Civil Status' therein the word 'Married'." — This passage disposes of the falsification charge by directly contradicting the complainant's allegation with the evidence on record.

• People vs. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 — Cited as authority for the principle that a marriage void ab initio under Article 80(4) of the New Civil Code requires no judicial decree to establish its invalidity.
• People vs. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 — Cited alongside People vs. Aragon for the same principle regarding void marriages and the absence of a need for judicial declaration of nullity.

• Article 80(4), New Civil Code — Declares a marriage void ab initio if contracted by a person whose previous marriage is still subsisting. Applied to find that the respondent's marriage to Filomena Abella was void due to her prior marriage to Eliseo Portales, thereby negating the immorality charge.
• Presidential Decree No. 185 — Governs the procedure for administrative complaints against court personnel; the complaint was forwarded to the Supreme Court by the Secretary of Justice pursuant to this decree.

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Muñoz-Palma, Aquino, and Martin, JJ., concurred.