FELICITAS
AMOR-CATALAN, G.R. No. 167109
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus - Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo,
Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA,
MEROPE E. BRAGANZA,
Respondents. February 6, 2007
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review assails the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69875 dated
Petitioner
Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent
Two
months after the divorce, or on
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss[8] on
the ground of lack of cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a real
party-in-interest, but it was denied.[9] Trial on the merits ensued.
On
WHEREFORE,
judgment is declared in favor of plaintiff Felicitas Amor Catalan and against
defendants Orlando B. Catalan and Merope E. Braganza, as follows:
1)
The subsequent marriage of Merope Braganza with Orlando
B. Catalan is declared null and void ab initio;
2)
The defendants are ordered jointly and severally to pay
plaintiff by way of moral damages the amount of P300,000.00, exemplary damages
in the amount of P200,000.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of P50,000.00,
including costs of this suit; and
3)
The donation in consideration of marriage is ordered
revoked and the property donated is ordered awarded to the heirs of Juliana
Braganza.
Furnish
copies of this Decision to Atty. Napoleon B. Arenas, Jr. and Atty. Nolan
Evangelista.
SO
ORDERED.[10]
Respondents appealed the decision to
the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the RTC, thus:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we hereby GRANT the appeal and consequently REVERSE and
SET ASIDE the appealed decision. We
likewise DISMISS Civil Case No. D-10636, RTC, Branch 44,
SO ORDERED.[11]
After the motion for reconsideration
was denied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review raising the
following issues:
I.
WHETHER
PETITIONER HAS THE REQUIRED STANDING IN COURT TO QUESTION THE NULLITY OF THE
MARRIAGE BETWEEN RESPONDENTS;
II.
WHETHER THE FAILURE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO DECLARE THE QUESTIONED MARRIAGE VOID CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR.[12]
Petitioner
contends that the bigamous marriage of the respondents, which brought
embarrassment to her and her children, confers upon her an interest to seek
judicial remedy to address her grievances and to protect her family from
further embarrassment and humiliation. She
claims that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in not declaring
the marriage void despite overwhelming evidence and the state policy
discouraging illegal and immoral marriages.[13]
The
main issue to be resolved is whether petitioner has the personality to file a
petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the respondents on the
ground of bigamy. However, this issue
may not be resolved without first determining the corollary factual issues of
whether the petitioner and respondent Orlando had indeed become naturalized
American citizens and whether they had actually been judicially granted a
divorce decree.
While
it is a settled rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and does not
normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the
contending parties during the trial of the case,[14]
there are, however, exceptions to this rule, like when the findings of facts of
the RTC and the Court of Appeals are conflicting, or when the findings are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.[15]
Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals
found that petitioner and respondent Orlando were naturalized American citizens
and that they obtained a divorce decree in April 1988. However, after a careful review of the records,
we note that other than the allegations in the complaint and the testimony
during the trial, the records are bereft of competent evidence to prove their
naturalization and divorce.
The Court of Appeals therefore had no
basis when it held:
In light of the allegations of Felicitas’ complaint and
the documentary and testimonial evidence she presented, we deem it undisputed
that
Further, the Court of Appeals
mistakenly considered the failure of the petitioner to refute or contest the
allegation in respondents’ brief, that she and respondent Orlando were American
citizens at the time they secured their divorce in April 1988, as sufficient to
establish the fact of naturalization and divorce.[17] We note that it was the petitioner who
alleged in her complaint that they acquired American citizenship and that
respondent Orlando obtained a judicial divorce decree.[18] It is settled rule that one who alleges a
fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.[19]
Divorce means the legal dissolution
of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage. But divorces are of different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce
or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the marriage, while
the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force.[20] A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be
recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the
national law of the foreigner.[21] However, before it can be recognized by our
courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate
its conformity to the foreign law allowing it, which must be proved considering
that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.[22]
Without the divorce decree and
foreign law as part of the evidence, we cannot rule on the issue of whether
petitioner has the personality to file the petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage. After all, she may have the
personality to file the petition if the divorce decree obtained was a limited
divorce or a mensa et thoro;
or the foreign law may restrict remarriage even after the divorce
decree becomes absolute.[23] In such case, the RTC would be correct to
declare the marriage of the respondents void for being bigamous, there being
already in evidence two existing marriage certificates, which were both
obtained in the Philippines, one in Mabini, Pangasinan dated December 21, 1959
between Eusebio Bristol and respondent Merope,[24]
and the other, in Calasiao, Pangasinan dated June 16, 1988 between the
respondents.[25]
However, if there was indeed a
divorce decree obtained and which, following the national law of
Freed from their
existing marital bond, each of the former spouses no longer has any interest
nor should each have the personality to inquire into the marriage that the
other might subsequently contract. x x x Viewed from another perspective, Felicitas
has no existing interest in Orlando’s subsequent marriage since the validity,
as well as any defect or infirmity, of this subsequent marriage will not affect
the divorced status of Orlando and Felicitas. x x x[26]
True, under the New Civil Code which
is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or even in the
Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to
declare the nullity of marriage; however, only a party who can demonstrate “proper interest” can file the
same. A petition to declare the nullity
of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in interest[27]
and must be based on a cause of action.[28] Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog,[29]
the Court held that the children have the personality to file the petition to
declare the nullity of the marriage of their deceased father to their
stepmother as it affects their successional rights.
Significantly, Section 2(a) of The
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages, which took effect on
SECTION 2. Petition
for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. —
(a) Who may file. — A petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the
husband or the wife.
x x x x
In fine, petitioner’s personality to file the petition to declare the
nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained because of the absence of the divorce
decree and the foreign law allowing it.
Hence, a remand of the case to the trial court for reception of additional
evidence is necessary to determine whether respondent P300,000.00 to P50,000.00
and exemplary damages from P200,000.00 to P25,000.00. On the contrary, if it is proved that a valid
divorce decree was obtained which allowed
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, let this case be REMANDED
to the trial court for its proper disposition.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 14-24. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion
and concurred in by Associate Justices Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Eliezer R.
De los
[2]
Records, pp. 164-168. Penned by Judge
Crispin C. Laron.
[3] Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[4]
Records, p. 4.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Rollo,
p. 54.
[12]
[13]
[14] Bank
of the Philippine Islands v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 146021, March 10, 2006,
484 SCRA 261, 267-268.
[15]
[16] Rollo,
pp. 22-23.
[17]
[18]
Records, p. 1.
[19] Republic
v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380,
[20] Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, 735-736 (2001).
[21] Roehr v. Rodriguez, 452 Phil. 608, 617 (2003).
[22] Republic v. Orbecido III, supra.
[23] Garcia v. Recio, supra at 736.
[24] Records, p. 7.
[25]
[26] Rollo,
p. 23.
[27]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 2.
[28]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 2, Sec. 1.
[29]
384 Phil. 661 (2000).