Non-existent

Under ordinary circumstances, when a marriage is void, it is as though no marriage had taken place so far as concerns the conferring of legal rights upon the parties. And therefore, being good for no legal purpose, its invalidity can be directly or collaterally invoked in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be material, in any civil court, between any parties at any time, whether before or after the death of either or both the husband and the wife. And upon proof of the facts rendering such marriage void, it will be regarded as non-existent by the courts. This is the rule applied in this case of Ben.

Ben had a brother Cris who already died. On October 17, 2000, Ben filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage contracted between his late brother Cris and Nita. Ben alleged that when the marriage was celebrated on December 26, 1949 the couple had no marriage license yet because the license was issued only on January 9, 1960. Hence, Ben claimed that said marriage was void ab initio. He insisted that his being the brother of Cris who had died childless entitled him to one-half of the real properties acquired before his death, thereby making him a real party-in-interest; and that any person, himself included, could impugn the validity of the marriage between Cris and Nita at any time, even after the death of Cris, the marriage being void ab initio.

But the RTC dismissed his petition because it was filed out of time or had already prescribed and he was not a party to the marriage contract. This dismissal order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals but only on the ground that he was not the proper party since only any of the parties to the marriage could file the same. Was the CA correct?

No. The validity of a marriage is tested according to the law in force at the time the marriage is contracted. Considering that the alleged marriage between Cris and Nita was contracted on December 29, 1949, the applicable law was the Civil Code. This code contains no provision on who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage and when.

However the absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as giving a license to just about any person to bring an action to declare the nullity of a void marriage. The plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefitted by the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. Interest means material interest or an interest in the issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved or a mere incidental interest.

Hence Ben, who claims to be the brother of Cris has a material interest in the estate of the latter that will be affected by any judgment in the suit. Indeed, a brother, albeit not a compulsory heir under the laws of succession, has the right to succeed to the estate of a deceased brother if the latter has no ascendants or descendants or legitimate and illegitimate children. Accordingly, Ben’s right to bring the action hinges on a prior determination of whether Cris had any ascendants, descendant or children, legitimate or illegitimate, and of whether Ben was the late Cris’ surviving heir. Such prior determination must be made by the RTC. So the order of dismissal must be set aside in order that the substantial right of Ben may not be prejudged (Ablaza vs. Republic, G.R. 158298, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 27)

*      *      *

E-mail:[email protected]