G.R. No. 189607 - RENATO A. CASTILLO, VS. LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby declares the marriage between RENATO A. CASTILLO and LEA P. DE LEON-CASTILLO contracted on January 6, 1979, at the Mary the Queen Parish Church, San Juan, Metro Manila, is hereby declared NULL AND VOID AB INITIO based on bigamous marriage, under Article 41 of the Family Code. [13] The RTC said that the fact that Lea's marriage to Bautista was subsisting when she married Renato on 6 January 1979, makes her marriage to Renato bigamous, thus rendering it void ab initio . The lower court dismissed Lea's argument that she need not obtain a judicial decree of nullity and could presume the nullity of a prior subsisting marriage. The RTC stressed that so long as no judicial declaration exists, the prior marriage is valid and existing. Lastly, it also said that even if respondent eventually had her first marriage judicially declared void, the fact remains that the first and second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled, since Lea failed to obtain a judicial decree of nullity for her first marriage to Bautista before contracting her second marriage with Renato. [14] Petitioner moved for reconsideration insofar as the distribution of their properties were concerned. [15] His motion, however, was denied by the RTC in its Order [16] dated 6 September 2007. Thereafter, both petitioner [17] and respondent [18] filed their respective Notices of Appeal. In a Decision [19] dated 20 April 2009, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's Decision and Order and upheld the validity of the parties' marriage. In reversing the RTC, the CA said that since Lea's marriages were solemnized in 1972 and in 1979, or prior to the effectivity of the Family Code on 3 August 1988, the Civil Code is the applicable law since it is the law in effect at the time the marriages were celebrated, and not the Family Code. [20] Furthermore, the CA ruled that the Civil Code does not state that a judicial decree is necessary in order to establish the nullity of a marriage. [21] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CA's Decision was likewise denied in the questioned CA Resolution [22] dated 16 September 2009. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari . Respondent filed her Comment [23] praying that the CA Decision finding her marriage to petitioner valid be affirmed in toto , and that all properties acquired by the spouses during their marriage be declared conjugal. In his Reply to the Comment, [24] petitioner reiterated the allegations in his Petition. OUR RULING We deny the Petition. The validity of a marriage and all its incidents must be determined in accordance with the law in effect at the time of its celebration. [25] In this case, the law in force at the time Lea contracted both marriages was the Civil Code. The children of the parties were also born while the Civil Code was in effect i.e. in 1979, 1981, and 1985. Hence, the Court must resolve this case using the provisions unde