HEIRS OF THE DECEASED JOSELITO C. BAUTISTA, ESPERANZA BAUTISTA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. MARIA LUISA S. ROMILLO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Heirs of Bautista versus Romillo

The Case

This is a petition brought by the heirs of the deceased Joselito Bautista, led by his first wife Esperanza Bautista, to declare void the marriage that Joselito contracted with Maria Luisa Romillo on the ground that it was bigamous. The case matters because it settles two questions every examinee must know: who may file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage, and whether a divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino spouse dissolves a marriage under Philippine law.

Procedural History

Esperanza and her children with Joselito filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the marriage between Joselito and Maria Luisa before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 59. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the heirs, declaring the marriage void for being bigamous. Maria Luisa moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Maria Luisa then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was resolved by denial, with the trial court judgment affirmed.

Facts

On March 22, 1968, Joselito Bautista and Esperanza Carlos were married in a civil ceremony in Baguio City. They had five children. On May 20, 1985, Esperanza filed for divorce before a court in Nevada, and on July 17, 1985, she obtained a divorce decree against Joselito.

On June 10, 1989, Joselito married Maria Luisa Romillo in Hong Kong. More than three years later, Esperanza married Robert Polloreno. On March 30, 1993, Joselito filed a petition to declare his marriage to Esperanza void, citing psychological incapacity and other grounds. When Joselito died on September 6, 1995, that petition was dismissed without being resolved on the merits.

Esperanza later obtained a declaration of nullity of her marriage to Robert, and the trial court there ruled that the Nevada divorce was not recognized in the Philippines, so her marriage to Joselito had not been dissolved. On November 23, 2007, Esperanza and her children filed the present complaint to declare the marriage between Joselito and Maria Luisa void for being bigamous under Article 35, paragraph 4 of the Family Code.

Issues

• Whether or not the heirs of Joselito, particularly Esperanza, have legal standing to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of the marriage between Joselito and Maria Luisa.
• Whether or not the children of Esperanza and Joselito were properly joined as plaintiffs in the petition.
• Whether or not the Nevada divorce obtained by Esperanza dissolved her marriage to Joselito, considering that she was a Filipino citizen at the time.
• Whether or not the marriage between Joselito and Maria Luisa is bigamous and void from the beginning.
• Whether or not Maria Luisa is entitled to moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

Applicable Provisions

Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code provides:

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

This provision is the basis for recognizing a divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse, but it does not apply where the spouse who obtained the divorce was a Filipino citizen.

Article 15 of the Civil Code provides:

Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

This is the nationality principle that binds Esperanza to Philippine law even while she lived abroad, so the Nevada divorce could not dissolve her marriage.

Article 35 of the Family Code, as applied by the trial court, declares void marriages contracted without the requisite legal capacity, including those that are bigamous. The Court relied on this provision in holding that the marriage between Joselito and Maria Luisa is void from the beginning.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Esperanza, as the injured spouse in a subsisting previous marriage, has legal standing to file the petition. While the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages provides that a petition may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, the Court clarified that this refers to the aggrieved or injured spouse. If only the subsequent spouse could file, the injured spouse in the prior marriage would be unjustly precluded from seeking a remedy.

On the second issue, the Court held that the children were misjoined as plaintiffs. The rule expressly precludes compulsory or intestate heirs from filing the petition, so the children were ordered dropped from the appeal.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Nevada divorce did not dissolve the marriage between Esperanza and Joselito. Esperanza was a Filipino citizen at the time she obtained the divorce, and Maria Luisa failed to prove that Esperanza had been naturalized in the United States. Under the nationality principle, Esperanza remained bound by Philippine laws, which do not recognize divorce between Filipino spouses.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the marriage between Joselito and Maria Luisa is bigamous and void from the beginning. Joselito married Maria Luisa without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of his previous marriage, and his first marriage was still subsisting at that time.

On the fifth issue, the Court denied Maria Luisa's claim for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees for lack of factual and legal basis, absent any showing of bad faith or of acts falling under the enumerated cases.

Doctrine

A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage may be filed by the aggrieved or injured spouse, and where the ground is bigamy, the injured spouse in the subsisting previous marriage has legal standing to file it. Compulsory or intestate heirs, including the children of the spouses, are precluded from filing such a petition. A divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino spouse does not dissolve the marriage under Philippine law, because the nationality principle in Article 15 of the Civil Code binds Filipino citizens to Philippine laws on status and legal capacity even while living abroad. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code applies only where the divorce is obtained by an alien spouse. A subsequent marriage contracted without a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the previous marriage is bigamous and void from the beginning.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court judgment declaring the marriage between Joselito and Maria Luisa void for being bigamous, while ordering the children of Esperanza and Joselito dropped as plaintiffs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: a divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino spouse does not dissolve the marriage, and a subsequent marriage without a prior judicial declaration of nullity is bigamous and void. Examiners use this case to test legal standing under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and the application of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code.