LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT OF CALOOCAN CITY) AND KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, …

Wiegel versus Wiegel

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Lilia Oliva Wiegel against the presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City and against her husband, Karl Heinz Wiegel. Karl Heinz had sued in that court to have his marriage to Lilia declared void, on the ground that Lilia had a prior subsisting marriage to another man, Eduardo Maxion. Lilia, for her part, admitted the earlier marriage but insisted it was void because she and her first husband had been forced into it, and she wanted to prove that fact, along with the claim that her first husband was himself already married to someone else when he married her. The respondent judge refused to let her present that evidence and compelled the parties to submit the case on agreed facts. The case matters because it fixes a basic rule of marital status: a marriage tainted by force is voidable, not void, and remains valid until annulled, so a second marriage contracted before any annulment is void.

Procedural History

Karl Heinz Wiegel commenced an action in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City, seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lilia Oliva Wiegel. Lilia answered, admitting the existence of her prior marriage to Eduardo Maxion but claiming that the prior marriage was itself void because both parties had been forced into it. At pre-trial, the parties agreed that the issue was the status of the first marriage, assuming force had been exerted on both parties: was that prior marriage void or merely voidable? Lilia contested the pre-trial order and asked the respondent court for an opportunity to present evidence, first, that the first marriage was vitiated by force exercised upon both her and the first husband, and second, that the first husband was already married to someone else at the time of the marriage in 1972. The respondent judge ruled against the presentation of evidence, because the existence of force exerted on both parties had already been agreed upon. The judge then issued an order compelling the parties to submit the case for resolution based on agreed facts, and a later order denying Lilia's motion to allow her to present evidence in her favor. Lilia went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, assailing both orders.

Facts

On the twenty-fifth of June, 1972, Lilia Oliva married Eduardo Maxion at the Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City. Lilia would later claim that she and Eduardo had been forced to enter that union.

On a date in July 1978, Lilia married Karl Heinz Wiegel at the Holy Catholic Apostolic Christian Church Branch in Makati, Metro Manila. At the time of this second marriage, no annulment of the first marriage had been obtained.

Karl Heinz thereafter brought an action for nullity of the 1978 marriage, invoking Lilia's prior subsisting marriage. Lilia admitted the prior marriage but sought to prove that it was void for force, and that Eduardo was already married to another when he married her. The respondent judge held that the force had already been agreed upon at pre-trial and that no further evidence was needed, and so resolved the case on the agreed facts. Lilia challenged those orders before the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in refusing to allow Lilia to present evidence that her first marriage was vitiated by force exercised upon both parties.
• Whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in refusing to allow Lilia to present evidence that her first husband was already married to someone else at the time of their marriage.
• Whether or not Lilia's marriage to Karl Heinz Wiegel is void, given that her first marriage had not been annulled.

Applicable Provisions

Article 85 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 85. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage: (1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was between the ages of sixteen and twenty years, unless such party after reaching the age of twenty years, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (2) That the former husband or wife of either party was living, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force; (3) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (4) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (5) That the consent of either party was obtained by force or intimidation, unless such party afterwards freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (6) That either party was physically incapable of entering into the marriage state, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable.

This provision is the basis for the Court's holding that a marriage vitiated by force is merely voidable, and therefore valid until annulled.

Article 80 of the Civil Code provides:

Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians; (2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so; (3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, except as provided in the next succeeding article; (4) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and (5) Those subsequent marriages which are void under the provisions of the preceding article.

This provision is the basis for the Court's holding that Lilia's marriage to Karl Heinz is void, because it was contracted while her first marriage was still in force.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no need for Lilia to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force committed against both parties, because even assuming this to be so, the marriage would not be void but merely voidable under Article 85 of the Civil Code, and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment had yet been made, she was still validly married to her first husband when she married Karl Heinz, and consequently her marriage to him is void under Article 80 of the Civil Code.

On the second issue, the Court held that there was likewise no need to introduce evidence about the existing prior marriage of Lilia's first husband at the time they married each other. Even if that earlier marriage of Eduardo were void, it still needed a judicial declaration of nullity, and for all legal intents and purposes Lilia would still be regarded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marriage with Karl Heinz. Accordingly, that marriage would still be regarded as void under the law.

On the third issue, the Court confirmed that the marriage between Lilia and Karl Heinz is void, and found no grave abuse of discretion in the respondent judge's orders compelling submission of the case on agreed facts and denying the presentation of evidence.

Doctrine

A marriage whose consent was obtained by force or intimidation is voidable, not void, under Article 85 of the Civil Code, and it remains valid until it is annulled by final judgment. A person who contracts a second marriage while such a voidable prior marriage subsists is therefore still a married person, and the second marriage is void from the beginning under Article 80 of the Civil Code. Even a void prior marriage of one's spouse requires a judicial declaration of nullity before it can be treated as nonexistent for purposes of marital status; until then, the spouse is still regarded in law as married. The practical consequence is that a party cannot escape the nullity of a subsequent marriage by proving facts that would only make the earlier marriage voidable, or by proving a defect in the earlier marriage that has never been judicially declared.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, the challenged orders were affirmed, and costs were assessed against Lilia.

Remember This

Force in marriage makes the union voidable, not void, and a voidable marriage is valid until annulled, so any second marriage contracted before annulment is void. Examiners use this case to test the void versus voidable distinction and the rule that even a void marriage requires a judicial declaration of nullity before it can affect one's status.