LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENZA, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES, JR., respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 March 29, 1995
Facts:
Lupo Almodiel Atienza filed an administrative case against Judge Brillantes for Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety. Complainant alleges that he has two children with Yolanda De Castro, who are living together at a subdivision in Makati, which he purchased in 1987. One day, he caught the respondent asleep in his bedroom. He asked the houseboy about him and the latter said that the judge had been cohabiting with De Castro. Atienza did not bother to wake up the respondent instead asked the houseboy to take care of his two children.
After that, the respondent prevented him from visiting his child and has alienated the affection of his children. The Complainant also claims that the respondent is married to Zenaida Ongkiko.
The judge denies having been married to Ongkiko because their marriage was celebrated twice without marriage license, therefore, his marriage to De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles, California was because he believed in good faith and for all legal purposes, that his first marriage was solemnized without marriage license.
He further argues that Article 40 of the Family Code is not applicable in his case because his first marriage in 1965 was governed by the Civil Code and the 2nd relationship was 1991 under the Family Code. No retroactive Effect.
Issue:
Whether or not the absence of marriage license of his previous marriage justifi3es his act to cohabit with De Castro
Held:
Respondent passed the Bar examinations in 1962 and was admitted to the practice of law in 1963. At the time he went through the two marriage ceremonies with Ongkiko, he was already a lawyer. Yet, he never secured any marriage license. Any law student would know that a marriage license is necessary before one can get married. Respondent was given an opportunity to correct the flaw in his first marriage when he and Ongkiko were married for the second time. His failure to secure a marriage license on these two occasions betrays his sinister motives and bad faith.
Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the Family Code, said Article is given “retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.” This is particularly true with Article 40, which is a rule of procedure. Respondent has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case.
