Enrico vs. Heirs
G.R. No. 173614, September 28, 2007
FACTS:
The heirs of Spouses Eulogio and Trinidad Medinaceli filed with the RTC, an action for declaration of nullity of marriage of Eulogio and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico, alleging that Eulogio and Trinidad were married in June 1962 and begot seven children, herein respondents. On May 1, 2004, Trinidad died. On August 26, 2004, Eulogio married petitioner before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan without the requisite of a marriage license. Eulogio passed away six months later. They argued that Article 34 of the Family Code, which exempts a man and a woman who have been living together for at least five years without any legal impediment from securing a marriage license, was not applicable to petitioner and Eulogio. Respondents posited that the marriage of Eulogio to Trinidad was dissolved only upon the latters death, or on 1 May 2004, which was barely three months from the date of marriage of Eulogio to petitioner. Therefore, petitioner and Eulogio could not have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. To further their cause, respondents raised the additional ground of lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogios serious illness which made its performance impossible.
In the Answer, petitioner maintained that she and Eulogio lived together as husband and wife under one roof for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they were exempted from the requirement of a marriage license. She further contended that the marriage ceremony was performed in the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and solemnized by the Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative defense, she sought the dismissal of the action on the ground that it is only the contracting parties while living who can file an action for declaration of nullity of marriage.
ISSUES:
Whether of or not the heirs may validly file the declaration of nullity of marriage between Eulogio and Lolita
RULING:
No. Administrative Order No. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, effective March 14, 2003, covers marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines does not allow it. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on August 26, 2004 which falls within the ambit of the order. The order declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. But it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are already without any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity, but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
