Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lilia Wiegel Vs Judge Sempio-Diy

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Gabriel Soriano
    36 views1 page
    There is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriage will not be void but merely voidable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married respondent she was still validly married to her first husband, consequently, her marriage to respondent is VOID (Art. 80, Civil Code)

    Original Title

    Lilia Wiegel vs Judge Sempio-Diy

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    There is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriage will not be void but merely voidable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married respondent she was still validly married to her first husband, consequently, her marriage to respondent is VOID (Art. 80, Civil Code)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    Lilia Wiegel Vs Judge Sempio-Diy

    Uploaded by

    Jayson Gabriel Soriano
    There is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriage will not be void but merely voidable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married respondent she was still validly married to her first husband, consequently, her marriage to respondent is VOID (Art. 80, Civil Code)

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL vs.THE HONORABLE ALICIA V.

    SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the


    Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL

    G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986

    FACTS: Karl Heinz Wiegel filed an action before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court asking for
    the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lilia Oliva Wiegel on the ground of Lilia's previous
    existing marriage to one Eduardo A. Maxion.

    Lilia, while admitting the existence of said prior subsisting marriage claimed that said marriage was
    null and void, she and the first husband Eduardo A. Maxion having been allegedly forced to enter said
    marital union. Lilia asked the respondent court for an opportunity to present evidence, but Respondent
    judge ruled against the presentation of evidence because the existence of force exerted on both parties
    of the first marriage had already been agreed upon in the pre-trial that ensued.

    Hence, the present petition for certiorari assailing the following Orders of the respondent Judge

    ISSUE: Whether there is a need for Lilia Wiegel to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force

    RULING: There is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force
    committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriage will not be void but
    merely voidable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet
    been made, it is clear that when she married respondent she was still validly married to her first
    husband, consequently, her marriage to respondent is VOID (Art. 80, Civil Code).

    There is likewise no need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage of her first husband
    at the time they married each other, for then such a marriage though void still needs according to this
    Court a judicial declaration of such fact and for all legal intents and purposes she would still be
    regarded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz
    Wiegel; accordingly, the marriage of petitioner and respondent would be regarded VOID under the law.

    You might also like