Armas V Calisterio 330 SCRA 201 April 6, 2000
Armas V Calisterio 330 SCRA 201 April 6, 2000
Respondent Marietta opposed the petition. Marietta stated that her first
marriage with James Bounds had been dissolved due to the latter's
absence, his whereabouts being unknown, for more than eleven years
before she contracted her second marriage with Teodorico. Contending
to be the surviving spouse of Teodorico, she sought priority in the
administration of the estate of the decedent.
THIRD DIVISION
On 05 February 1993, the trial court issued an order appointing jointly
G.R. No. 136467 April 6, 2000 Sinfroniano C. Armas, Jr., and respondent Marietta administrator and
administratrix, respectively, of the intestate estate of Teodorico.
ANTONIA ARMAS Y CALISTERIO, petitioner,
vs. On 17 January 1996, the lower court handed down its decision in favor of
MARIETTA CALISTERIO, respondent. petitioner Antonia; it adjudged:
On 24 April 1992, Teodorico Calisterio died intestate, leaving several Respondent Marietta appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court
parcels of land with an estimated value of P604,750.00. Teodorico was of Appeals, formulating that —
survived by his wife, herein respondent Marietta Calisterio.
1. The trial court erred in applying the provisions of the Family
Teodorico was the second husband of Marietta who had previously been Code in the instant case despite the fact that the controversy
married to James William Bounds on 13 January 1946 at Caloocan City. arose when the New Civil Code was the law in force.
James Bounds disappeared without a trace on 11 February 1947.
Teodorico and Marietta were married eleven years later, or on 08 May 2. The trial court erred in holding that the marriage between
1958, without Marietta having priorly secured a court declaration that oppositor-appellant and the deceased Teodorico Calisterio is
James was presumptively dead. bigamous for failure of the former to secure a decree of the
presumptive death of her first spouse.
On 09 October 1992, herein petitioner Antonia Armas y Calisterio, a
surviving sister of Teodorico, filed with the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of 3. The trial court erred in not holding that the property situated at
Quezon City, Branch 104, a petition entitled, "In the Matter of Intestate No. 32 Batangas Street, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City,
Estate of the Deceased Teodorico Calisterio y Cacabelos, Antonia is the conjugal property of the oppositor-appellant and the
Armas, Petitioner," claiming to be inter alia, the sole surviving heir of deceased Teodorico Calisterio.
Teodorico Calisterio, the marriage between the latter and respondent
Marietta Espinosa Calisterio being allegedly bigamous and thereby null 4. The trial court erred in holding that oppositor-appellant is not a
and void. She prayed that her son Sinfroniano C. Armas, Jr., be legal heir of deceased Teodorico Calisterio.
appointed administrator, without bond, of the estate of the deceased and
5. The trial court erred in not holding that letters of administration The marriage between the deceased Teodorico and respondent Marietta
should be granted solely in favor of oppositor-appellant. 2
was solemnized on 08 May 1958. The law in force at that time was the
Civil Code, not the Family Code which took effect only on 03 August
On 31 August 1998, the appellate court, through Mr. Justice Conrado M. 1988. Article 256 of the Family Code itself limited its retroactive
5
Vasquez, Jr., promulgated its now assailed decision, thus: governance only to cases where it thereby would not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision appealed from
is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and a new one entered Verily, the applicable specific provision in the instant controversy is Article
declaring as follows: 83 of the New Civil Code which provides:
(a) Marietta Calisterio's marriage to Teodorico remains Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person
valid; during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any
person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from
(b) The house and lot situated at #32 Batangas Street, its performance, unless:
San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, belong to the
conjugal partnership property with the concomitant (1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or
obligation of the partnership to pay the value of the land
to Teodorico's estate as of the time of the taking; (2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years
at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present
(c) Marietta Calisterio, being Teodorico's compulsory heir, having news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee,
is entitled to one half of her husband's estate, and though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally
Teodorico's sister, herein petitioner Antonia Armas and considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present
her children, to the other half; at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the
absentee is presumed dead according to articles 390 and 391.
(d) The trial court is ordered to determine the competence The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three
of Marietta E. Calisterio to act as administrator of cases until declared null and void by a competent court.
Teodorico's estate, and if so found competent and willing,
that she be appointed as such; otherwise, to determine Under the foregoing provisions, a subsequent marriage contracted during
who among the deceased's next of kin is competent and the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void ab initio unless the prior
willing to become the administrator of the estate. 3 marriage is first annulled or dissolved. Paragraph (2) of the law gives
exceptions from the above rule. For the subsequent marriage referred to
On 23 November 1998, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's in the three exceptional cases therein provided, to be held valid, the
motion for reconsideration, prompting her to interpose the present spouse present (not the absentee spouse) so contracting the later
appeal. Petitioner asseverates: marriage must have done so in good faith. Bad faith imports a dishonest
6
Appeals reversing and setting aside the decision of the trial court
to be here extant.
is not in accord with the law or with the applicable decisions of
this Honorable Court. 4
It is evident that the basic issue focuses on the validity of the marriage
equally noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by
between the deceased Teodorico and respondent Marietta, that, in turn,
the explicit mandate of Article 83, to be deemed valid "until declared null
would be determinative of her right as a surviving spouse.
and void by a competent court." It follows that the burden of proof would WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R.
be, in these cases, on the party assailing the second marriage. CV No. 51574 is AFFIRMED except insofar only as it decreed in
paragraph (c) of the dispositive portion thereof that the children of
In contrast, under the 1988 Family Code, in order that a subsequent petitioner are likewise entitled, along with her, to the other half of the
bigamous marriage may exceptionally be considered valid, the following inheritance, in lieu of which, it is hereby DECLARED that said one-half
conditions must concur; viz.: (a) The prior spouse of the contracting party share of the decedent's estate pertains solely to petitioner to the
must have been absent for four consecutive years, or two years where exclusion of her own children. No costs.
there is danger of death under the circumstances stated in Article 391 of
the Civil Code at the time of disappearance; (b) the spouse present has a SO ORDERED. 1âwphi1.nêt
well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c) there
is, unlike the old rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the Melo, Panganiban, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
absentee for which purpose the spouse present can institute a summary
proceeding in court to ask for that declaration. The last condition is
consistent and in consonance with the requirement of judicial intervention
in subsequent marriages as so provided in Article 41 , in relation to
9
Footnotes
In the case at bar, it remained undisputed that respondent Marietta's first
husband, James William Bounds, had been absent or had disappeared Rollo, p. 45.
1
for more than eleven years before she entered into a second marriage in
1958 with the deceased Teodorico Calisterio. This second marriage, Rollo, pp. 29-30.
2
having been contracted during the regime of the Civil Code, should thus
be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of a judicial declaration of Rollo, pp. 35-36.
3
pertains to them in common. Upon its dissolution with the death of does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
Teodorico, the property should rightly be divided in two equal portions — accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.
one portion going to the surviving spouse and the other portion to the
estate of the deceased spouse. The successional right in intestacy of a The good faith or bad faith of the other contracting party to the
6
surviving spouse over the net estate of the deceased, concurring with
11
subsequent marriage is not all that consequential (See Lapuz Sy
legitimate brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces (the latter by right vs. Eufemio, 43 SCRA 177).
of representation), is one-half of the inheritance, the brothers and sisters
or nephews and nieces, being entitled to the other half. Nephews and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 267
7
nieces, however, can only succeed by right of representation in the SCRA 557.
presence of uncles and aunts; alone, upon the other hand, nephews and
nieces can succeed in their own right which is to say that brothers or
Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179.
8
dispositive portion of its judgment, successional rights, to petitioner's subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless
children, along with their own mother Antonia who herself is invoking before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior
successional rights over the estate of her deceased brother. 1âwphi1
spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the
spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse
was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is
danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the
provisions of Article 391 of the civil code, an absence of only two
years shall be sufficient.
property.