In *Renato A. Castillo v. Lea P. De Leon Castillo*, the Supreme Court addressed the validity of a second marriage entered into before the Family Code took effect. The Court ruled that under the Civil Code, which was in force at the time the marriages were celebrated, a judicial declaration of nullity was not required for a void marriage before contracting a subsequent marriage. This decision clarifies the distinction between void and voidable marriages under the Civil Code and its implications for marital status.

Second Chances or Second Offenses: Navigating Marital Validity Under the Civil Code

The case revolves around Renato’s petition to declare his marriage to Lea void due to her prior marriage to Benjamin Bautista. Lea argued that her first marriage was void due to the absence of a marriage license. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially sided with Renato, declaring the second marriage bigamous. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, stating that under the Civil Code, a judicial declaration of nullity was not necessary for a void marriage. The Supreme Court then had to determine whether the CA was correct in upholding the validity of the second marriage.

The crux of the matter lies in determining which law governs the validity of the marriages. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the validity of a marriage and its incidents are determined by the law in effect at the time of its celebration. Since both marriages occurred before the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988, the Civil Code applies. The Civil Code distinguishes between void and voidable marriages, with significant consequences for the parties involved.

A **void marriage** is considered nonexistent from the beginning, while a **voidable marriage** is valid until annulled by a court. Void marriages cannot be ratified, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish their invalidity. Voidable marriages, on the other hand, can be ratified through cohabitation and require a judicial decree for annulment. These distinctions are crucial in determining the validity of subsequent marriages.

“Under the Civil Code, a void marriage differs from a voidable marriage in the following ways: (1) a void marriage is nonexistent – *i.e.*, there was no marriage from the beginning – while in a voidable marriage, the marriage is valid until annulled by a competent court; (2) a void marriage cannot be ratified, while a voidable marriage can be ratified by cohabitation; (3) being nonexistent, a void marriage can be collaterally attacked, while a voidable marriage cannot be collaterally attacked; (4) in a void marriage, there is no conjugal partnership and the offspring are natural children by legal fiction, while in voidable marriage there is conjugal partnership and the children conceived before the decree of annulment are considered legitimate; and (5) ‘in a void marriage no judicial decree to establish the invalidity is necessary,’ while in a voidable marriage there must be a judicial decree.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that under the Civil Code, no express provision requires a judicial declaration of nullity for a void marriage. This principle was established in cases like *People v. Mendoza*, *People v. Aragon*, and *Odayat v. Amante*. These cases affirmed that a subsequent marriage is valid if the prior marriage was void from the beginning, without the need for a judicial declaration.

However, the enactment of the Family Code changed this landscape. Article 40 of the Family Code now expressly requires a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a previous marriage before contracting a second marriage. Failure to obtain this declaration renders the subsequent marriage bigamous and void. The policy behind this requirement, as explained in *Domingo v. Court of Appeals*, is to protect the sanctity of marriage and ensure that its nullification is based on an official state pronouncement.

“Marriage, a sacrosanct institution, declared by the Constitution as an ‘inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family;’ as such, it ‘shall be protected by the State.’ In more explicit terms, the Family Code characterizes it as ‘a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life.’ So crucial are marriage and the family to the stability and peace of the nation that their ‘nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation.’”

Despite the Family Code’s requirement, the Supreme Court clarified that this requirement does not apply retroactively to marriages celebrated before its effectivity. In *Apiag v. Cantero* and *Ty v. Court of Appeals*, the Court held that marriages celebrated before August 3, 1988, are governed by the Civil Code and the jurisprudence established in *Odayat, Mendoza, and Aragon*. This means that if a marriage was void under the Civil Code, no judicial declaration of nullity was required before contracting a subsequent marriage.

In Lea’s case, her first marriage to Bautista was void due to the absence of a marriage license. Since this marriage occurred before the Family Code, no judicial declaration of nullity was necessary before she married Renato. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that Lea’s marriage to Renato was valid. The subsequent declaration of nullity of Lea’s first marriage by the RTC of Parañaque City further strengthens this conclusion.

The Supreme Court ultimately denied Renato’s petition, affirming the CA’s decision upholding the validity of the marriage between Renato and Lea. This case underscores the importance of determining the applicable law based on the date of the marriage and the distinct treatment of void and voidable marriages under the Civil Code.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a judicial declaration of nullity was required for a void marriage under the Civil Code before contracting a subsequent marriage.
Which law applies to the marriages in this case?	Since the marriages occurred before the Family Code took effect, the Civil Code governs their validity.
What is the difference between a void and voidable marriage under the Civil Code?	A void marriage is nonexistent from the beginning, while a voidable marriage is valid until annulled by a court.
Was a judicial declaration of nullity required for Lea’s first marriage?	No, under the Civil Code, a judicial declaration of nullity was not required for a void marriage before contracting a subsequent marriage.
What is the current rule under the Family Code?	The Family Code requires a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a previous marriage before contracting a second marriage.
Does the Family Code apply retroactively?	No, the requirement of a judicial declaration of nullity under the Family Code does not apply to marriages celebrated before its effectivity.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that Lea’s marriage to Renato was valid because her first marriage was void under the Civil Code, and no judicial declaration of nullity was required.
What is the significance of the *Odayat, Mendoza, and Aragon* cases?	These cases established the principle that no judicial decree was necessary to establish the invalidity of void marriages under Article 80 of the Civil Code.

In conclusion, the *Castillo v. Castillo* case clarifies the application of the Civil Code to marriages celebrated before the Family Code and reinforces the distinction between void and voidable marriages. It serves as a reminder of the legal complexities involved in marital status and the importance of seeking legal advice when dealing with such matters.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RENATO A. CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016