The Supreme Court in Garcia-Quiazon v. Belen clarified that for estate settlement purposes, ‘residence’ refers to actual physical habitation, not legal domicile. More importantly, the Court affirmed that void marriages can be questioned even after a spouse’s death, allowing heirs to protect their inheritance rights. This decision ensures that estate proceedings are conducted in the place where the deceased actually lived, and that heirs can challenge potentially bigamous marriages that could affect their inheritance.

Challenging Marital Validity: How ‘Residence’ and Inheritance Rights Intersect

This case revolves around the estate of Eliseo Quiazon and a dispute over where his estate should be settled and who has the right to inherit. His common-law wife and daughter, Ma. Lourdes Belen and Maria Lourdes Elise Quiazon, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration in Las Piñas City. Amelia Garcia-Quiazon, Eliseo’s legal wife, and her children opposed, claiming Eliseo resided in Capas, Tarlac, and that the Las Piñas court lacked jurisdiction. Furthermore, the validity of Amelia’s marriage to Eliseo was questioned because of a prior existing marriage.

At the heart of the matter was determining Eliseo’s actual residence at the time of his death, as this dictates the proper venue for estate settlement according to Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, which states:

Sec. 1.  Where estate of deceased persons settled. – If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] of any province in which he had estate.  The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts.  The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.

The Supreme Court emphasized that “resides” implies actual residence, distinguishing it from legal domicile. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of venue statutes, where actual physical presence and habitation are more significant than legal domicile. The court highlighted that residence, in the context of venue, means a person’s actual residence or place of abode, provided they reside there with continuity and consistency.

The petitioners argued that Eliseo’s death certificate indicated his residence as Capas, Tarlac. However, the Court found this evidence unpersuasive. Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals determined that Eliseo lived with Lourdes in Las Piñas City, behaving as husband and wife, until his death. This finding was supported by Eliseo’s previous legal action for judicial partition against Amelia, based on the claim that their marriage was bigamous. This action strongly suggested that Eliseo did not spend his final days in Tarlac with Amelia.

Another crucial aspect of the case involved the validity of Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia. The Court addressed the issue of whether a marriage can be questioned after the death of one of the spouses. Citing the case of Niñal v. Bayadog, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that void marriages can be challenged at any time, even after the death of either party.

[C]onsequently, void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid. That is why the action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike voidable marriages where the action prescribes. Only the parties to a voidable marriage can assail it but any proper interested party may attack a void marriage.

The Court underscored that, unlike voidable marriages, which can only be questioned during the parties’ lifetimes, void marriages are considered as never having legally existed. Consequently, any interested party, particularly those whose successional rights are affected, can challenge such marriages. In this case, Eliseo’s daughter, Elise, had the right to question the validity of Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia because her inheritance rights would be prejudiced if that marriage were deemed valid.

Having established Elise’s right to question the marriage, the Court then examined whether the marriage between Eliseo and Amelia was indeed void due to bigamy. The evidence presented, including a Certificate of Marriage between Amelia and one Filipito Sandico, convinced the Court that Amelia was previously married when she married Eliseo. Since there was no evidence that her first marriage was annulled or dissolved, the Court concluded that the marriage between Eliseo and Amelia was bigamous and, therefore, void from the beginning.

Finally, the petitioners argued that Elise had not demonstrated sufficient interest in the Petition for Letters of Administration. The Court dismissed this argument, pointing out that Elise, as a compulsory heir, stood to benefit from the distribution of Eliseo’s estate. As such, she was considered an interested party with the right to be appointed administratrix of her father’s estate, ensuring her legitime would be protected.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issues were determining the proper venue for the settlement of Eliseo Quiazon’s estate and whether his marriage to Amelia Garcia-Quiazon was valid, considering a prior existing marriage of Amelia.
What does ‘residence’ mean for estate settlement?	For estate settlement, ‘residence’ means the actual physical place where the deceased lived with continuity and consistency, not necessarily their legal domicile. This determines which court has jurisdiction over the estate.
Can a void marriage be challenged after death?	Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party. This is because a void marriage is considered to have never legally existed.
Who can challenge a void marriage?	Any interested party, particularly those whose inheritance or successional rights are affected by the marriage, can challenge a void marriage.
What evidence was used to prove bigamy?	The existence of a prior marriage certificate between Amelia Garcia-Quiazon and another person was used as evidence to prove that her subsequent marriage to Eliseo Quiazon was bigamous.
What is a ‘compulsory heir’?	A compulsory heir is a person who, under the law, is entitled to inherit a portion of the deceased’s estate, known as the legitime. Children are considered compulsory heirs.
What is ‘letters of administration’?	‘Letters of administration’ are a legal document granted by the court, authorizing a person (the administrator) to manage and distribute the estate of a deceased person who died without a will.
Why was the daughter considered an ‘interested party’?	The daughter was considered an ‘interested party’ because as a compulsory heir, she stood to benefit from the proper distribution of her father’s estate and had a right to protect her inheritance.

This case highlights the importance of establishing a person’s actual residence for estate settlement purposes and reinforces the principle that void marriages can be challenged even after death to protect the inheritance rights of legitimate heirs. It underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that estates are settled in the appropriate venue and that successional rights are determined based on valid marital relationships.

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: Garcia-Quiazon v. Belen, G.R. No. 189121, July 31, 2013