ASG Law

Tag: Voidable Marriage

  • Void vs. Voidable Marriages Under the Civil Code: Clarifying Marital Status and Second Marriages

    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

  • Second Marriages & SSS Benefits: Why Court Decisions Matter

    Court Decisions on Marriage Validity Prevail Over SSS Determinations: Protecting Spousal Benefits

    TLDR: This Supreme Court case clarifies that the Social Security System (SSS) cannot unilaterally invalidate a marriage deemed valid by a court to deny spousal benefits. Even if the SSS believes a marriage is invalid (e.g., bigamous), they must respect existing court orders until overturned by a proper court. This ruling protects the rights of spouses to receive SSS benefits based on the apparent validity of their marriage.

    G.R. NO. 165545, March 24, 2006: SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. TERESITA JARQUE VDA. DE BAILON, RESPONDENT.

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a widow, expecting to receive death benefits from her deceased husband’s SSS contributions, suddenly facing denial because the SSS questions the validity of her marriage—years after it was solemnized and even after a court had declared her husband’s previous spouse presumptively dead. This scenario highlights the critical intersection of family law, social security benefits, and the authority of different government bodies. The Supreme Court case of Social Security System v. Teresita Jarque Vda. de Bailon addresses this very issue, firmly establishing the principle that the SSS cannot overrule court decisions regarding marital status when determining benefit eligibility. This case underscores the importance of judicial pronouncements on marriage and their impact on social security entitlements, providing crucial guidance for individuals and the SSS alike.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: MARRIAGE, PRESUMPTIVE DEATH, AND VOID VS. VOIDABLE MARRIAGES UNDER THE CIVIL CODE

    Philippine law, particularly the Civil Code which was in effect at the time the marriages in this case were contracted, meticulously outlines the rules governing marriage. Understanding these rules is essential to grasp the nuances of the Supreme Court’s decision. Article 83 of the Civil Code is central to this case. It states:

    “Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance, unless:
    (1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or
    (2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead according to Articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court.”

    This provision distinguishes between marriages void ab initio (from the beginning) and those that are considered valid until a court declares them void. A bigamous marriage, meaning a second marriage contracted while the first is still valid, is generally void from the start. However, the Civil Code provides exceptions, particularly when a spouse has been absent. If certain conditions are met, a subsequent marriage can be considered valid until a court says otherwise. This is crucial because it shifts the burden of proof. Instead of the second marriage being automatically invalid, it gains a presumption of validity, and the party challenging it must prove the first marriage was still subsisting and not legally dissolved.

    Furthermore, the concept of ‘presumptive death’ comes into play. A court can declare a missing spouse presumptively dead after a period of absence, allowing the present spouse to remarry. While this presumption is rebuttable if the missing spouse reappears, the legal effects of actions taken based on this presumption, such as remarriage, are significant. It’s also important to note the difference between void and voidable marriages. Void marriages are invalid from inception and generally require no court action to be considered null. Voidable marriages, on the other hand, are valid until annulled by a court in a direct proceeding. This distinction is vital because voidable marriages and their effects generally remain valid if not challenged during the lifetime of the parties involved.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: SSS VS. VDA. DE BAILON

    The case revolves around Teresita Jarque Vda. de Bailon’s claim for death benefits from the SSS following her husband Clemente Bailon’s death. The SSS initially granted her funeral and death benefits. However, this was contested by Cecilia Bailon-Yap, claiming to be Bailon’s daughter from another relationship, who alleged Bailon had multiple marriages and that Teresita’s marriage was invalid. Adding complexity, Hermes P. Diaz, brother of Alice Diaz (Bailon’s first wife), also filed a claim on Alice’s behalf, asserting Alice was still alive.

    The SSS Legal Unit investigated and recommended canceling Teresita’s benefits, arguing her marriage to Bailon was void because Bailon’s first wife, Alice, was still alive despite a court declaration of presumptive death. The SSS reasoned that the court was misled in declaring Alice presumptively dead and that Bailon’s second marriage to Teresita was bigamous. The SSS then demanded Teresita refund the benefits she had received.

    Teresita protested, arguing her marriage to Bailon had not been declared bigamous by any court and remained valid. When the SSS maintained its denial, Teresita elevated the matter to the Social Security Commission (SSC). The SSC sided with the SSS, declaring Teresita was merely a “common-law wife” and ordering her to refund the benefits. The SSC reasoned that the presumptive death declaration was fraudulently obtained and thus invalid, making the second marriage void.

    Unsatisfied, Teresita appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the SSC’s decision, ruling that the SSS and SSC overstepped their bounds by reviewing and invalidating a court order. The CA emphasized that only a competent court could nullify the second marriage. The CA stated:

    “Respondent SSS cannot arrogate upon itself the authority to review the decision of the regular courts under the pretext of determining the actual and lawful beneficiaries of its members. Notwithstanding its opinion as to the soundness of the findings of the RTC, it should extend due credence to the decision of the RTC absent of [sic] any judicial pronouncement to the contrary.”

    The SSS then took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in disregarding the SSC’s factual findings about the prior and subsisting marriage and the SSC’s authority to determine beneficiaries. However, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision. The Supreme Court reiterated that while the SSC has the power to settle disputes regarding SSS benefits, this power does not extend to reviewing or reversing court decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized:

    “In interfering with and passing upon the CFI Order, the SSC virtually acted as an appellate court. The law does not give the SSC unfettered discretion to trifle with orders of regular courts in the exercise of its authority to determine the beneficiaries of the SSS.”

    The Supreme Court underscored that under the Civil Code, Bailon’s marriage to Teresita, contracted after a court declared Alice presumptively dead, carried a presumption of validity. Since no court had annulled this second marriage before Bailon’s death, it remained valid. Therefore, Teresita, as the surviving spouse of a valid marriage at the time of Bailon’s death, was rightfully entitled to the SSS death benefits.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: RESPECTING COURT ORDERS AND SECURING SPOUSAL BENEFITS

    This Supreme Court decision has significant practical implications, especially concerning social security benefits and marital validity. It firmly establishes that administrative agencies like the SSS must respect decisions from courts of law. The SSS cannot independently decide that a court order is invalid to justify denying benefits. This ruling provides a layer of protection for individuals who rely on court orders to establish their legal status, particularly in matters of marriage.

    For individuals, this case highlights the importance of securing judicial declarations when dealing with complex marital situations, such as presumptive death. It also clarifies that even if questions arise later about the validity of a marriage, especially concerning prior marriages, administrative bodies cannot simply disregard a marriage that has not been legally annulled or declared void by a court in a direct proceeding. This is particularly crucial for widows and widowers claiming SSS benefits, as it prevents the SSS from unilaterally challenging the marital status established by a seemingly valid marriage.

    For legal practitioners, this case reinforces the principle of judicial supremacy over administrative agencies in matters of legal interpretation and factual findings already adjudicated by courts. It serves as a strong precedent when arguing against administrative denials of benefits based on an agency’s independent assessment of legal issues already addressed by a court order.

    Key Lessons:

    • Court Orders Prevail: Administrative agencies like the SSS must respect and uphold court orders regarding marital status unless and until those orders are overturned by a higher court.
    • Presumption of Validity: Marriages, even those following a declaration of presumptive death, are presumed valid until a court declares them void or voidable in a direct proceeding.
    • Direct Action Required: To challenge the validity of a marriage, especially for purposes of denying spousal benefits, a direct court action for annulment or declaration of nullity is necessary, not merely an administrative determination.
    • Protection for Spouses: This ruling protects spouses from losing social security benefits based on unilateral administrative re-evaluation of marital validity.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: Can the SSS deny my death benefits if they think my marriage to the deceased was invalid?

    A: Not if your marriage has not been declared invalid by a court. The SSS cannot unilaterally decide your marriage is invalid to deny benefits, especially if there are existing court orders supporting its validity, such as a declaration of presumptive death of a prior spouse.

    Q2: What if my spouse’s previous marriage was never formally annulled? Does that automatically invalidate my marriage for SSS benefits?

    A: Not necessarily. Under the Civil Code, and depending on the circumstances, your marriage might still be considered valid until a court declares it otherwise, especially if it was contracted after a declaration of presumptive death of the previous spouse. The SSS must respect the apparent validity of your marriage unless a court has ruled against it.

    Q3: What should I do if the SSS questions the validity of my marriage when I claim benefits?

    A: You should assert the validity of your marriage, especially if you have a marriage certificate and if there are no court orders nullifying your marriage. Point out any court orders, like a declaration of presumptive death, that preceded your marriage. If the SSS persists in denying your claim, you should appeal their decision, potentially up to the courts, citing cases like SSS v. Vda. de Bailon to support your claim that the SSS cannot arbitrarily invalidate your marriage.

    Q4: Does the Family Code change anything about this?

    A: While the Family Code has different provisions regarding subsequent marriages, this case was decided under the Civil Code, which was in effect when the marriages occurred. However, the underlying principle of respecting court orders remains relevant even under the Family Code. The Family Code also requires a judicial process to declare a marriage void.

    Q5: What is ‘presumptive death’ and how does it relate to remarriage?

    A: Presumptive death is a legal declaration by a court that a spouse is presumed dead after a period of absence. Under the Civil Code, after a declaration of presumptive death, the present spouse can remarry. This remarriage is considered valid until proven otherwise in court, offering protection to the remarried spouse, particularly concerning rights like SSS benefits.

    ASG Law specializes in Family Law and Social Security Claims. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Legitimate or Not? Untangling Inheritance Rights in Voidable Marriages Under Philippine Law

    Legitimacy Still Prevails: Inheritance Rights of Children in Annulled Marriages

    TLDR: This landmark Supreme Court case clarifies that children born before the annulment of a voidable marriage are considered legitimate under Philippine law. This legitimacy grants them full inheritance rights, including the right to represent their deceased parent in inheriting from grandparents. The distinction between void and voidable marriages is crucial in determining these rights.

    G.R. No. 132524, December 29, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a scenario where a family is grappling with the loss of a loved one, only to be further entangled in a complex legal battle over inheritance. These disputes often hinge on intricate family dynamics and the nuances of marital laws. The case of Federico C. Suntay v. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay delves into such complexities, specifically addressing the inheritance rights of grandchildren from a marriage that was later declared “null and void.” At the heart of this case lies a critical question: Does a declaration of nullity of marriage automatically render children illegitimate for inheritance purposes, even if the marriage was merely voidable and not void from the beginning?

    This case highlights the vital distinction between void and voidable marriages under the old Civil Code of the Philippines, the law applicable at the time of the questioned marriage. Understanding this distinction is not just an academic exercise; it has profound implications for family law, estate planning, and the rights of individuals to inherit property. Let’s explore how the Supreme Court navigated these intricate legal waters to arrive at a just resolution.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: VOID VS. VOIDABLE MARRIAGES UNDER THE OLD CIVIL CODE

    Philippine law, particularly the Civil Code of 1950 which was in effect during the relevant periods of this case, meticulously distinguishes between marriages that are void from the very beginning (void ab initio) and those that are merely voidable. This distinction is crucial because it dictates the legal effects of the marital union, especially concerning the status of children born from it.

    Void Marriages: Never Existed in the Eyes of the Law

    Void marriages, as defined under Articles 80, 81, 82, and 83 of the Civil Code, are considered to have never legally existed. These are marriages with inherent flaws so fundamental that they are invalid from inception. Examples include:

    • Marriages contracted by parties below the legal age of consent.
    • Marriages solemnized by unauthorized individuals.
    • Bigamous or polygamous marriages.
    • Incestuous marriages.

    Article 80 of the Civil Code explicitly states, “The following marriages shall be void from the beginning…” Children born from void marriages are considered natural children by legal fiction, with rights similar to acknowledged natural children, as outlined in Article 89.

    Voidable Marriages: Valid Until Annulled

    Voidable marriages, on the other hand, are valid and binding until a court, in a direct action, annuls them. Article 85 of the Civil Code enumerates the grounds for annulment, including:

    • Lack of parental consent for parties between certain ages.
    • Subsequent marriage where a prior spouse is mistakenly believed to be dead.
    • Unsound mind of either party at the time of marriage (the ground in the Suntay case).
    • Consent obtained through force, intimidation, or fraud.
    • Physical incapability to enter the married state.

    Article 85 begins, “A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage…” The key difference is that voidable marriages produce legal effects until annulled. Crucially, Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code provides specific protection for children of voidable marriages: “Children conceived of voidable marriages before the decree of annulment shall be considered legitimate…” This provision is central to the Suntay case.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: SUNTAY VS. SUNTAY – UNRAVELING LEGITIMACY AND INHERITANCE

    The Suntay case revolves around a petition for administration of the estate of Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay. The petitioner, Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, sought to be appointed administratrix as a grandchild of the deceased. However, Federico C. Suntay, Cristina’s surviving spouse, opposed this petition, arguing that Isabel was illegitimate and thus had no right to represent her deceased father, Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay, in inheriting from her grandmother.

    The Marriage and its “Nullity”

    The crux of Federico’s argument stemmed from a 1967 court decision that declared the marriage of Isabel’s parents, Emilio and Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, “null and void.” This decision was based on Emilio’s unsound mind at the time of marriage, a ground for annulment under Article 85 of the Civil Code. Federico contended that this “null and void” declaration meant the marriage was void ab initio, rendering Isabel illegitimate and stripping her of inheritance rights.

    The Procedural Journey

    1. Petition for Administration: Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay filed a petition to be appointed administratrix of her grandmother Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay’s estate.
    2. Opposition by Federico Suntay: Federico opposed, claiming Isabel was illegitimate and he, as the surviving spouse, was the rightful administrator.
    3. Motion to Dismiss: Federico later filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing Isabel’s illegitimacy barred her from inheriting via representation.
    4. RTC Denial: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the Motion to Dismiss, holding that the marriage was voidable, not void, and Isabel was legitimate.
    5. Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court: Federico elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.

    Supreme Court’s Rationale: Substance Over Form

    The Supreme Court upheld the RTC’s decision, emphasizing the importance of interpreting court decisions in their entirety, not just focusing on isolated phrases. The Court clarified that despite the dispositive portion of the 1967 decision using the words “null and void,” the body of the decision clearly indicated that the marriage was annulled based on Article 85 (unsound mind), a ground for voidable marriage.

    The Supreme Court underscored this point by stating:

    “The court rules, for the purpose of establishing the personality of the petitioner to file and maintain this special proceeding, that in the case at bench, the body of the decision determines the nature of the action which is for annulment, not declaration of nullity.”

    Furthermore, the Court quoted jurisprudence emphasizing that:

    “Assuming that a doubt or uncertainty exists between the dispositive portion and the body of the decision, effort must be made to harmonize the whole body of the decision in order to give effect to the intention, purpose and judgment of the court.”

    Based on this principle, the Supreme Court concluded that the 1967 decision effectively annulled a voidable marriage. Consequently, applying Article 89, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, Isabel, having been conceived before the decree of annulment, was deemed legitimate and entitled to represent her deceased father in her grandmother’s estate.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: SECURING INHERITANCE RIGHTS IN FAMILY LAW

    The Suntay case offers crucial guidance on inheritance rights, particularly in the context of marriages that are not perfectly valid from the outset. It underscores the following practical implications:

    • Distinguish Void from Voidable: It is paramount to correctly classify a marriage as either void or voidable. The legal consequences are vastly different, especially concerning children’s legitimacy and inheritance.
    • Substance Over Form in Court Decisions: Courts will look beyond the literal wording of the dispositive portion of a decision and examine the entire context to understand the true intent and legal basis of the ruling.
    • Protection of Children’s Rights: Philippine law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, leans towards protecting the rights of children born within marriages, even those later annulled, ensuring they are not unduly penalized by circumstances beyond their control.
    • Importance of Legal Counsel: Navigating family law and inheritance matters requires expert legal advice. Understanding the nuances of void and voidable marriages and their implications for estate planning is critical.

    Key Lessons from Suntay v. Suntay:

    • Voidable marriages produce legal effects until annulled.
    • Children born before annulment of voidable marriages are legitimate.
    • Legitimate children have full inheritance rights, including representation.
    • Courts interpret decisions holistically to ascertain true intent.
    • Seek legal counsel to understand your rights in family and inheritance matters.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is the main difference between a void and voidable marriage in the Philippines?

    A: A void marriage is invalid from the beginning and considered never to have existed legally. A voidable marriage is valid until a court annuls it in a proper legal proceeding.

    Q2: If a marriage is declared “null and void,” does it automatically mean it was a void marriage?

    A: Not necessarily. The Suntay case shows that courts look at the grounds for the “nullity.” If the grounds are for annulment (voidable marriage), the marriage is treated as voidable, even if the court uses “null and void” in the dispositive portion.

    Q3: Are children born from a voidable marriage considered legitimate?

    A: Yes, children conceived or born before the decree of annulment of a voidable marriage are considered legitimate under Philippine law.

    Q4: Can legitimate children inherit from their grandparents?

    A: Yes, legitimate children have the right to inherit from their parents and other ascendants, such as grandparents. They can also represent a deceased parent in inheriting from grandparents.

    Q5: What is “right of representation” in inheritance?

    A: Right of representation is a legal principle where, if an heir dies before the person they are supposed to inherit from, their children (the grandchildren of the deceased) can “step into their shoes” and inherit the share that would have gone to their deceased parent.

    Q6: What happens to the property of spouses if their marriage is annulled?

    A: In annulment, the property regime is generally liquidated as if it were a dissolution of a valid marriage. However, the specifics depend on the type of property regime (community property or separation of property) and the specific circumstances.

    Q7: Is the distinction between void and voidable marriages still relevant under the Family Code of the Philippines?

    A: Yes, while the Family Code has introduced the concept of void marriages under Article 35 and voidable marriages under Article 45, the fundamental distinction and many of the grounds remain similar to the old Civil Code. The principles regarding children’s legitimacy are also largely maintained.

    Q8: Why should I consult a lawyer regarding marriage and inheritance issues?

    A: Family law and inheritance are complex areas. A lawyer can provide tailored advice, explain your rights and obligations, and help you navigate legal processes, ensuring your interests and those of your family are protected.

    ASG Law specializes in Family Law and Estate Settlement in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.