Santos v. Santos

DOCTRINE: A subsequent marriage contracted in bad faith, even if it was contracted after a court declaration of presumptive death, lacks the requirement of a well-founded belief that the spouse is already dead. The first marriage will not be considered as validly terminated. Marriages contracted prior to the valid termination of a subsisting marriage are generally considered bigamous and void. Only a subsequent marriage contracted in good faith is protected by law.

FACTS: On July 27, 2007, RTC Tarlac City declared petitioner Celerina J. Santos presumptively dead after her husband, respondent Ricardo T. Santos, had filed a petition for declaration of absence or presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage on  June 15, 2007. Ricardo remarried on September 17, 2008.

Ricardo alleged that Celerina allegedly applied in an employment agency in Ermita, Manila, in February 1995 to work as a domestic helper in Hong Kong. She left Tarlac two months after and was never heard from again. Ricardo further alleged that he exerted efforts to locate Celerina. Ricardo claimed that it was almost 12 years from the date of his RTC petition since Celerina left.  He believed that she had passed away.

Celerina claimed that she learned about Ricardo's petition only sometime in October 2008 when she could no longer avail the remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies.

Celerina filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. She argued that she was deprived her day in court when Ricardo, despite his knowledge of her true residence, misrepresented to the court that she was a resident of Tarlac City. According to Celerina, her true residence was in Neptune Extension, Congressional Avenue, Quezon City. This residence had been her and Ricardo's conjugal dwelling since 1989 until Ricardo left in May 2008 to cohabit with another woman.. As a result of Ricardo's misrepresentation, she was deprived of any notice of and opportunity to oppose the petition declaring her presumptively dead.

CA dismissed Celerina's petition for annulment of judgment for being a wrong mode of remedy. According to the CA, the proper remedy was to file a sworn statement before the civil registry, declaring her reappearance in accordance with Article 42 of the Family Code. Celerina filed MR but it was denied.

ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in dismissing Celerina's petition for annulment of judgment

HELD: The Family Code provides that it is the proof of absence of a spouse for four consecutive years, coupled with a well-founded belief by the present spouse that the absent spouse is already dead, that constitutes a justification for a second marriage during the subsistence of another marriage.

The Family Code also provides that the second marriage is in danger of being terminated by the presumptively dead spouse when he or she reappears.

The filing of an affidavit of reappearance is an admission on the part of the first spouse that his or her marriage to the present spouse was terminated when he or she was declared absent or presumptively dead.

Moreover, a close reading of the entire Article 42 reveals that the termination of the subsequent marriage by reappearance is subject to several conditions: (1) the non-existence of a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio; (2) recording in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage of the sworn statement of fact and circumstances of reappearance; (3) due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage of the fact of reappearance; and (4) the fact of reappearance must either be undisputed or judicially determined.

The existence of these conditions means that reappearance does not always immediately cause the subsequent marriage's termination.  Reappearance of the absent or presumptively dead spouse will cause the termination of the subsequent marriage only when all the conditions enumerated in the Family Code are present.

A subsequent marriage contracted in bad faith, even if it was contracted after a court declaration of presumptive death, lacks the requirement of a well-founded belief that the spouse is already dead. The first marriage will not be considered as validly terminated. Marriages contracted prior to the valid termination of a subsisting marriage are generally considered bigamous and void. Only a subsequent marriage contracted in good faith is protected by law.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for determination of the existence of extrinsic fraud, grounds for nullity/annulment of the first marriage, and the merits of the petition.