SUPREME COURT REPORTS to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a marriage an

ANNOTATED absolute nullity.

De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro _______________
G.R. No. 160172. February 13, 2008.*
REINEL ANTHONY B. DE CASTRO, SECOND DIVISION.
*

petitioner, vs. ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO, respondent. 163

Civil Law; Marriages; Filiation; The validity of a void VOL. 545, 163
marriage may be collaterally attacked; Other than for purposes of
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an
absolute nullity.—The Court holds that the trial court had De Castro vs. Assidao-De
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage between Castro
petitioner and respondent. The validity of a void marriage may be Same; Same; Same; Under the Family Code, the absence of
collaterally attacked. Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog, 328 SCRA 122 any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage
(2000), we held: However, other than for purposes of remarriage, void ab initio, whereas a defect in any of the essential requisites
no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute shall render the marriage voidable.—Under the Family Code, the
nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the
determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, marriage void ab initio, whereas a defect in any of the essential
settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal requisites shall render the marriage voidable. In the instant case,
case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of it is clear from the evidence presented that petitioner and
marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same respondent did not have a marriage license when they contracted
so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is their marriage. Instead, they presented an affidavit stating that
without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When they had been living together for more than five years. However,
such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is respondent herself in effect admitted the falsity of the affidavit
necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause when she was asked during crossexamination, thus—ATTY.
“on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage CARPIO: QBut despite of (sic) the fact that you have not been
void” in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final living together as husband and wife for the last five years on or
judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage. before March 13, 1995, you signed the Affidavit, is that correct?
Same; Same; Same; Court may pass upon the validity of a AYes, sir.
marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the Same; Same; Same; Failure to obtain and present a marriage
validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the license renders the marriage void ab initio.—The falsity of the
determination of the case.—In Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño, 351 affidavit cannot be considered as a mere irregularity in the formal
SCRA 127 (2001), the Court ruled that it is clothed with sufficient requisites of marriage. The law dispenses with the marriage
authority to pass upon the validity of two marriages despite the license requirement for a man and a woman who have lived
main case being a claim for death benefits. Reiterating Niñal, we together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a
held that the Court may pass upon the validity of a marriage even continuous and unbroken period of at least five years before the
in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage. The aim of this provision is to avoid exposing the parties
marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the
However, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to
the publication of every applicant’s name for a marriage license. In This is a petition for review of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals
the instant case, there was no “scandalous cohabitation” to protect; in CA-GR CV. No. 69166,2 declaring that (1) Reianna Tricia A. De
in fact, there was no cohabitation at all. The false affidavit which Castro is the legitimate child of the petitioner; and (2) that the
petitioner and respondent executed so they could push through marriage between petitioner and respondent is valid until properly
with the marriage has no value whatsoever; it is a mere scrap of nullified by a competent court in a proceeding instituted for that
paper. They were not exempt from the marriage license purpose.
requirement. Their failure to obtain and present a marriage license The facts of the case, as culled from the records, follow.
renders their marriage void ab initio. Petitioner and respondent met and became sweethearts in
Same; Same; Same; Illegitimate children may establish their 1991. They planned to get married, thus they applied for a
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as marriage license with the Office of the Civil Registrar of Pasig City
legitimate children.—Anent the second issue, we find that the child in September 1994. They had their first sexual relation sometime
is petitioner’s illegitimate daughter, and therefore entitled to in October 1994, and had regularly engaged in sex thereafter.
support. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate When the couple went back to the Office of the Civil Registrar, the
filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate marriage license had already expired. Thus, in order to push
children. through with the plan, in lieu of a marriage license, they executed
164 an affidavit dated 13 March 1995 stating that they had been living
164 SUPREME COURT together as husband
REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________
De Castro vs. Assidao-De
Castro 1Rollo, pp. 31-41.
Thus, one can prove illegitimate filiation through the record 2Captioned Annabelle Assidao—De Castro v. Reinel Anthony B.
of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment, an De Castro.
admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private 165
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, or VOL. 545, FEBRUARY 13, 165
the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
2008
child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws. De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro
and wife for at least five years. The couple got married on the same
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of date, with Judge Jose C. Bernabe, presiding judge of the
Appeals. Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, administering the civil
rites. Nevertheless, after the ceremony, petitioner and respondent
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. went back to their respective homes and did not live together as
Macario D. Carpio & Christine P. Carpio for petitioner. husband and wife.
Richard Lee for respondent. On 13 November 1995, respondent gave birth to a child named
Reinna Tricia A. De Castro. Since the child’s birth, respondent has
TINGA, J.: been the one supporting her out of her income as a government
dentist and from her private practice.
 On 4 June 1998, respondent filed a complaint for support that the child was born during the subsistence and validity of the
against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City parties’ marriage. In addition, the Court of Appeals frowned upon
(trial court).3 In her complaint, respondent alleged that she is petitioner’s refusal to undergo DNA testing to prove the paternity
married to petitioner and that the latter has “reneged on his and filiation, as well as his refusal to state with certainty the last
responsibility/obligation to financially support her “as his wife and time he had carnal knowledge with respondent, saying that
Reinna Tricia as his child.”4 petitioner’s “forgetfulness should not be used as a vehicle to relieve
Petitioner denied that he is married to respondent, claiming him of his obligation and reward him of his being
that their marriage is void ab initio since the marriage was irresponsible.”6Moreover, the Court of Appeals noted the affidavit
facilitated by a fake affidavit; and that he was merely prevailed dated 7 April 1998 executed by petitioner, wherein he voluntarily
upon by respondent to sign the marriage contract to save her from admitted that he is the legitimate father of the child.
embarrassment and possible administrative prosecution due to her The appellate court also ruled that since this case is an action
pregnant state; and that he was not able to get parental advice for support, it was improper for the trial court to declare the
from his parents before he got married. He also averred that they marriage of petitioner and respondent as null and void in the very
never lived together as husband and wife and that he has never same case. There was no participation of the State, through the
seen nor acknowledged the child. prosecuting attorney or fiscal, to see to it that there is no collusion
In its Decision dated 16 October 2000,5 the trial court ruled between the parties, as required by the Family Code in actions for
that the marriage between petitioner and respondent is not valid declaration of nullity of a marriage. The burden of proof to show
because it was solemnized without a marriage license. However, it that the marriage is void rests upon petitioner, but it is a matter
declared petitioner as the natural father of the child, and thus that can be raised in an action for declaration of nullity, and not in
obliged to give her support. Petitioner ele- the instant proceedings. The proceedings before the trial court
should have been limited to the obligation of petitioner to support
_______________ the child and his wife on the basis of the marriage apparently and

3 The case was eventually raffled to Branch 70 of the Pasig RTC, _______________
presided by Judge Pablito M. Rojas.
4 Records, p. 3, Complaint. 6Id., at p. 37.
5 Rollo, pp. 92-94. 167
166 VOL. 545, FEBRUARY 13, 167
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 2008
ANNOTATED De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro
De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro voluntarily entered into by petitioner and respondent.7 The
vated the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the lower court dispositive portion of the decision reads:
committed grave abuse of discretion when, on the basis of mere “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 16
belief and conjecture, it ordered him to provide support to the child October 2000, of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, National
when the latter is not, and could not have been, his own child. Capital Judicial Region, Brach 70, in JDRC No. 4626,
The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. Prompted by the rule is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS (1) declaring
that a marriage is presumed to be subsisting until a judicial Reianna Tricia A. De Castro, as the legitimate child of the
declaration of nullity has been made, the appellate court declared appellant and the appellee and (2) declaring the marriage on 13
March 1995 between the appellant and the appellee valid until expenses an xd anxieties, would be time-consuming for the
properly annulled by a competent court in a proceeding instituted parties, and would increase the burden of the courts. 12 Finally,
for that purpose. Costs against the appellant.”8 petitioner claims that in view of the nullity of his marriage with
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the motion was respondent and his vigorous denial of the child’s paternity and
denied by the Court of Appeals.9 Hence this petition. filiation, the Court of Appeals gravely erred in declaring the child
Before us, petitioner contends that the trial court properly as his legitimate child.
annulled his marriage with respondent because as shown by the In a resolution dated 16 February 2004, the Court required
evidence and admissions of the parties, the marriage was respondent and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file
celebrated without a marriage license. He stresses that the their respective comments on the petition.13
affidavit they executed, in lieu of a marriage license, contained a In her Comment,14 respondent claims that the instant petition
false narration of facts, the truth being that he and respondent is a mere dilatory tactic to thwart the finality of the decision of the
never lived together as husband and wife. The false affidavit Court of Appeals. Echoing the findings and rulings of the appellate
should never be allowed or admitted as a substitute to fill the court, she argues that the legitimacy of their marriage cannot be
absence of a marriage license.10Petitioner additionally argues that attacked collaterally, but can only be repudiated or contested in a
there was no need for the appearance of a prosecuting attorney in direct suit specifically brought for that purpose. With regard to the
this case because it is only an ordinary action for support and not filiation of her child, she pointed out that compared to her candid
an action for annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of and straightforward testimony, petitioner was uncertain, if not
marriage. In any case, petitioner argues that the trial court had evasive in answering questions about their sexual encounters.
jurisdiction to determine the invalidity of their marriage since it Moreover, she adds that despite the challenge from her and from
was validly invoked as an affirmative defense in the instant action the trial court, petitioner strongly objected to being subjected to
for DNA testing to prove paternity and filiation.15

_______________ _______________

7 Id., at p. 40. 11 Niñal v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661; 328 SCRA 122 (2000).
8 Rollo, p. 41. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. I, 1990
9 Id., at pp. 43-44; Resolution dated 1 October 2003. Ed. and SEMPIO-DIY,HANDBOOK ON THE FAMILY CODE,
10 Id., at pp. 15-20. 1991 Ed.
168 12 Rollo, pp. 25-26.
13 Id., at p. 135.
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
14 Id., at pp. 119-126.
ANNOTATED 15 Id., at pp. 139-144.
De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro 169
support. Citing several authorities,11 petitioner claims that a void
VOL. 545, FEBRUARY 13, 169
marriage can be the subject of a collateral attack. Thus, there is no
necessity to institute another independent proceeding for the 2008
declaration of nullity of the marriage between the parties. The De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro
refiling of another case for declaration of nullity where the same For its part, the OSG avers that the Court of Appeals erred in
evidence and parties would be presented would entail enormous holding that it was improper for the trial court to declare null and
void the marriage of petitioner and respondent in the action for other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of
support. Citing the case of Niñal v. Bayadog,16 it states that courts heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate,
may pass upon the validity of a marriage in an action for support, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter,
since the right to support from petitioner hinges on the existence the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not
of a valid marriage. Moreover, the evidence presented during the directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to
proceedings in the trial court showed that the marriage between the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue
petitioner and respondent was solemnized without a marriage that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment
license, and that their affidavit (of a man and woman who have of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other
lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife than to remarry. The clause “on the basis of a final judgment
for at least five years) was false. Thus, it concludes the trial court declaring such previous marriage void” in Article 40 of the Family
correctly held that the marriage between petitioner and Code connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained only
respondent is not valid.17 In addition, the OSG agrees with the for purpose of remarriage.”20
findings of the trial court that the child is an illegitimate child of Likewise, in Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño,21 the Court ruled that it
petitioner and thus entitled to support.18 is clothed with sufficient authority to pass upon the validity of two
Two key issues are presented before us. First, whether the trial marriages despite the main case being a claim for death benefits.
court had the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage Reiterating Niñal, we held that the Court may pass upon the
between petitioner and respondent in an action for support validity of a marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to
and second, whether the child is the daughter of petitioner. question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to
Anent the first issue, the Court holds that the trial court had the determination of the case. However, evidence must be adduced,
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage between testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds
petitioner and respondent. The validity of a void marriage may be rendering such a marriage an absolute nullity.22
collaterally attacked.19 Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog, we held: Under the Family Code, the absence of any of the essential or
“However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, whereas
is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For a defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage
voidable.23 In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence
_______________ presented that petitioner and respondent did not have a marriage
license when they contracted their marriage. Instead, they
16 384 Phil. 661, 673; 328 SCRA 122, 136 (2000). presented an affidavit stating that
17 Rollo, pp. 174-182.
18 Id., at pp. 183-185. _______________
19 Vda. de Jacob v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 693, 704; 312

SCRA 772, 781 (1999), citing TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE 20 Niñal v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661, 675; 328 SCRA 122, 136

PHILIPPINES:COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE, Vol. (2000).

I, 1987 ed., p. 265. 21 Cariño v. Cariño, 403 Phil. 861; 351 SCRA 127 (2001).

170 22 Id., at p. 132.

23 FAMILY CODE, Art. 4.
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED 171
De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro
 VOL. 545, FEBRUARY 13, 171 ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found
2008 no legal impediment to the marriage.
25 TSN, 18 February 2000, p. 20.
De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro 26 Niñal v. Bayadog, 384 Phil. 661, 669; 328 SCRA 122, 129
they had been living together for more than five years. 24 However, (2000), citing THEREPORT OF THE CODE COMMISSION, p. 80.
respondent herself in effect admitted the falsity of the affidavit 172
when she was asked during cross-examination, thus—
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ATTY. CARPIO:
ANNOTATED
Q But despite of (sic) the fact that
De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro
you have not been living together
The false affidavit which petitioner and respondent executed so
as husband and wife for the last they could push through with the marriage has no value
five years on or before March 13, whatsoever; it is a mere scrap of paper. They were not exempt from
1995, you signed the Affidavit, is the marriage license requirement. Their failure to obtain and
that correct? present a marriage license renders their marriage void ab initio.
Anent the second issue, we find that the child is petitioner’s
A Yes, sir.25
illegitimate daughter, and therefore entitled to support.
The falsity of the affidavit cannot be considered as a mere
Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in
irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage. The law dispenses
the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate
with the marriage license requirement for a man and a woman who
children.27 Thus, one can prove illegitimate filiation through the
have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and
record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment,
wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five years
an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
before the marriage. The aim of this provision is to avoid exposing
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant
concerned, or the open and continuous possession of the status of a
with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid
legitimate child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
marriage due to the publication of every applicant’s name for a
and special laws.28
marriage license.26 In the instant case, there was no “scandalous
The Certificate of Live Birth29of the child lists petitioner as the
cohabitation” to protect; in fact, there was no cohabitation at all.
father. In addition, petitioner, in an affidavit waiving additional
tax exemption in favor of respondent, admitted that he is the father
_______________
of the child, thus stating:
“1. I am the legitimate father of REIANNA TRICIA A. DE CASTRO
24 Purportedly complying with Art. 34 of the Family Code,
who was born on November 3, 1995 at Better Living, Parañaque,
which provides:
Metro Manila;”30
Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and
woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least
_______________
five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other.
The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an 27 FAMILY CODE, Art. 175.
affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. 28 FAMILY CODE, Art. 172.
The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he
In the book Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines by pictures (Exhs. “D,” “D-1” and “D-2”), defendant is seen putting the
Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, p. 246 (1988), the following were given as wedding ring on petitioner’s finger and in another picture (Exhs.
examples of “other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special “E,” “E-1” and “E-2”) respondent is seen in the act of kissing the
laws:” (a) the baptismal certificate of the child; (b) a judicial petitioner.”31
admission; (c) the family bible wherein the name of the child is WHEREFORE, the petition is granted in part. The assailed
entered; (d) common reputation respecting pedigree; (e) admission Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No.
by silence; (f) testimonies of witnesses; and (g) other kinds of proof 69166 are SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court
admissible under Rule 130. Branch 70 of Pasig City in JDRC No. 4626 dated 16 October 2000
29 Records, p. 6. is hereby REINSTATED.
30 Id., at p. 160. SO ORDERED.
173 Quisumbing(Chairperson), Carpio, Velasco,
VOL. 545, FEBRUARY 13, 173 Jr. and Nachura,** JJ., concur.
2008 Petition granted in part, assailed decision and resolution set
aside. That of Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Br. 70 reinstated.
De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro
We are likewise inclined to agree with the following findings of the _______________
trial court:
“That Reinna Tricia is the child of the respondent with the 31 Rollo, pp. 93-94.
petitioner is supported not only by the testimony of the latter, but **As replacement of Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales who
also by respondent’s own admission in the course of his testimony inhibited herself per Administrative Circular No. 84-2007.
wherein he conceded that petitioner was his former girlfriend. 174
While they were sweethearts, he used to visit petitioner at the
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
latter’s house or clinic. At times, they would go to a motel to have
sex. As a result of their sexual dalliances, petitioner became ANNOTATED
pregnant which ultimately led to their marriage, though invalid, Quimpo, Sr. vs. Abad Vda. de Beltran
as earlier ruled. While respondent claims that he was merely forced Note.—An illegitimate child born after the effectivity of the
to undergo the marriage ceremony, the pictures taken of the Family Code has no right to use her father’s surname. Rule applies
occasion reveal otherwise (Exhs. “B,” “B-1,” to “B-3,” “C,” “C-1” and even if petitioner’s father admits paternity. (Leonardo vs. Court of
“C-2,” “D,” “D-1” and “D-2,” “E,” “E-1” and “E-2,” “F,” “F-1” and “F- Appeals, 410 SCRA 446[20003])
2,” “G,” “G-1” and “G-2” and “H,” “H-1” to “H-3”). In one of the