Amelia Garcia

AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON and MARIA JENNIFER
QUIAZON vs. MA. LOURDES BELEN, for and in behalf of MARIA LOURDES ELISE
QUIAZON
G.R. No. 189121 July 31, 2013
DOCTRINE:
In a void marriage, it was though no marriage has taken place, thus, it cannot be the source
of rights. A void marriage can be questioned even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the
marriage 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.
FACTS:
In 1992, Eliseo died intestate. Consequently, respondent Elise, represented by her mother,
Lourdes, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration before the RTC. Respondent claimed that
she is the natural child of Eliseo having been conceived and born at the time when her parents
were both capacitated to marry each other. They also assailed the validity of Eliseo’s marriage to
petitioner Amelia claiming that it was bigamous for having been contracted during the
subsistence of the latter’s marriage with Filipito. Respondent attached her Certificate of Live
Birth signed by Eliseo as proof of her filiation to the decedent.
On the other hand, petitioners opposed the issuance of the letters of administration claiming that
the venue of the petition was improperly laid. They asserted that as shown by his Death
Certificate, Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las Piñas City, at the time of his
death. Thus, pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petition for the
settlement of decedent’s estate should have been filed in Capas, Tarlac.
The RTC directed the issuance of Letters of Administration to Elise upon posting the necessary
bond and it ruled that the venue of the petition was properly laid in Las Piñas City. Upon appeal,
the CA affirmed RTC’s decision finding that Elise was able to prove that Eliseo and Lourdes
lived together as husband and wife by establishing a common residence at Las Piñas City.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in declaring Amelia’s marriage to Eliseo as void ab initio
RULING:
No. In the absence of any showing the marriage between Amelia and Filipito had been dissolved
at the time Amelia and Eliseo’s marriage was solemnized, the inescapable conclusion is that the
latter marriage is bigamous and, therefore, void ab initio.
Where estate of the deceased person settled: Residence of the decedent

Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the
estate of a decedent should be filed in the RTC of the province where the decedent resides at the
time of his death. The term “resides” means the “actual residence” as distinguished from “legal
residence.” Thus, “resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode.
Therefore, the CA cannot be faulted for affirming the ruling of the RTC that the venue for the
settlement of the estate of Eliseo was properly laid in Las Piñas City. It is evident from the
records that during his lifetime, Eliseo resided at Las Piñas City. Thus, venue for the
settlement of his estate may be laid in the said city.
Cause of action for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the void marriage
At the time of the marriage of Eliseo and Amelia, the law in effect was the Civil Code and not
the Family Code. In Niñal case, it emphasized that in a void marriage, no marriage has taken
place thus, it cannot be the source of rights. Any interested party may attack the marriage directly
or collaterally. A void marriage can be questioned even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the
marriage.
There is no doubt that Elise, whose successional rights would be prejudiced by her father’s
marriage to Amelia, may impugn the existence of such marriage even after the death of her
father. The said marriage may be questioned directly by filing an action attacking the validity
thereof, or collaterally by raising it as an issue in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of
the deceased spouse, such as in the case at bar.
Void marriage for being bigamous

The existence of a previous marriage between Amelia and Filipito was sufficiently
established by no less than the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Diocese of Tarlac and
signed by the officiating priest of the Parish of San Nicolas de Tolentino in Capas, Tarlac. The
said marriage certificate is a competent evidence of marriage. In the absence of any showing that
such marriage had been dissolved at the time Amelia and Eliseo’s marriage was solemnized, the
inescapable conclusion is that the latter marriage is bigamous and, therefore, void ab initio.

Amelia Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amelia Garcia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amelia Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON and MARIA JENNIFER

Where estate of the deceased person settled: Residence of the decedent

Void marriage for being bigamous

You might also like