April 2016 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016 - RENATO A. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO, Respondent.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016
RENATO A. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 in CA-G.R. CV No. 90153 and the Resolution2 that affirmed the same. The CA reversed the Decision3 dated 23 March 2007 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 84.
The RTC had granted the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage between the parties on the ground that respondent had a previous valid marriage before she married petitioner. The CA believes on the other hand, that respondent was not prevented from contracting a second marriage if the first one was an absolutely nullity, and for this purpose she did not have to await a final decree of nullity of the first marriage.
The only issue that must be resolved by the Court is whether the CA was correct in holding thus and consequentially reversing the RTC's declaration of nullity of the second marriage.
On 25 May 1972, respondent Lea P. De Leon Castillo (Lea) married Benjamin Bautista (Bautista). On 6 January 1979, respondent married herein petitioner Renato A. Castillo (Renato).
On 28 May 2001, Renato filed before the RTC a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,4 praying that his marriage to Lea be declared void due to her subsisting marriage to Bautista and her psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The CA states in its Decision that petitioner did not pursue the ground of psychological incapacity in the RTC. The reason for this finding by the CA while unclear, is irrelevant in this Petition.
Respondent opposed the Petition, and contended among others that her marriage to Bautista was null and void as they had not secured any license therefor, and neither of them was a member of the denomination to which the solemnizing officer belonged.5
On 3 January 2002, respondent filed an action to declare her first marriage to Baustista void. On 22 January 2003, the Regional Trial Court of Para