G.R. 169766 | March 30, 2011 Art.
48: Annulment Procedure and Collusion
Juliano-Llave v. Republic Juliano-Llave v. Republic
I. Recit-ready Summary In 1994, Zorayda Tamano and her son Adib Tamano filed a complaint
Estrellita Juliano-Llave and Sen. Mamintal A.J. Tamano were wed with the QC RTC for the declaration of nullity of marriage between
twice, under Islamic laws in Cotabato City and in a civil ceremony in Lanao Estrellita and Sen. Tamano for being BIGAMOUS. Acc. To Zorayda, she
del Sur in 1993. Estrellita has been representing herself as Sen. Tamano’s and Sen. Tamano were married under civil rights in 1958, and that marriage
wife and, after his death 11 months later, his widow. In 1994, Zorayda was subsisting when he married Estrellita. Estrellita argued that the former
Tamano and her son Adib Tamano filed a complaint with the QC RTC for couple are Muslims, married under Muslim rites, and were divorced, which
the declaration of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano renders her marriage with Sen. Tamano valid. Estrellita delayed the case by
for being BIGAMOUS. Acc. To Zorayda, she and Sen. Tamano were filing for a motion to dismiss and postponements of presentation of her
married under civil rites in 1958, and that marriage was subsisting when he evidence. Zorayda and Adib moved to submit the case for decision. The
married Estrellita. The RTC declared Estrellita’s marriage with Sen. RTC declared Estrellita’s marriage with Sen. Tamano as VOID AB INITIO,
Tamano as VOID AB INITIO, because the marital ties of Sen. Tamano and because the marital ties of Sen. Tamano and Zorayda were never severed,
Zorayda were never severed, thus rendering Estrellita’s marriage with him thus rendering Estrellita’s marriage with him BIGAMOUS (art 35 of
BIGAMOUS (art 35 of Family Code). Family Code).
Estrellita appealed to the CA, and the CA affirmed the RTC’s Estrellita appealed to the CA, and the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.
decision. She filed for reconsideration, but was denied. Hence, the petition. Estrellita alleged that Sen. Tamano had divorced Zorayda under the Muslim
The main issues are whether or not the judgment is invalid for not Code, and that Zorayda has no legal standing to question the validity of her
having had the required report of the public prosecutor on collusion between marriage. However, the CA held that Zorayda and Sen. Tamano’s marriage
the parties, whether or not Estrellita and Sen. Tamano’s marriage is void ab was under civil rites, not Muslim law (the latter celebration was purely
initio, and whether or not Zorayda has legal standing to attack the marriage. ceremonial), and being done in 1958, it is governed by the Civil Code,
The Supreme Court held that first, records show there was actually a which does not provide for absolute divorce. This means that Zorayda,
report filed which stated that there was no collusion. Further, even if there
being the legal and actual wife of Sen. Tamano has the legal standing to
was a lack of a report, the open animosity between the parties precluded any
attack the validity of Estrellita’s marriage because she is the injured party.
notions of collusion between them, and would not render the lack of a report
to be fatal to the judgment. Second, Zorayda and Sen. Tamano’s marriage Estrellita petitioned for reconsideration and further alleged that the lack of
was under civil rites and Muslim rites, and being done in 1958, it is the public prosecutor’s report on the existence of collusion should have
governed by the Civil Code, which does not provide for absolute divorce. invalidated the RTC’s judgment, because it is in violation of the Rules of
This means that Estrellita’s marriage is void from the beginning. Third, Court and Art. 48 of the Family Code. The CA denied the motion because
Zorayda and Adib have legal standing because they are the injured parties the proceedings between the parties had been adversarial, which negated the
with regards to the second bigamous marriage contracted by Sen. Tamano. existence of collusion. Therefore rendering the lack of a report non-fatal to
With that, the Court DENIED the petition. the judgment.
Hence, this petition.
II. Facts of the Case
Estrellita Juliano-Llave and Sen. Mamintal A.J. Tamano were wed III. Issue/s
twice, under Islamic laws in Cotabato City and in a civil ceremony in Lanao 1. Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's judgment,
del Sur in 1993. In the marriage contract, Sen. Tamano’s indicated his civil even though the latter was rendered prematurely because: […] c) the
status as DIVORCED. Estrellita has been representing herself as Sen. public prosecutor did not even conduct an investigation whether there
Tamano’s wife and, after his death 11 months later, his widow. was collusion (NO).
1
Persons 1, 2019 PETITIONER/APPELLANT: Estrellita Juliano-Llave
DIGEST AUTHOR: Maxi Asuncion RESPONDENT: Republic of the Phil, Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano and
Adib Ahmad A. Tamano
G.R. 169766 | March 30, 2011 Art. 48: Annulment Procedure and Collusion
Juliano-Llave v. Republic Juliano-Llave v. Republic
2. Whether the marriage between Estrellita and the late Sen. Tamano Estrellita argues that Zorayda’s marital ties have been severed by way of
was bigamous (YES, it is void ab initio). divorce under PD1083, the law that codified Muslim personal laws.
3. Whether Zorayda and Adib have the legal standing to have However, this is not true. The law only applies to “marriage and divorce
Estrellita's marriage declared void ab initio. (YES). wherein one or both parties are Muslims and the marriage is solemnized in
accordance with Muslim law or this Code.” The Court has previously ruled
IV. Holding/s that the law doesn’t provide for the situation where the parties were married
1. No, the CA did NOT ERR in affirming the trial court’s judgment, both in civil and Muslim rites. Moreover, the Muslim Code only took effect
even without the public prosecutor’s report on collusion (because in 1977, and this law cannot retroactively override the Civil Code, which
there actually was a report). was the law in effect at the time of Zorayda’s marriage and is the governing
Article 48 of the Family Code and Rule 9, Sec. 3 (e) of the Rules of Court, law. Therefore, the CA correctly judged Zorayda’s marriage to have still
the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and been subsisting at the time Estrellita married Sen. Tamano. This bigamous
Annulment of Voidable Marriages require the participation of the public marriage is void from the beginning.
prosecutor in cases involving void marriages. It requires the public
prosecutor to investigate and submit a report on whether or not there is 3. YES, Zorayda and Adib have legal standing to question the validity
collusion between the parties. Records show that the RTC directed the of the marriage.
public prosecutor to do so, and this requirement has been sufficiently Estrellita relies on AM No. 02-11-10-SC which she interprets to be that
complied with. Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo Paragua attested in his only the husband or wife may file a petition for declaration of absolute
Manifestation (March 30, 1995) that there could be no collusion between nullity, or attack the validity of the marriage. However, this interpretation
the parties and no fabrication of evidence because Estrellita is not the does not apply if the reason is bigamy. The Court has explained the AM
spouse of any of the private respondents. Furthermore, lack of collusion is thus:
already evident. Even if there was a lack of a report or participation by “Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may le a petition for annulment of
public prosecutor, it has been previously held (in Tuason v. CA) that this voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such
petition cannot be led by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the
lack of participation does not invalidate the proceedings in the trial court. State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to le
The importance of the report is to ensure that evidence is neither suppressed the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to
nor fabricated. The open animosity between the parties negates any the death of their predecessor, and hence can only question the validity of the
presupposition of collusion. marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse led in the regular courts. On the
other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its
2.YES, the marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano was
dissolution.”
bigamous, and is therefore void ab initio. The “injured spouse” in a situation involving bigamy is obviously the one in
Zorayda’s marriage was celebrated in 1958, solemnized under civil and the subsisting previous marriage. It has been held that in a void marriage, in
Muslim rites. At the time, the Civil Code of 1950 was what governed which no marriage has taken place and cannot be the source of rights, any
marriage relationships between both Muslims and Non-Muslims. The Civil interested party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally without
Code stipulates that only one marriage can exist at any given time, and prescription, which may be led even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the
divorce is not recognized, except during the effectivity of RA 394 (an act marriage. Since A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply, Adib, as one of the
recognizing divorce among Muslims), however this was not availed of. children of the deceased who has property rights as an heir, is likewise
2
Persons 1, 2019 PETITIONER/APPELLANT: Estrellita Juliano-Llave
DIGEST AUTHOR: Maxi Asuncion RESPONDENT: Republic of the Phil, Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano and
Adib Ahmad A. Tamano
G.R. 169766 | March 30, 2011 Art. 48: Annulment Procedure and Collusion
Juliano-Llave v. Republic Juliano-Llave v. Republic
considered to be the real party in interest in the suit he and his mother had
led since both of them stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit.
V. Law or Doctrine Applied
RULES OF COURT
Sec. 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor. —
(1) Within one month after receipt of the court order mentioned in
paragraph (3) of Section 8 above, the public prosecutor shall submit a report
to the court stating whether the parties are in collusion and serve copies
thereof on the parties and their respective counsels, if any.
(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall state the
basis thereof in his report. The parties shall le their respective comments on
the finding of collusion within ten days from receipt of a copy of the report.
The court shall set the report for hearing and if convinced that the parties
are in collusion, it shall dismiss the petition.
(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the court
shall set the case for pre-trial. It shall be the duty of the public prosecutor to
appear for the State at the pre-trial.
ARTICLE 48 OF THE FAMILY CODE
In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage,
the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to
appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the
parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall
be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. (88a)
VI. Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed August 17, 2004
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61762, as well as its
subsequent Resolution issued on September 13, 2005, are hereby
AFFIRMED.
VII. Random Facts
• Ponente: Del Castillo, J.
3
Persons 1, 2019 PETITIONER/APPELLANT: Estrellita Juliano-Llave
DIGEST AUTHOR: Maxi Asuncion RESPONDENT: Republic of the Phil, Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano and
Adib Ahmad A. Tamano
