G.R. No. 265808 – LEONCIO L. MELOCOTON, petitioner, vs. JENNIFER B. PRING and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

J.Y. LOPEZ, J.

Rule Synopsis

A marriage is considered bigamous if it was contracted while a party’s marriage has not yet been legally dissolved. The petitioner must prove that his prior marriage is valid and subsisting at the time of his second marriage. A copy of the marriage certificate for the first marriage is insufficient to prove its validity and subsistence during the time of the celebration of the second marriage since such fact is not reflected in the said marriage certificate.

Facts

In 1981, Leoncio Melocoton (Melocoton) married Susan Jimenez (Jimenez).

In 1987, during the subsistence of his marriage with Jimenez, Melocoton married Jennifer Pring (Pring).

Melocoton had real properties he owned in common with his siblings and a residential house built using the money given by his mother.

In 2005, Melocoton filed a Petition for Nullity of Marriage, Correction of Entries with Prayer of Writ of Preliminary Mandatory, and Prohibitory Injunction against Pring contending, among others, that his marriage with the latter was null and void because he was already married to Jimenez. Melocoton further claimed that the real properties belong to him exclusively, and sought to have the entries in the certificates of title of the subject properties naming Pring as his wife, be stricken off from the titles.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition for nullity of marriage but denied the correction of entries in the certificates of title of the subject properties. Melcoton thus filed a partial appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), only raising the issue on the correction of entries in the certificates of title of the subject properties.

The CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the marriage between petitioner and respondent Pring is not bigamous, hence valid.

Hence, this petition.

Issues

1. Did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion in reviewing the RTC’s ruling on Melocoton’s declaration of marriage with Pring as void ab initio when it was not assigned as an error in the appeal?
2. Was the marriage of Melocoton and Pring valid?
3. Were the subject properties owned exclusively by Melocoton?

Ruling and Discussion

1. No. The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reviewing the RTC’s ruling on Melocoton’s declaration of marriage with Pring as void ab initio when it was not assigned as an error in the appeal.
   
   Generally, only matters assigned as errors in the appeal may be resolved by the CA. However, the CA may resolve matters not assigned as errors if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and just resolution of the case, or those that are closely related to or dependent on an assigned error.
   
   The exception applies in this case. The primordial issue on the nullity of marriage is intertwined or closely related with the error raised on appeal which is the issue on property relations. These issues are interdependent on each other since the property regime between the parties depends entirely on the status of their marriage. Without these two issues, there can be no complete resolution of the case.
2. Yes. The marriage of Melocoton and Pring was valid.
   
   A marriage is considered bigamous if it was contracted while a party’s marriage has not yet been legally dissolved. Bigamous or polygamous marriages are void from the beginning.
   
   The elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code follow: (a) the offender has been legally married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case their spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (c) that they contract a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
   
   Nonetheless, the law favors the validity of marriage, because the State is interested in the preservation of the family and the sanctity of the family is a matter of constitutional concern.
   
   Thus, Melcoton must show that his prior marriage with Jimenez is valid and subsisting at the time of his second marriage with Pring. However, there is no proof on record showing the status of Melcoton’s first marriage at the time he married Pring. He only presented the photocopy of the front page of him and Jimenez’ marriage certificate, which did not reflect that the same marriage subsists during the time of the celebration of the second marriage. Further, Melcoton’s narration that Jimenez is now living in the United States of America is self-serving and offers nothing of evidentiary value.
3. No. The subject properties were not owned exclusively by Melocoton.
   
   Melcoton’s and Pring’s marriage occurred prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, thus the Civil Code governs their property relations. Article 160 of the Civil Code provides that “[a]ll property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.”
   
   Here, the subject properties were all bought during the subsistence of marriage of petitioner and respondent. Notably, no evidence were presented as to their actual contribution in the acquisition of the subject properties. Thus, the subject properties are part of their conjugal partnership.

dispositive

Petition denied. Decision and Resolution of the CA affirmed.