[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

MALLION v. ALCANTARA

The petitioner filed two petitions seeking to nullify his marriage to the respondent. The first petition alleged psychological incapacity and was denied by the trial court. The second petition alleged lack of a valid marriage license. The Supreme Court ruled that the second petition was barred by res judicata, as both petitions concerned the same cause of action - the declaration of nullity of the marriage - and the grounds cited were just different aspects of the same issue that had already been resolved. As the validity of the marriage celebration had already been conceded, any defects were deemed waived.

Uploaded by

Ryw
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

MALLION v. ALCANTARA

The petitioner filed two petitions seeking to nullify his marriage to the respondent. The first petition alleged psychological incapacity and was denied by the trial court. The second petition alleged lack of a valid marriage license. The Supreme Court ruled that the second petition was barred by res judicata, as both petitions concerned the same cause of action - the declaration of nullity of the marriage - and the grounds cited were just different aspects of the same issue that had already been resolved. As the validity of the marriage celebration had already been conceded, any defects were deemed waived.

Uploaded by

Ryw
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

OSCAR MALLION vs.

EDITHA ALCANTARA
G.R. NO. 141528 OCTOBER 31, 2006

FACTS:
On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar Mallion filed a petition with the RTC seeking a declaration of nullity
of marriage to respondent Editha Alcantara under Article 36 of Executive Order No. 209, citing respondent’s
alleged psychological incapacity.

The RTC denied the petition finding that he failed to adduce preponderant evidence to warrant the grant
of the relief he is seeking.” The appeal filed with the CA was likewise dismissed for the failure of petitioner to pay
the docket and other lawful fees within the required period.

After the decision attained its finality, petitioner filed another petition for the declaration of nullity of
marriage with the regional trial court alleging that his marriage with respondent was null and void due to the fact
that it was celebrated without a valid marriage license. Respondent filed an answer with motion to dismiss on
the ground of res judicata and forum shopping. Her petition was granted.

ISSUE:
Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological
incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license?

RULING:
Section 47 (b) pertains to in its concept as “bar by prior judgment” or “estoppel by verdict,” which is the
effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of
action. On the other hand, Section 47 (c) pertains to res judicata in its concept as “conclusiveness of judgment”
or otherwise known as the rule of auter action pendant which ordains that issues actually and directly resolved
in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause
of action. Res judicata in its concept as a bar by prior judgment obtains in this present case.

Petitioner forgets that he is simply invoking grounds for the same cause of action. By definition, a cause
of action is the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. In both petitions, petitioner has the
same cause – the declaration of nullity of marriage. What differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is
predicated. These grounds cited by petitioner essentially split the various aspects of the pivotal issue that holds
the key to the resolution of this controversy.

Therefore, having expressly and impliedly conceded the validity of their marriage celebration, petitioner
is now deemed to have waived any defects therein. For this reason, the Court finds that the present action for
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license is barred.

The petition is denied for lack of merit.

You might also like