BAM’s DIGEST
TOPIC: Void Marriages
35. Garcia-Quiazon v Belen G.R. No. 189121, July 31, 2013
Doctrine: A void marriage, such as one entered into despite the existence of a previous un-
annulled marriage, does not produce legal rights and can be directly or collaterally contested by
any interested party even after the death of one spouse.
Petitioners: Amelia Garcia-Quiazon (wife), Jenneth Quiazon and Maria Jennifer Quiazon
(children)
Respondent: Ma. Lourdes Belen (common law wife), for and in behalf of Maria Lourdes Elise
Quiazon (daughter)
Facts:
• Respondents filed a Petition for Letters of Administration of the Estate of Eliseo Quiazon
(Eliseo) before the RTC of Las Piñas, who died intestate. This was opposed by petitioners.
• Elise claimed that she is Eliseo’s natural child, conceived and born at the time when her
parents were both capacitated to marry each other.
• Elise claimed that Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia was void for being bigamous as Amelia was
allegedly still married to another man (Filipito) at the time of their marriage.
• Petitioners argued on procedural defect – improper venue, and lack of factual and legal
bases for Elise to be appointed administratix of Eliseo’s estate.
• The RTC ruled in favor of Elise, issuing Letters of Administration to Elise, which was
affirmed by the CA.
• The CA held that Elise was able to prove that Eliseo and Lourdes lived together as husband
and wife by establishing a common residence until Eliseo’s death.
Issue:
1. WON Elise has a cause of action to attack the validity of Amelia and Eliseo’s marriage.
2. WON Amelia’s marriage to Eliseo was bigamous and therefore, void ab initio.
Ruling:
1. YES. Elise, as a compulsory heir, has a cause of action for the declaration of the absolute nullity
of the void marriage of Eliseo and Amelia, and the death of either party to the said marriage does
not extinguish such cause of action.
The Court applied the ruling in Niñal v Bayadog as the marriage was celebrated during the
effectivity of the Civil Code, not the Family Code.
It was emphasized in Niñal that in a void marriage, no marriage has taken place and it cannot be
the source of rights, such that any interested party may attack the marriage directly or collaterally
without prescription, which may be filed even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the marriage.
Here, 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.
2. YES. The Court held that Amelia’s marriage to Eliseo is void ab initio for being bigamous.
The existence of a previous marriage between Amelia and Filipito was sufficiently established by
no less than the Certificate of Marriage which is a competent evidence of marriage and the
certification from the National Archive that no information relative to the said marriage exists
does not diminish the probative value of the entries therein.
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.
