G.R. No. L-23214 June 30, 1970
OFELIA GOMEZ, as Administratrix of the Estate of the late ISIDRA GOMEZ Y AQUINO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOAQUIN P. LIPANA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Joaquin P. Lipana, contracted two marriages: the first with Maria Loreto Ancino in 1930 and the second with Isidra Gomez y Aquino in 1935. At the time of the second marriage, the first was still subsisting, a fact Lipana concealed from Isidra Gomez. On December 17, 1943, the spouses of the second marriage acquired a piece of land in Cubao, Quezon City. The Torrens title was issued on February 1, 1944, in the name of “Joaquin Lipana married to Isidra Gomez.” Isidra Gomez died intestate and childless on July 20, 1958. On August 7, 1961, Ofelia Gomez, as judicial administratrix of Isidra’s estate, filed a suit praying for the forfeiture of Lipana’s share in the Cubao property in favor of the estate, relying on Article 1417 of the old Civil Code. The trial court applied Article 1417, declared the second marriage void ab initio, and ordered the forfeiture of Lipana’s interest in the property in favor of the estate.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing a collateral attack on the validity of the second marriage and in holding it to be bigamous and void ab initio.
2. Whether the trial court erred in holding that Article 1417 of the Spanish Civil Code is applicable in this case.

RULING

1. No, the trial court did not err. The applicable law is Act 3613 (the Marriage Law). Section 29 thereof provides that a marriage contracted during the lifetime of a first spouse is illegal and void from its performance, with specific exceptions. The defendant did not prove he fell under any exception (e.g., annulment of the first marriage or the first spouse’s absence under conditions outlined in the law). Since his first marriage was neither annulled nor dissolved, and the second marriage occurred less than seven years after the first without proof the first wife was generally considered dead, the second marriage was void ab initio under Section 29.
2. Yes, the trial court erred in applying Article 1417. The facts do not call for its application. Article 1417 provides for the forfeiture of the guilty spouse’s share in the conjugal partnership upon the termination of the partnership by either dissolution of the marriage or declaration of its nullity. In this case, the conjugal partnership from the second marriage terminated upon the dissolution by the death of Isidra Gomez in 1958. By that time, Article 1417 was no longer in force, having been eliminated in the new Civil Code which took effect in 1950. Furthermore, the article contemplates a judicial declaration of nullity as the terminating event for the partnership, which did not occur here prior to dissolution by death. Applying forfeiture would also prejudice the rights of the first wife, Maria Loreto Ancino, who, as a conjugal partner in the still-subsisting first marriage or as a putative heir, has an interest in the husband’s share of the property acquired during that marriage’s existence. The equitable solution is to recognize the second wife’s right to one-half of the property as her share, with the other half pertaining to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage.
The decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed.