G.R. No. 104818 September 17, 1993
ROBERTO DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DELIA SOLEDAD AVERA represented by her Attorney-in-Fact MOISES R. AVERA, respondents.

FACTS

On May 29, 1991, private respondent Delia Soledad A. Domingo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for “Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property” against petitioner Roberto Domingo. The petition alleged that they were married on November 29, 1976, but unknown to her, petitioner had a previous valid and subsisting marriage with Emerlina dela Paz on April 25, 1969. She discovered the prior marriage in 1983 when dela Paz sued them for bigamy. Private respondent, who worked in Saudi Arabia, claimed she purchased properties with her personal earnings totaling approximately P350,000.00, which were in petitioner’s possession and administration. She further alleged that in June 1989, she discovered petitioner was cohabiting with another woman and disposing of her properties without her consent. She appointed her brother as attorney-in-fact to manage her properties, but petitioner refused to turn them over. The petition prayed for a temporary restraining order, a declaration of nullity of their marriage, and a declaration that she is the sole owner of the properties acquired during their void marriage.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petition stated no cause of action, arguing that since the marriage was void ab initio, a judicial declaration of its nullity was superfluous and unnecessary. The trial court denied the motion, citing the need for a judicial declaration of nullity as established in Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. Instead of filing an answer, petitioner filed a special civil action of certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary, and if so, whether it should be filed only for purposes of remarriage.
2. Whether Special Proceedings No. 1989-J is the proper remedy for private respondent to recover her allegedly exclusive properties.

RULING

1. Yes, a judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of a void marriage is necessary. The Family Code settled the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of absolute nullity is explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. While the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is bigamous and void from the beginning, a judicial declaration is necessary to establish its nullity for all legal purposes. This requirement is not only for purposes of remarriage under Article 40 of the Family Code but also for other incidents such as the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties under the regime of co-ownership that governs void marriages.
2. Yes, the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property is a proper remedy. The Court held that the separation and distribution of properties acquired during a void union can only be properly determined upon a judicial declaration of the status of the marital relationship. To avoid multiplicity of suits, the declaration of nullity may be invoked together with the partition and distribution of properties. The Family Code provisions (Articles 48, 50, and 52) allow the invocation of absolute nullity of marriage together with other incidents of the marriage, such as the separation of properties. Therefore, the trial court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case, and the alleged error in denying the motion to dismiss was merely an error of law, not correctible by certiorari.