GR 160172; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160172 ; February 13, 2008
REINEL ANTHONY B. DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs. ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Reinel Anthony De Castro and respondent Annabelle Assidao-De Castro planned to marry in 1994. Their marriage license expired, so they executed an affidavit falsely stating they had cohabited for at least five years, as required under Article 34 of the Family Code to exempt them from a license. They married on March 13, 1995, but never lived together. Respondent gave birth to Reianna Tricia on November 13, 1995. In 1998, respondent filed a complaint for support for herself and the child.
Petitioner denied the marriage’s validity, claiming it was void ab initio due to the absence of a valid license and the falsity of the affidavit. He also denied paternity. The Regional Trial Court ruled the marriage invalid for lack of a license but declared petitioner the child’s natural father, ordering support. The Court of Appeals modified the decision, declaring the child legitimate and the marriage valid until annulled in a proper proceeding.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the trial court, in an action for support, could collaterally declare the parties’ marriage null and void.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal principle is that a marriage, even one allegedly void from the beginning, is presumed valid until declared otherwise by a competent court in a direct proceeding for annulment or declaration of nullity. A collateral attack on its validity in a different action, such as this case for support, is impermissible.
The Court explained that an action for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage requires specific safeguards, including the participation of the prosecuting attorney to prevent collusion and ensure evidence is not fabricated. These safeguards are absent in a mere support case. Petitioner’s defense that the marriage was void due to a defective affidavit is a matter that must be raised in a separate, direct action. Consequently, for purposes of the support obligation, the marriage between the parties and the legitimacy of the child born during its subsistence must be upheld. The child is presumed legitimate under Article 164 of the Family Code, and petitioner failed to rebut this presumption with clear and convincing evidence in the proper forum. The obligation to support thus stands.