G.R. No. 169766 ; March 30, 2011
ESTRELLITA JULIANO-LLAVE, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HAJA PUTRI ZORAYDA A. TAMANO and ADIB AHMAD A. TAMANO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Estrellita Juliano-Llave married Senator Mamintal A.J. Tamano twice in 1993: first under Islamic laws on May 27, and then under a civil ceremony on June 2. In both marriage contracts, the Senator declared his status as “divorced.” After the Senator’s death, private respondents Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda) and her son Adib Ahmad A. Tamano (Adib), representing herself as the Senator’s legitimate wife and their children, filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between Estrellita and the Senator on the ground of bigamy. They alleged that Zorayda and the Senator were married under civil rites on May 31, 1958, and that this marriage was still subsisting when he married Estrellita in 1993. They contended the subsequent marriage was void under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, and that the Senator could not have validly divorced Zorayda under the Civil Code or under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (P.D. 1083) as their marriage was not registered to be governed by Muslim law.
Estrellita filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the RTC had no jurisdiction because questions on Muslim marriages and divorce fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of shari’a courts, claiming both the Senator and Zorayda were Muslims married under Muslim rites. The RTC denied the motion and asserted its jurisdiction. Estrellita filed a certiorari petition, which eventually reached the Supreme Court ( G.R. No. 126603 ). While that petition was pending, the RTC continued the trial. Estrellita participated but repeatedly sought postponements when it was her turn to present evidence. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction in a Resolution dated June 29, 1998.
Before the finality of that Supreme Court resolution, the RTC rendered its Decision on August 18, 1998, declaring Estrellita’s marriage to the Senator void ab initio for being bigamous. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision, ruling that Estrellita was given ample opportunity to be heard but failed to file an answer and sought numerous postponements, and that her marriage was void as Zorayda’s marriage to the Senator was governed by the Civil Code, which does not allow absolute divorce.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the marriage between petitioner Estrellita Juliano-Llave and Senator Mamintal A.J. Tamano is void ab initio on the ground of bigamy, considering the prior subsisting marriage between the Senator and respondent Zorayda under the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
1. On Procedural Matters: The Court held that Estrellita was not denied due process. She was given ample opportunity to present her case but chose to delay the proceedings through multiple postponements and by not filing an answer. A petition for certiorari is an independent action that does not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a restraining order is issued. The RTC validly proceeded with the trial and rendered judgment.
2. On the Validity of the Marriage (Bigamy): The Court ruled that the marriage between Estrellita and Senator Tamano is void ab initio for being bigamous. The evidence established that the prior marriage between Senator Tamano and Zorayda was solemnized under civil law on May 31, 1958. This marriage, celebrated under the Civil Code, remained subsisting as it was never legally dissolved. The Civil Code does not recognize absolute divorce. The subsequent Muslim marriage ceremony between the Senator and Zorayda was merely ceremonial and did not convert their civil marriage into one governed by Muslim law, as they did not register their mutual desire to be covered by P.D. 1083 (the Muslim Code). Therefore, the Senator was not legally capacitated to marry Estrellita in 1993.
3. On Legal Standing: The Court held that Zorayda, as the lawful wife under the subsisting civil marriage, is the injured party and has the legal personality to file the action for declaration of nullity of the bigamous subsequent marriage. Her children, as legitimate heirs, also have a direct interest in the matter.
4. On Applicable Law: The Court emphasized that the marriage between Zorayda and the Senator, celebrated under the Civil Code, is governed by that law. Subsequent laws, like the Family Code and the Muslim Code, cannot impair vested rights pertaining to the protection of a legitimate union. The Family Code’s provision declaring a bigamous marriage void (Article 35[4]) applies to the subsequent marriage of Estrellita and the Senator.