G.R. No. 207324 . September 30, 2020.
MARY ELIZABETH MERCADO, PETITIONER, VS. RENE V. ONGPIN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On February 5, 1972, respondent Rene V. Ongpin married Alma D. Mantaring. Mantaring later obtained a divorce decree from Nevada, USA. Believing the divorce was valid, Ongpin married petitioner Mary Elizabeth Mercado, a US citizen, on April 21, 1989, in New Jersey, USA. They separated on March 16, 2000. Subsequently, Ongpin obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Mantaring on November 25, 2003. On January 8, 2006, Ongpin filed a petition to declare his marriage to Mercado null and void under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, arguing that at the time of his second marriage, his first marriage was still valid because Mantaring was a Filipino citizen when she obtained the divorce, making it ineffectual. Mercado countered that their marriage was valid under Article 26 of the Family Code and claimed the petition was a scheme to evade liability in a separate civil case for separation of property she had filed in 2002. She also sought moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage void and awarded Mercado moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals deleted these awards, prompting Mercado to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition for Review raises questions of fact not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition; and whether Mary Elizabeth Mercado is entitled to moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. On the first issue, the Court held that the determination of bad faith is a question of fact, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally conclusive and not reviewable in a Rule 45 petition, especially when supported by substantial evidence. On the second issue, the Court ruled that Mercado is not entitled to damages or attorney’s fees. To be liable for damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code, malice or bad faith must be proved. The Court of Appeals found that Ongpin believed in good faith that the divorce decree obtained by his first wife was valid, as he thought she was a US citizen, and he only discovered its invalidity after consulting a lawyer post-marriage. Mercado failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ongpin acted with deliberate intent to injure her or with conscious wrongdoing. Without a finding of bad faith, the awards of moral and exemplary damages cannot stand. Consequently, the award of attorney’s fees was also properly deleted, as both parties incurred expenses to protect their interests, and there was no showing that Ongpin’s act of filing the petition was manifestly frivolous or in bad faith.