G.R. No. L-53703. August 19, 1986.
LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel filed an action for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to petitioner Lilia Oliva Wiegel, celebrated in July 1978. The ground alleged was that Lilia had a prior subsisting marriage to Eduardo A. Maxion, solemnized on June 25, 1972. Lilia admitted the fact of the first marriage but claimed it was null and void. She asserted that both she and Maxion were forced into that union and, alternatively, that Maxion was already married to another person at the time of their 1972 wedding.
During pre-trial, the parties agreed to frame the issue on the legal effect of force allegedly exerted upon both parties to the first marriage: whether it rendered the marriage void or merely voidable. The respondent judge subsequently issued an order compelling the parties to submit the case for resolution based on these agreed facts. Lilia contested this, filing a motion to present evidence on both the alleged force and the alleged prior marriage of Maxion. The respondent judge denied this motion, prompting Lilia to file the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner the opportunity to present evidence on the nullity of her first marriage.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is clear and renders the proffered evidence immaterial to the core issue. First, on the allegation of force, the Court applied Article 85 of the Civil Code, which provides that a marriage contracted through force or intimidation is voidable, not void. Assuming the force was proven, the first marriage would remain valid and subsisting until annulled by a judicial decree. Since no such annulment was secured, Lilia was still legally married to Maxion when she married Karl Heinz Wiegel, making her second marriage void under Article 80 of the Civil Code.
Second, regarding the allegation that Maxion had a prior existing marriage, the Court ruled such evidence was also unnecessary. Even if that first marriage of Maxion was void ab initio, it would still require a judicial declaration of nullity for all legal purposes. Absent such declaration, Lilia’s marriage to Maxion would be considered valid and subsisting at the time of her subsequent marriage. Consequently, her marriage to respondent Wiegel would still be void. Therefore, the respondent judge correctly limited the proceedings to the agreed facts, as the proposed evidence would not alter the legal outcome. The assailed orders were affirmed.