9/1/24, 11:54 PM Mercado vs.
Ongpin
Title
Mercado vs. Ongpin
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 207324 Sep 30, 2020
In the case of Mercado v. Ongpin, the Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the Court of
Appeals, stating that the petitioner failed to prove bad faith and injury in her petition for
the nullity of a marriage based on bigamy.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 207324)
Comprehensive
Facts:
In the case of Mercado v. Ongpin (G.R. No. 207324), Mary Elizabeth Mercado (petitioner)
and Rene V. Ongpin (respondent) were embroiled in a legal dispute concerning the nullity
of their marriage. Ongpin had previously married Alma D. Mantaring on February 5, 1972,
in Quezon City. Mantaring later obtained a divorce decree from the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada, USA. Believing he was divorced, Ongpin married Mercado on April 21,
1989, in Princeton, New Jersey, USA. The couple separated on March 16, 2000. Ongpin
subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Mantaring on
November 25, 2003. On January 8, 2006, Ongpin filed a petition for the declaration of
nullity of his marriage to Mercado before the Bacoor, Cavite Regional Trial Court, citing
Article 35 (4) of the Family Code, which voids bigamous marriages. Ongpin claimed that
Mantaring was still a Filipino citizen when she obtained the divorce decree, making his
marriage to Mercado bigamous. Mercado argued that their marriage was valid under Article
26 of the Family Code and claimed that Ongpin's petition was a scheme to evade liability in
a separate civil case for the separation of property. The Regional Trial Court declared the
marriage void and awarded Mercado moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Ongpin appealed, and the Court of Appeals deleted the damages and fees, finding that
Ongpin acted in good faith. Mercado then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the
Supreme Court.
Issue:
1. Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Regional
Trial Court's findings and deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees to Mercado?
2. Is Mercado entitled to moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees?
Ruling:
[Link] 1/2
9/1/24, 11:54 PM Mercado vs. Ongpin
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which deleted the award of moral and exemplary
damages and attorney's fees to Mercado.
Ratio:
The Supreme Court held that malice or bad faith must be proved to sustain an action for
damages based on Article 19 of the Civil Code. The Court found that Ongpin believed in
good faith that the divorce decree obtained by Mantaring was valid and binding, as he
thought she was already a United States citizen. The Court of Appeals correctly held that
Ongpin did not deliberately contract a second marriage knowing that his first marriage
subsisted. The Supreme Court emphasized that bad faith involves a dishonest purpose or
some moral obloquy and a conscious doing of a wrong, which was not established in this
case. Mercado failed to prove Ongpin's bad faith by clear and convincing evidence.
Additionally, the Court found that Mercado had known about the potential invalidity of the
divorce decree as early as 1992 and did not take any action to protect her civil status.
Therefore, she was not entitled to moral or exemplary damages. The award of attorney's
fees was also deleted, as both parties incurred costs to protect their interests. The Supreme
Court noted that once a case has been submitted for decision, the petitioning party cannot
withdraw their appeal at their election, and the grant or denial of the withdrawal is at the
court's discretion. The Court concluded that the public interest demands that justice be
done, irrespective of whether the defendant will be favored or prejudiced.
[Link] 2/2
