David vs Calilong
Facts: Marriage and Children: Lucila David married Rene F. Aguas on November 24, 1981, in Mabalacat, Pampanga.
They had five children: Princess Luren D. Aguas, Danica Lane D. Aguas, Sean Patrick D. Aguas, Sean Michael D. Aguas,
and Samantha D. Aguas (collectively, the Aguas heirs).
Nullity of First Marriage: On December 10, 2003, Rene filed a petition to declare his marriage with Lucila null and void
on the ground of Lucila's psychological incapacity. The court granted the petition on December 22, 2005, declaring the
marriage null and void (2005 Nullity Decision). The decision also ordered the division of conjugal properties, including
a parcel of land in Sunset Valley Estate, Angeles City, and the delivery of presumptive legitimes to the Aguas heirs.
However, the decision was not registered with the Registry of Deeds, and no actual partition or delivery of legitimes
occurred.
Second Marriage: On October 7, 2006, Rene married Cherry S. Calilung.
Death of Rene: Rene died intestate on November 17, 2015.
Settlement of Estate: On May 24, 2017, Cherry filed a petition for the settlement of Rene's intestate estate (Special
Proceeding Case No. R-ANG-17-01449-SP). The Aguas heirs opposed the petition, arguing that the properties acquired
during Rene's first marriage should not be included in the estate of the second marriage due to non-compliance with
Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code.
Petition for Nullity of Second Marriage: On November 3, 2017, Lucila and the Aguas heirs filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of Rene and Cherry's marriage, alleging that the marriage was void for failure to comply with
Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code. The petition was initially raffled to RTC Branch 59 (Family Court) but was re-
raffled to RTC Branch 60 (general jurisdiction) after Branch 59 ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the collateral attack
on the marriage.
Dismissal of Petition: On November 24, 2017, RTC Branch 60 dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding
that only an aggrieved spouse could file a petition for nullity of marriage. The court also ruled that the Aguas heirs
could only question the validity of the marriage in the settlement of Rene's estate, not in a separate nullity
proceeding.
Issue:
Ruling: Ratio:
Jurisdiction over Nullity of Marriage: The Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for declaration of nullity
of marriage. However, a collateral attack on the validity of a marriage, such as in this case, must be filed in a court of
general jurisdiction.
Standing to File Petition: Only the aggrieved spouse has the legal right to file a petition for annulment or declaration
of nullity of marriage. Compulsory heirs, such as the Aguas heirs, may only question the validity of the marriage in the
context of the settlement of the deceased spouse's estate.
Effect of Non-Compliance with Articles 52 and 53: The failure to comply with Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code
(partition of properties and delivery of presumptive legitimes) does not automatically render a subsequent marriage
void. The validity of the marriage must be challenged by the proper party in the appropriate proceeding.
Probate Court's Limited Jurisdiction: A probate or intestate court cannot adjudicate questions of ownership or validity
of marriage unless such issues are incidental to the settlement of the estate.
Additional Notes The Court emphasized that the Aguas heirs could collaterally attack the validity of Rene and
Cherry's marriage in the settlement of Rene's estate, but this does not guarantee the success of their challenge.
Lucila, as a former spouse, has no standing in the settlement proceedings but may pursue her claims through a
separate action for partition of the conjugal properties.
