22. Quiazon, et. al. vs. Belen, et. al.
“Resides” means personal, actual or physical habitation of a person,
G.R. No. 189121
July 31, 2013
FACTS:
- Elise Quiazon, represented by her mother Lourdes, filed a Petition for
Letters Administration before RTC Las Piñas City.
Elise claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo, conceived and born
when her parents were both capacitated to marry each other. Elise impugns
the validity of marriage of Eliseo to Amelia because Amelia was then married
to Filipito Sandico.
As evidence, Elise presented said Petition for Letters Administration
and Certificate of Live Birth signed by Eliseo as her father.
Then, Elise also sought her appointment as administratix of her
father’s estate worth P2,040,000 real properties and P2,100,000 personal
properties.
- Amelia and her children filed Opposition/Motion to Dismiss the petition. It
was argued that the Death Certificate of Eliseo states that he was a resident
of Capas, Tarlac not Las Piñas City. Therefore, petition should be dismissed
for improper venue. Moreover, no evidence was shown for Elise to be
appointed as administratix.
- RTC ruled in favor of Elise. CA affirmed – Elise was able to prove that Eliseo
and her mother lived as husband and wife and resided in Las Piñas up to
Eliseo’s death.
- MFR denied.
ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Eliseo and Amelia is void for being bigamous.
HELD: YES
- The marriage of Amelia and Filipito was proven by their Certificate of
Marriage. However, no evidence was shown that this marriage had been
dissolved at the time Amelia married Eliseo. Thus, the marriage is bigamous
and void.
VENUE
- Under the Rules of Court, Petition for Letters of Administration of the estate
of the decedent should be filed in the RTC of the province where the decedent
resides at the time of his death.
actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place
and actual stay thereat.
It is argued that the Death Certificate states that he is a resident of
Capas, Tarlac. However, while the recitals in the death certificates can be
considered proofs of a decedent’s residence at the time of his death, the
contents thereof are not binding on the courts. RTC and CA both found that
Eliseo had been living with Lourdes in Las Piñas from 1972 until his death in
1995.
VOID MARRIAGES CAN BE QUESTIONED EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF EITHER
PARTY BUT VOIDABLE MARRIAGES CAN BE ASSAILED ONLY DURING THE
LIFETIME OF THE PARTIES.
Action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, while action for
voidable marriages prescribes. Only parties to a voidable marriage can assail,
while any proper party may attack a void marriage. This is the ruling in Niñal
vs. Bayadog. This case applies to marriages celebrated when the Civil Code
was in effect (and not the Family Code), such as in this case.
Elise, as compulsory heir, has a cause of action for the declaration of nullity
of the marriage of Eliseo and Amelia because her successional rights would
be prejudiced by such marriage. She may impugn such even after the death
of her father.
Elise has an interest in the Petition for Letters Administration because
an “interested party" in estate proceedings is one who would be benefited in
the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as
a creditor. Elise, as a compulsory heir who stands to be benefited by the
distribution of Eliseo’s estate, is deemed to be an interested party.
Certainly, the right of Elise to be appointed administratix of the estate
of Eliseo is on good grounds. It is founded on her right as a compulsory heir,
who, under the law, is entitled to her legitimate after the debts of the estate
are satisfied.
Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.