G.R. No. 162580, January 27, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Private respondent Tristan A. Catindig married Lily Gomez Catindig twice on May 16, 1968. Several years later, the couple encountered marital problems that they decided to separate from each other and decided to obtain a divorce from the Dominican Republic. Thereafter, the private respondents filed a joint petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership with the Regional Trial Court of Makati which ordered the complete separation of properties between Tristan and Lily. On July 14, 1984, Tristan married petitioner Elmar O. Perez in the State of Virginia in the United States and both lived as husband and wife until October 2001. Their union produced one offspring. On August 13, 2001, Tristan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lily with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Intervention which the trial court granted. Petitioner’s complaint-in-intervention was also ordered admitted. Tristan filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the order of the trial court. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and declared the order as null and void. Petitioner claims that her status as the wife and companion of Tristan for years vests her with the requisite legal interest required of a would-be intervenor under the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner’s claim lacks merit. Under the law, petitioner was never the legal wife of Tristan, hence her claim of legal interest has no basis. The divorce decree that Tristan and Lily (both Filipinos) obtained from the Dominican Republic never dissolved the marriage bond between them.
FACTS:
Private respondent Tristan A. Catindig married Lily Gomez Catindig twice on May 16, 1968. The marriage produced four children. Several years later, the couple encountered marital problems that they decided to separate from each other. Upon advice of a mutual friend, they decided to obtain a divorce from the Dominican Republic. Tristan and Lily executed a Special Power of Attorney addressed to the Judge of the First Civil Court of San Cristobal, Dominican Republic, appointing an attorney-in-fact to institute a divorce action under its laws. Thereafter, the private respondents filed a joint petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership with the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The civil court in the Dominican Republic ratified the divorce by mutual consent of Tristan and Lily. Subsequently the Regional Trial Court of Makati City ordered the complete separation of properties between Tristan and Lily.
On July 14, 1984, Tristan married petitioner Elmar O. Perez in the State of Virginia in the United States and both lived as husband and wife until October 2001. Their union produced one offspring. During their cohabitation, petitioner learned that the divorce decree issued by the court in the Dominican Republic which “dissolved” the marriage between Tristan and Lily was not recognized in the Philippines and that her marriage to Tristan was deemed void under Philippine law. When she confronted Tristan about this, the latter assured her that he would legalize their union after he obtains an annulment of his marriage with Lily. On August 13, 2001, Tristan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lily with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Subsequently, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Intervention claiming that she has a legal interest in the matter in litigation because she knows certain information which might aid the trial court at a truthful, fair and just adjudication of the annulment case, which the trial court granted. Petitioner’s complaint-in-intervention was also ordered admitted.
Tristan filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul the order of the trial court. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and declared the order as null and void. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in disregarding her legal interest in the annulment case between Tristan and Lily.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner has legal standing to file a Motion for Intervention in the petition for nullity of marriage between her husband and his first wife – NO
RULING AND DOCTRINE:
Petitioner claims that her status as the wife and companion of Tristan for years vests her with the requisite legal interest required of a would-be intervenor under the Rules of Court. Petitioner’s claim lacks merit. Under the law, petitioner was never the legal wife of Tristan, hence her claim of legal interest has no basis.
When petitioner and Tristan married on July 14, 1984, Tristan was still lawfully married to Lily. The divorce decree that Tristan and Lily (both Filipinos) obtained from the Dominican Republic never dissolved the marriage bond between them. It is basic that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Regardless of where a citizen of the Philippines might be, he or she will be governed by Philippine laws with respect to his or her family rights and duties, or to his or her status, condition and legal capacity. Hence, if a Filipino regardless of whether he or she was married here or abroad, initiates a petition abroad to obtain an absolute divorce from spouse and eventually becomes successful in getting an absolute divorce decree, the Philippines will not recognize such absolute divorce. When Tristan and Lily married on May 18, 1968, their marriage was governed by the provisions of the Civil Code which took effect on August 30, 1950. Thus, petitioner’s claim that she is the wife of Tristan even if their marriage was celebrated abroad lacks merit. Petitioner never acquired the legal interest as a wife upon which her motion for intervention is based.
Since petitioner’s motion for leave to file intervention was bereft of the indispensable requirement of legal interest, the issuance by the trial court of the order granting the same and admitting the complaint-in-intervention was attended with grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Court of Appeals correctly set aside and declared as null and void the said order.