TILAR vs. TILAR

TILAR vs. TILAR

G.R. No. 214529, July 12, 2017

SECOND DIVISION

Peralta, J.

DIRECT RECOURSE from the Decision and the Order issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay City, (RTC) dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, and denying reconsideration thereof, respectively.

Facts:

On November 4, 2010, petitioner filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of private respondent's (respondent) psychological incapacity based on Article 36 of the Family Code. Respondent failed to file her Answer despite being served with summons. The Public Prosecutor, in his Manifestation and Compliance, as to the absence of collusion between the parties. Trial, thereafter, ensued with petitioner and his witness testifying. 

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.  The RTC applied the doctrine of separation of Church and State:

“...Declaration of nullity, which is commonly called an annulment in the Catholic Church, is a judgment rendered by an ecclesiastical tribunal determining that the sacrament of marriage was invalidly contracted. The procedure is governed by the Church's Canon Law not by the civil law observed by the State in nullity cases involving civil marriages...”

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC has subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Ruling:

Yes. GRANTED.

Our law on marriage, particularly the Family Code, restates the constitutional provision to protect the inviolability of marriage and the family relations. In one of the whereas clauses of the Family Code, it is stated: 

"Whereas, there is a need to implement policies embodied in the New Constitution that strengthen marriage and the family as a basic social institution and ensure equality between men and women. 

 

Accordingly, Article 1 of the Family Code pertinently provides:

 

 

"Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code."

xxx 

Thus, the contract of marriage is entered into by complying with the requirements and formalities prescribed by law. The marriage of petitioner and respondent which was solemnized by a Catholic priest and was held in a church was in accordance with the above-quoted provisions. Although, marriage is considered a sacrament in the Catholic church, it has civil and legal consequences which are governed by the Family Code. As petitioner correctly pointed out, the instant petition only seeks to nullify the marriage contract between the parties as postulated in the Family Code of the Philippines; and the declaration of nullity of the parties' marriage in the religious and ecclesiastical aspect is another matter. Notably, the proceedings for church annulment which is in accordance with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the couple is still considered married to each other in the eyes of the civil law. Thus, the principle of separation of the church and state finds no application in this case. 

As marriage is a lifetime commitment which the parties cannot just dissolve at whim, the Family Code has provided for the grounds for the termination of marriage. These grounds may be invoked and proved in a petition for annulment of voidable marriage or in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which can be decided upon only by the court exercising jurisdiction over the matter. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 provides: 

"Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: xx xx (15) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations;"

Hence, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which petitioner filed before the RTC of Baybay City, falls within its exclusive jurisdiction; thus, the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction.