Antonia Calisterio Armas Vs Marietta Calisterio
Antonia Calisterio Armas Vs Marietta Calisterio
Antonia Calisterio Armas Vs Marietta Calisterio
RULING: Yes. The marriage between the deceased and the respondent remains valid given at that
period the law in force was the Civil Code which in Art 83 states that a marriage contracted during
the subsistence of a marriage shall be illegal and void unless the first spouse had been absent for
less than seven years, is generally considered dead. The marriage of the deceased was contracted in
May 8, 1958 , eleven years after the disappearance of the James Bound. Therefore, the marriage is
valid notwithstanding the absence of a judicial declaration of presumptive death of James Bounds.
Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS the CA decision, however finding that CA erred in awarding the
other half of the estate to the nephew ( Antonia's son) the respondent is solely the owner of said
estate it is hereby declared that the other half of the deceased's estate is owned by the respondent's
children.
Notes: Below is the full text of Art 83 which is amended and is now Art 41 in the New Civil Code,
pls take note the difference. The above mentioned statement is for simplicity and conciseness. :)
"Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse
of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its
performance, unless:
"(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or
"(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second
marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee,
though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as dead and believed
to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the
absentee is presumed dead according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be
valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court."
Under the foregoing provisions, a subsequent marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first
spouse is illegal and void ab initio unless the prior marriage is first annulled or dissolved.
Paragraph (2) of the law gives exceptions from the above rule. For the subsequent marriage
referred to in the three exceptional cases therein provided, to be held valid, the spouse present (not
the absentee spouse) so contracting the later marriage must have done so in good faith. Bad faith
imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong - it partakes of
the nature of fraud, a breach of a known duty through some motive of interest or ill will.[7] The
Court does not find these circumstances to be here extant.
A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not necessary as long as the prescribed
period of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are,
by the explicit mandate of Article 83, to be deemed valid "until declared null and void by a
competent court."