418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and

Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli
*
G.R. No. 173614. September 28, 2007.

LOLITA D. ENRICO, petitioner,  vs.  HEIRS OF SPS. EULOGIO B. MEDINACELI AND

TRINIDAD CATLIMEDINACELI, REPRESENTED BY VILMA M. ARTICULO, respondents.

Remedial Law; Jurisdictions; Doctrine of Heirarchy of Courts; Where the issuance of an extraordinary

writ is concurrently within the competence of the Court of Appeals or the RTC, litigants must observe the
principle of hierarchy of courts—however, it cannot be gainsaid that this Court has the discretionary power to
brush aside

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

419

VOL. 534, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 419

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli

and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

procedural lapses if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the
immediate exercise of its jurisdiction.—We have earlier emphasized that while the Supreme Court has the
concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the RTCs (for writs enforceable within their respective
regions), to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, the litigants are well advised against taking
a direct recourse to this Court. Instead, they should initially seek the proper relief from the lower courts. As
a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing with causes in the first
instance. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is concurrently within the competence of the Court of
Appeals or the RTC, litigants must observe the principle of hierarchy of courts. However, it cannot be
gainsaid that this Court has the discretionary power to brush aside procedural lapses if compelling reasons,
or the nature and importance of the issues raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction.
Moreover, notwithstanding the dismissibility of the instant Petition for its failure to observe the doctrine on
the hierarchy of courts, this Court will proceed to entertain the case grounded as it is on a pure question of
law.

Civil Law;  Family Code;  Marriages;  Rule of Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages; Scope; The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt—the coverage
extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on 3
August 1988; The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August 2004, and it squarely falls
within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.—The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no
room for doubt. The coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the
Family Code which took effect on 3 August 1988. Moreover, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took effect on 15 March
2003, following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Thus, contrary to the opinion of the
RTC, there is no need to reconcile the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC with the ruling in Niñal, because
they vary in scope and application. As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under
the Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application. The marriage of petitioner to
Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August 2004, and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

420

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli

and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

Same;  Same;  Same;  Rationale;  The Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders explicates on
Section 2(a) in the following manner, viz.: 1. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file petitions for
annulment of voidable marriages and declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages—such petitions
cannot be filed by the compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State [Section 2; Section 3,
paragraph a]—Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages
or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate
heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the
petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and
hence can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding
for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.—The Rationale of the Rules
on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal
Separation and Provisional Orders explicates on Section 2(a) in the following manner,  viz.: 1. Only an
aggrieved or injured spouse may file petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petitions cannot be filed by the compulsory or intestate heirs
of the spouses or by the State. [Section 2; Section 3, paragraph a] Only an aggrieved or injured spouse
may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the
State. The Committee is of  the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the petition.
Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights  prior to the death of their predecessor,
and hence can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse
in a proceeding for the settlement of the  estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular
courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution.
(Emphasis supplied.)

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
421

VOL. 534, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 421

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

     Jose De Luna for petitioner.

     Antonio N. Laggui for respondents.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The instant1
Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assails
the Order,  dated 3 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of2 Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, in
Civil Case No. II-4057, granting reconsideration of its Order,   dated 11 October 2005, and
reinstating respondents’ Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
On 17 March 2005, respondents, heirs of Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli (Eulogio) and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli (Trinidad) filed with the RTC, an action for declaration of nullity of
marriage of Eulogio and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico. Substantially, the complaint alleged, 
3
inter
alia, that Eulogio and Trinidad were married on 14 June 1962, in Lal-lo, Cagayan.  They begot
seven children, herein respondents,
4
namely: Eduardo, 5Evelyn, Vilma, Mary Jane, Haizel,
Michelle and Joseph Lloyd.  On 1 May 2004, Trinidad died.6  On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married
petitioner before the Municipal
7
Mayor of Lallo, Cagayan. Six months later, or on 10 February
2005, Eulogio passed away.
In impugning petitioner’s marriage to Eulogio, respondents averred that8
the same was entered
into without the requisite marriage license. They argued that Article 34  of the Family

_______________
1 Penned by Judge Rolando R. Velasco; Rollo, pp. 12-13.
2 Penned by Judge Virgilio M. Alameda, Id., at pp. 15-20.
3 Id., at p. 4.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id., at p. 5.
7 Id.
8 ART. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband

and wife for

422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

Code, which exempts a man and a woman who have been living together for at least five years
without any legal impediment from securing a marriage license, was not applicable to petitioner
and Eulogio because they could not have lived together under the circumstances required by said
provision. Respondents posited that the marriage of Eulogio to Trinidad was dissolved only upon
the latter’s death, or on 1 May 2004, which was barely three months from the date of marriage of
Eulogio to petitioner. Therefore, petitioner and Eulogio could not have lived together as husband
and wife for at least five years. To further their cause, respondents raised the additional ground
of lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogio’s serious illness which made its performance
impossible.
In her Answer, petitioner maintained that she and Eulogio lived together as husband and wife
under one roof for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they were exempted from the requirement
of a marriage license. From their union were born Elvin Enrico and Marco Enrico, all surnamed
Medinaceli, on 28 October 1988 and 30 October 1991, respectively. She further contended that
the marriage ceremony was performed in the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and solemnized
by the Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative defense, she sought the dismissal of the action on the
ground that it is only the contracting parties while living who can file an action for declaration of
nullity of marriage.

9
 9
On 11 October 2005, the RTC issued an Order,   granting the dismissal of the Complaint for
lack of cause of action. It

_______________

at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the
foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also
state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediments to the
marriage.
9 Rollo, pp. 15-20.

423

VOL. 534, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 423

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli
10
cited  A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,   dated 7 March 2003, promulgated by the Supreme Court  En
Banc as basis. The RTC elucidated on its position in the following manner:
“The Complaint should be dismissed.
1) Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10-SC
11
promulgated by the Supreme Court which took effect on March
15, 2003 provides in Section 2, par. (a)   that a petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void
Marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The language of this rule is plain and simple
which states that such a petition may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The rule is clear
and unequivocal that only the husband  or the wife may file the petition for Declaration of
Absolute  Nullity of a Void Marriage. The reading of this Court is that  the right to bring such
petition is exclusive and this right  solely belongs to them.Consequently, the heirs of the deceased
spouse12
cannot substitute their late father in bringing the action to declare the marriage null and
void.”  (Emphasis supplied.)

The dispositive portion of the Order, thus, reads:

“WHEREFORE, [the] Motion to Dismiss raised as an affirmative defense in the answer is hereby
GRANTED. 13
Accordingly, the Complaint filed by the [respondents] is hereby DISMISSED with costs  de
officio.”

Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof. Following

14
the filing by petitioner of her
Comment to the said motion, the RTC rendered an Order  dated 3 May 2006, reversing its Order
of 11 October 2005. Hence, the RTC rein-

_______________
10 Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages And Annulment of Voidable Marriages.
11 Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.—
(a) Who may file.—A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or
the wife.
12 Rollo, p. 17.
13 Id., at p. 20.
14 Id., at pp. 12-13.

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

stated the15 complaint on the ratiocination that the assailed Order ignored the ruling in Niñal v.
Bayadog,  which was on the authority for holding that the heirs of a deceased spouse have the
standing to assail a void marriage even after the death of the latter. It held that Section 2(a) of
A.M. No. 02-11-20-SC, which provides that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage may be filed solely
16
by the husband or the wife, applies only where both parties to a void
marriage are still living.  Where one or both parties are deceased, the RTC held that the heirs
may file a petition to declare the marriage void. The RTC expounded on its stance, thus:
“The questioned Order disregarded the case of Niñal vs. Bayadog, 328 SCRA 122 (March 14, 2000) in which
the Supreme Court, First Division, held that the heirs of a deceased person may file a petition for the
declaration of his marriage after his death. The Order subject of this motion for reconsideration held that
the case of  Niñal vs. Bayadog  is now superseded by the new Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Marriages (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) because the Supreme Court has rejected the case of Niñal vs.
Bayadog  by approving the Rule on Nullity of Void Marriages. The Order further held that it is only the
husband or the wife who is (sic) the only parties allowed to file an action for declaration of nullity of their
marriage and such right is purely personal and is not transmissible upon the death of the parties.
It is admitted that there seems to be a conflict between the case of Niñal vs. Bayadog and Section 2(a) of
the Rule. In view of this, the Court shall try to reconcile the case of  Niñal vs. Bayadogand the Rule. To
reconcile, the Court will have to determine [the] basic rights of the parties. The rights of the legitimate heirs
of a person who entered into a void marriage will be prejudiced particularly with respect to their
successional rights. During the lifetime of the parent[,] the heirs have only an inchoate right over the
property of the said parents. Hence, during the lifetime of the parent, it would be proper that it should solely
be the parent who should be allowed

_______________
15 384 Phil. 661, 672-675; 328 SCRA 122, 134 (2000).
16 Rollo, p. 13.

425

VOL. 534, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 425

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

to file a petition to declare his marriage void. However, upon the death of the parent his heirs have already
a vested right over whatever property left by the parent. Such vested right should not be frustrated by any
rules of procedure such as the Rule. Rules of Procedure cannot repeal rights granted by substantive law. The
heirs, then, have a legal standing in Court.
If the heirs are prohibited from questioning the void marriage entered by their parent, especially when
the marriage is illegal and feloniously entered into, it will give premium to such union because the guilty
parties will seldom, if ever at all, ask for the annulment of the marriage. Such void marriage will be given a
semblance of validity if the heirs will not be allowed to file the petition after the death of the parent.
For these reasons, this Court believes that Sec. 2(a) of the Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Marriage is applicable only when both parties to a (sic) void marriage are still living. Upon the death of
anyone of the guilty party to the void marriage, his heirs may file a petition to declare the the (sic) marriage
void, but the Rule is not applicable as it was not17 filed by the husband or the wife. It shall be the ordinary
rule of civil procedure which shall be applicable.”

Perforce, the decretal portion of the RTC Order of 3 May 2006 states:
“In view of the foregoing,
18
the Court grants the motion for reconsideration dated October 31, 2005 and
reinstate this case.”

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Order; however, on 1
June 2006,
19
the RTC denied the said motion on the ground that no new matter was raised
therein.
Hence, the instant Petition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on the sole
question of whether the case law as embodied in Niñal, or the Rule on Declaration of

_______________
17 Id., at pp. 12-13.
18 Id.
19 Id., at p. 14.

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, as specified in A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC of the Supreme Court applies to the case at bar.
At the outset, we note that petitioner took an abbreviated route to this Court, countenancing
the hierarchy of courts.
We have earlier emphasized that while the Supreme Court has the concurrent jurisdiction
with the Court of Appeals and the RTCs (for writs enforceable within their respective regions), to
issue writs of mandamus, prohibition
20
or certiorari, the litigants are well advised against taking a
direct recourse to this Court.  Instead, they should initially seek the proper relief from the lower
courts. As a court of last resort, this Court should not be burdened with the task of dealing with
causes in the first instance. Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is concurrently within
the competence of 21the Court of Appeals or the RTC, litigants must observe the principle of
hierarchy of courts.  However, it cannot be gainsaid that this Court has the discretionary power
to brush aside procedural lapses if compelling reasons, or the nature
22
and importance of the issues
raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its jurisdiction.   Moreover, notwithstanding the
dismissibility of the instant Petition for its failure to observe the doctrine on the hierarchy of
courts, this Court will proceed to entertain the case grounded as it is on a pure question of law.
Petitioner maintains that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governs the instant case.  A contrario,
respondents posit that it is Niñal which is applicable, whereby the heirs of the deceased

_______________
20 Pearson v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 356 Phil. 341, 355; 295 SCRA 27, 42 (1998).
21 Id.
22 Tano v. Hon. Gov. Socrates, 343 Phil. 670, 700; 278 SCRA 154, 174 (1997); Del Mar v. Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation, 400 Phil. 307, 326-327; 346 SCRA 485, 501 (2000), citing Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona, 352 Phil. 461,
480; 289 SCRA 624, 645 (1998).

427

VOL. 534, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 427

 Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

person were granted the right to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after
his death.
We grant the Petition.
In reinstating respondents’ Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, the RTC acted
with grave abuse of discretion.
While it is true that Niñal in no uncertain terms allowed therein petitioners to file a petition
for the declaration of nullity of their father’s marriage to therein respondent after the death of
their father, we cannot, however, apply its ruling for the reason that the impugned marriage
therein was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The Court in Niñal recognized
that the applicable law to determine the validity of the two marriages 23
involved therein is the
Civil Code, which was the law in effect at the time of their celebration.  What we have before us
belongs to a different milieu, i.e., the marriage sought to be declared void was entered into during
the effectivity of the Family Code. As can be gleaned from the facts, petitioner’s marriage to
Eulogio was celebrated in 2004.
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is explicit in its scope, to wit:
“Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and
annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines.
The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The coverage extends
only to those marriages

_______________
23 Niñal v. Bayadog, supra note 15 at p. 667; p. 128, citing Tamano v. Hon. Ortiz, 353 Phil. 775; 291 SCRA 584 (1998).

428

428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli
24
entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect on 3 August 1988.
Moreover, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC  took effect on 15 March 2003, following its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation. Thus, contrary to the opinion of the RTC, there is no need to
reconcile the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC with the ruling in Niñal, because they vary in
scope and application. As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SCcovers marriages under the
Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application. The marriage of petitioner to
Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August 2004, and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC.
Hence, in resolving the issue before us, we resort to Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
which provides:
“Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.—
(a)  Who may file.—A petition for declaration of absolutenullity of void marriage may be filed
solely by the husband or the wife.” (n) (Emphasis supplied.)
There is no ambiguity in the Rule. Absolute sententil expositore non indiget. When the language of
the law is clear, no explanation of it is required. Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, makes
it the sole right of the husband or the

_______________
24 Modequillo v. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, 31 May 1990, 185 SCRA 766, 772. It must be noted that Article 257 of the
Family Code provides that, “This Code shall take effect one year after the completion of its publication in a newspaper of
general circulation, as certified by the Executive Secretary, Office of the President.” The Code was published on 4 August
1987 in the Manila Chronicle, and took effect one year after its publication, or on 3 August 1988, considering that 1988 is
a leap year; SeeSempio-Diy, “Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines,” 1995 Ed., p. 393, citing Memorandum
Circular No. 85 of the Office of the President dated 7 November 1988.

429

VOL. 534, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 429

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.

The Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders explicates on Section 2(a) in
the following manner, viz.:
“1. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petitions cannot be filed by the compulsory or
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State.[Section 2; Section 3, paragraph a]
Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petitionfor annulment of voidable marriages or
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a
legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the
death of their predecessor, and hence can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses
upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse
filed in the regular25 courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to
seek its dissolution.”  (Emphasis supplied.)

Respondents clearly have no cause of action before the court a quo. Nonetheless, all is not lost for
respondents. While  A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC  declares that a petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the
compulsory or intestate heirs are already without any recourse under the law. They can still
protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of
Voidable

_______________
25 Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages,
Legal Separation and Provisional Orders.

430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio B. Medinaceli and
 Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and
Provisional Orders, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of
the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity, but upon the death of a spouse in a
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. Civil Case No. II-4057 filed before the Regional
Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6, is ORDERED DISMISSED without prejudice to
challenging the validity of the marriage of Lolita D. Enrico to Eulogio B. Medinaceli in a
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the latter. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petition granted.

Note.—The issuance of the SC of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void

Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which became effective on 15 March 2003,
should dispel any other doubts as to the authority of the Solicitor General to file the instant
petition for review on behalf of the State. (Republic vs. Iyoy, 470 SCRA 508 [2005])

——o0o——