UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons and Family Relations

J 2026 Lozada-Marquez

Case Name Llave v. Republic (Estrellita Juliano-Llave vs. Republic of the Philippines, Haja Putri Zorayda
A. Tamano and Adib Ahmad A. Tamano)
Topic The validity of Estrellita Juliano-Llave's marriage to Sen. Mamintal A.J. Tamano under the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 169766 | March 30, 2011
Ponente Del Castillo, J.
Case Summary The petitioner Estrellita had married twice (first under Islamic laws and tradition and second under a
civil ceremony) Sen. Tamano who claimed to be divorced. After his death, his first wife Haja Putri
and child surfaced with a complaint to nullify Estrellita and Tamano's marriage. The SC denied her
petition and affirmed the CA and the RTC decisions, making her marriage void ab initio.

Doctrine Art. 35 (4) of the Family Code states that bigamous or polygamous marriages which do not fall
under Art. 41 (pertaining to the absence and possible death of spouse) are void ab initio.

Facts ● 11 months before his death, Sen. Tamano married Estrellita twice - first, under Islamic
laws and tradition on May 27, 1993 in Cotabato City, and, second, a civil and RTC
officiated ceremony in Lanao del Sur on June 2, 1993.
- In their marriage contracts, Sen. Tamano's civil status was recorded as "divorced."
● After his death, Estrellita had proclaimed herself his widow.
● On November 23, 1994, Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano (Zorayda) and her son Adib filed a
complaint with the RTC of Quezon City for the declaration of nullity of marriage
between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano for being bigamous.
- Zorayda and Sen. Tamano had married on May 31, 1958 under civil rights.
 The complaint stated the following:
- Their marriage was celebrated with the New Civil Code in effect, under which
divorce is not allowed.
- Divorce could not have been invoked under P.D. 1083 (Code of Muslim Personal
Laws). The marriage was never deemed legally and factually to have been
contracted under Muslim law because neither Zorayda nor Sen. Tamano register
their mutual desire to be covered by this law.
 Estrellita was summoned in court but she filed a Motion to Dismiss which was denied.
She raised this to higher court in certiorari.
 In the RTC proceedings, Estrellita called for postponements and filed for motions for
extensions to answer. RTC found her marriage void ab initio, as did the CA who also
debunked errors she raised:
- that she was denied the right to be heard as the RTC rendered its judgment without
waiting for the SC decision in G.R. 126603;
- that the RTC should have required her answer after the denial of her motion to
dismiss;
- that Sen. Tamano is capacitated to marry her as his marriage and subsequent divorce is
governed by the Muslim Code; and
- that Zorayda had a lack of legal standing to question the validity of her marriage.

Issue ● W/N the CA erred in affirming the RTC even though it was Ruling NO
rendered prematurely because:

- judgment was rendered without waiting for SC's final

3
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons and Family Relations
J 2026 Lozada-Marquez

resolution of her certiorari petition;

- she has not yet filed her answer and thus was denied due
process; and
- the public prosecutor did not even investigate whether or
not there was collusion.
 W/N the marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano was YES
bigamous
 W/N Zorayda and Adib have the legal standing to have YES
Estrellita's marriage declared void ab initio.

Ratio NO.

Her petition for certiorari on the denial of her motion to dismiss before higher
courts do not suspend trial proceedings.

Estrellita wrongly invoked Macias v. Macias which allowed for the suspension of trial procedures
until the resolution of a motion to dismiss within the same trial court. Her application for certiorari
was also independent of the ongoing RTC proceedings. The lower court's decision was independent
of the SC decision which pertained to the motion to dismiss. The RTC was involved with the validity
of her marriage.

Estrellita had the right to file an answer it was she herself who obstructed its filing with her
postponements.

There had already been a lapse of 60 days which was longer than provided for. The
court had deemed that she had waived her right to present her side.

The public prosecutor had complied with the court's required report and found
that there could be no collusion

Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo Paragua attested that there could be no collusion and no
fabrication of evidence because Estrellita is not the spouse of any of the respondents. In fact, she
contested vehemently against their complaints, adding proof to the lack of collusion.

Furthermore, as held in Tuason v. Court of Appeals, the lack of participation of a

fiscal does not invalidate the proceedings in trial court.

YES. Zorayda and Tamano's marriage was never invalidated by PD 1083. The
marriage with Estrellita is void ab initio

Sen. Tamano's civil and Muslim marriage is governed by the Civil Code under whose provisions
divorce is not recognized, except during the effectivity of RA 394 which was not availed of during its
effectivity.1 Even if Estrellita were to rely on PD 1083, it would not benefit her because it does not
provide for a situation wherein parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites.

The Muslim Code, which had taken effect on February 4, 1977, also cannot
retroactively override the Civil Code which was in force during the time of Zorayda
and Tamano's marriage.

YES. Zorayda and Adib who filed the case in 1994, prior to A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
may be regarded as an interested party

Adib, as one of the children of the deceased who has property rights as an heir, is
likewise considered to be the real party in interest in the suit he and his mother had filed since both of

3
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Persons and Family Relations
J 2026 Lozada-Marquez

them stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit

Estrellita's reliance on A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which allows only her and Sen. Tamayo
to attack the validity of their marriage does not apply if the reason behind the
petition is bigamy. The situation unjustly precludes the first spouse which is not what the rule
intended.

Disposition ● WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed August 17, 2004 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61762, as well as its subsequent Resolution issued
on September 13, 2005, are hereby AFFIRMED.
● SO ORDERED.

Dissenting Opinions ● Insert