Scribd
Upload
798 views1 page

Valdez Vs Republic

1) Angelita Valdez married Sofio in 1971 but he left in 1972 and they agreed to separate in 1975, after which she had no contact or news of him. 2) In 1985, believing Sofio was dead, Angelita married Virgilio but his application for US naturalization was denied because her marriage to Sofio was still considered valid. 3) The Supreme Court ruled Angelita's marriage to Virgilio was valid under the Civil Code which establishes a presumption of death if someone is absent for 7 years without contact or news, so Sofio was presumed dead in 1982 and there was no impediment for Angelita to remarry.

Uploaded by

Bernard Andomang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
798 views1 page

Valdez Vs Republic

1) Angelita Valdez married Sofio in 1971 but he left in 1972 and they agreed to separate in 1975, after which she had no contact or news of him. 2) In 1985, believing Sofio was dead, Angelita married Virgilio but his application for US naturalization was denied because her marriage to Sofio was still considered valid. 3) The Supreme Court ruled Angelita's marriage to Virgilio was valid under the Civil Code which establishes a presumption of death if someone is absent for 7 years without contact or news, so Sofio was presumed dead in 1982 and there was no impediment for Angelita to remarry.

Uploaded by

Bernard Andomang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Valdez v.

Republic

G.R. No. 180863, 8 September 2009

FACTS:

Angelita Valdez was married with Sofio in January 1971. She gave birth to a baby girl named Nancy.
They argued constantly because Sofio was unemployed and did not bring home any money. In March
1972, the latter left their house. Angelita and her child waited until in May 1972, they decided to go
back to her parent’s home. 3 years have passed without any word from Sofio until in October 1975
when he showed up and they agreed to separate and executed a document to that effect. It was the
last time they saw each other and had never heard of ever since. Believing that Sofio was already
dead, petitioner married Virgilio Reyes in June 1985. Virgilio’s application for naturalization in US was
denied because petitioner’s marriage with Sofio was subsisting. Hence, in March 2007, petitioner filed
a petition seeking declaration of presumptive death of Sofio.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner’s marriage with Virgilio is valid despite lack of declaration of presumptive
death of Sofio.

RULING:

Yes. Petitioner’s marriage with Virgilio is valid despite lack of declaration of presumptive death of
Sofio.

Pursuant to Article 83 of the Civil Code, 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, of 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.

Therefore, under the Civil Code, the presumption of death is established by law and no court
declaration is needed for the presumption to arise. Since death is presumed to have taken place by
the seventh year of absence, Sofio is to be presumed dead starting October 1982. Consequently, at
the time of petitioner’s marriage to Virgilio, there existed no impediment to petitioner’s capacity to
marry, and the marriage is valid under paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Civil Code.

You might also like