Charnnel Shane Thomas v. Rachel Trono and The Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 241032
In December 2021, the Philippine Supreme Court denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Solicitor General’s Office (“OSG”) from its Decision nullifying the bigamous marriage between an American and a Filipina, by virtue of the American citizen’s previously subsisting marriage in the United States.
Representing the American citizen’s daughter in a third but valid marriage to a Filipina, our firm, led by our Attys. Divina Gracia E. Pedron and Criselda S. Santiago, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals from the Makati trial court’s Decision which: 1) did not recognize the divorce between the American and his first wife; (2) held the bigamous marriage with his second wife still valid, and consequently, 3) declared the American’s marriage to his third wife as void ab initio. However, the Court of Appeals denied the Petition for Annulment of Judgment.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court granted our Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Significantly, the OSG’s role in marriage annulment proceedings is to ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected. In this case, the Makati trial court’s Decision found no collusion between the parties. Thus, in our Petition to the Supreme Court, our firm emphasized that the actions of the OSG in contesting the daughter’s petition as a legitimate heir does not appear to be in keeping with the OSG’s intended role in annulment of marriage cases. Indeed, to allow the OSG’s actions to stand uncorrected would serve to defeat, rather than further, the very purpose for which the OSG’s participation was intended, and the interest of the State in the defense of marriage and legitimate children.
The Supreme Court concurred with our arguments and ruled, among others, that the daughter from the third marriage was denied due process as she was neither made a part of the proceedings nor was she duly notified of the case before the Makati trial court. It further ruled that, while her mother was able to file a Manifestation and Special Appearance on the OSG’s Motion for Reconsideration, the same should neither bind nor prejudice her since her interest as the American’s heir was not directly raised and threshed out in said pleading. The Supreme Court ruled that to hold otherwise would be tantamount to depriving a then innocent child of her right to due process of law.