Family Law cases

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

Family matters are almost always difficult to litigate. For lawyers practicing Family Law, it is hard to be lawyer and counselor at the same time as this area of practice is often too emotionally-charged.

Three cases handed down in 2025 prove this point.

Case no. 1 involves what this columnist calls the “new 1-2 rule on void marriage: (1) proof that first marriage is void is a valid defense in bigamy; (2) however, it is not a prejudicial question. This case congealed the rule that the void nature of a first marriage may be raised as a defense in a criminal case for bigamy even without a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage. This is consistent with the ruling in Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021. However, unlike in Pulido,  where it was held that the civil case for nullity of marriage constitutes as a prejudicial question (Rule 111, Sec. 7, Rules on Criminal Procedure), here, the Supreme Court held that it does not constitute as one, and the denial by the court a quo of the motion to suspend proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question, was upheld. (Natividad-Florentino v. Florentino, Jr., G.R. Nos. 255335/255636, August 27, 2025).

For easier reference, let’s call it the quick 1-2 rule, as follows:

            1)Rule no. 1. As defense in bigamy. The ruling in Florentino upheld the ruling in Pulido insofar as the doctrine that the void character of the first or second marriage may be used as defense in a criminal case for bigamy.

            2)Rule no. 1. As a prejudicial question. However, as to the issue of whether a petition for nullity of marriage serves as a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings for bigamy, Florentino deviated from Pulido by holding that there is no prejudicial question. As to the latter issue, Florentino is controlling as it squarely ruled on the case involving a motion to suspend proceedings which the court a quo denied; while in Pulido there was no motion to suspend proceedings filed in the trial court and the statement in Pulido that says “Nonetheless, the Court recognized that an action for nullity of the second marriage is a prejudicial question to the criminal prosecution for bigamy,” is deemed a mere obiter dictum.

Case no. 2 involves the prosecution for violation of the Violence Against Women and Children Act (RA 9262) more popularly known as VAWC Law, for the failure of a putative father to provide support to his alleged child. The child’s mother and the accused had a “one-night-stand” which the former claimed produced their child. However, the accused denies paternity and the child’s birth certificate states “N/A” as to father.

It was ruled that “proof of paternity is necessary for accused to be liable for economic abuse under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the ‘Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004’ for refusal to provide support to a child.  In the instant case, apart from AAA’s testimony, BBB’s Certificate of Live Birth was adduced as evidence. However, it is readily apparent that the space for the father’s information indicates “N/A” or “not applicable” and was left unsigned. There is also a dearth of evidence to establish that XXX acknowledged the child as his own. With XXX’s liberty at stake, the birth certificate cannot be given weight as proof of paternity. It bears stressing that support follows as a matter of obligation when filiation is beyond question. With the prosecution’s failure to prove the second element that AAA and XXX share a common child, there is serious doubt on whether financial support is legally due AAA or her child.” (XXX v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 262419 [Formerly Criminal Case No. R-PSY-16-12641-CR], November 03, 2025).

Finally, case no. 3 presents an opposite scenario to that in case no. 2. Here, it involves the insistence by a father for use of his surname by his non-marital child and a motion for change of name on account of adoption sought for by the mother. The biological father of a non-marital child wants the child to continue using his name as reflected in the birth certificate but the mother petitioned to adopt the child and wanted the child to use her surname instead. The petition for adoption was denied but the appellate court ordered the change of surname by the child from the biological father to that of the mother. The Supreme Court reversed the decision as it held that:

“The law allows the change of the surname of the adopted as a natural and necessary consequence of the adoption granted. Reversibly, the denial of the petition for adoption forecloses any need to act upon the application for change of name, the same being only contingent upon the main action and deriving its jurisdictional support therefrom. Hence, the Court of Appeals erred in proceeding to grant the change of name despite its affirmance of the denial of the petition for adoption.” (Denise Ellison M. Viña v. Stephanie Oteyza Ty, G.R. No. 273935, August 18, 2025).

Family Law is always close to the heart. Emotions always get in the way when litigating its issues.

Sensitivities and sensibilities are always factored in; but at the end of the day, it should be what makes the home a better place that must be given primordial consideration.

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates (ETRIIILaw)– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. Among the books he authored is “Law on Property and Essentials of Land Registration [2024 Edition]” which was on the bestseller’s list in online shops for several months. In 2026, he published his second major legal textbook titled “Comprehensive Reviewer on Persons and Family Relations.” His website is etriiilaw.com).