This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Persons & Family Relations Ju !e "oni#acio
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the orders of the RTC. Petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the USA. They were married in Hong ong and established residence in the Philippines and prod!ced two children. They divorced in "evada and it is also where petitioner remarried Theodore #an $orn. Private respondent filed a case against petitioner with regard to a b!siness in %rmita& which respondent claims as Con'!gal property and he as s to be declared with right to manage. Petitioner claims that said act is barred by his confirmation in their "evada divorce that they had no comm!nity property. The co!rt denied dismissal beca!se said property is in the Philippines and so the divorce has no bearing in the case. Hence& the certiorari proceeding. I))*E (hether the "evada divorce is to be given merit in the Philippines DE(I)ION The private respondent contends that the divorce cannot be held valid in the Philippines beca!se it is against o!r laws. However& the Philippines recognizes divorce by an alien in another co!ntry. The divorce that too place between private respondent and petitioner received no contention from private respondent. )n fact he sent his lawyers on his behalf& stating that they wish to get a divorce by reason of incompatibility and that there is no comm!nity property to be ad'!dicated. (ith this& the co!rt cannot r!le in favor of private respondent beca!se being a citizen of the United States it was his own laws that made the divorce valid. $*CTR)"% Article +, of the Civil Code tal s abo!t laws on family rights binding !pon citizens of the Philippines even tho!gh living abroad. However& private respondent is a citizen of the USA and p!rs!ant to his national law& he is no longer the h!sband of petitioner& and it being a valid divorce& is recognized here in the Philippines. PI'$PI' %s I"$+-)O&ER$ F$(T) This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the Regional Trial Co!rt. )melda Pilapil was married to %rich -eiling in -ermany and their relationship gave birth to one child. -eiling event!ally filed for divorce in -ermany stating as ca!ses fail!re of the marriage. Said divorce was granted by the .ocal Co!rt of -ermany. After said divorce& -eiling filed two consec!tive complaints of ad!ltery against Pilapil for having relationships with Chia
and Ch!a. She as ed the co!rt to have her arraignment deferred b!t to no avail& as well as the motion to /!ash d!e to lac of '!risdiction. A temporary restraining order was event!ally iss!ed to prevent him from implementing said order. I))*E (hether or not a criminal case for ad!ltery which too place after a divorce is barred by the previo!sly ac/!ired decree of divorce R*'IN, The co!rt r!led in the affirmative and did not lift the temporary restraining order iss!ed against the prosec!tion of Pilapil. This was decided based on two concepts. 0irst is that the Civil Code of the Philippines recognizes divorce ac/!ired by an alien spo!se in another co!ntry provided that they are valid based on their national law. The second concept is that ad!ltery re/!ires an offended spo!se. )n the first instance& -eiling1s divorce decree which he ac/!ired in -ermany is recognized by the Philippines p!rs!ant to the Code. This means that when Pilapil had relationships& she was already considered divorced and can validly enter relationships. She was no longer tied to the marriage. )n the second concept& a case for ad!ltery is instit!ted by a written complaint of an offended spo!se. This means that the marital stat!s is relevant. )t m!st occ!r at the time of the s!bsistence of the marriage. This is where the present facts fail. The two were already validly divorced. Hence& no ad!ltery can ta e place , months after. )$N '*I) %s )$N '*I) F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. 0elicisimo San .!is was married to #riginia S!lit. This relationship bore si2 children. #irginia S!lit died in +345. (ith this 0elicisimo was able to marry 6erry .ee Crown which marriage bore a son. 0ive years into the marriage& 6erry filed for divorce in Hawaii which was granted by the co!rt. 0elicisimo event!ally married herein repsondent 0elicidad San .!is with whom he had no children. (hen 0elicisimo died in +337& 0elicidad filed for the dissol!tion of their con'!gal assets and estate settlement stating the legal heirs of 0elicisimo was her as the legal wife& the si2 children from the first marriage and the son from the second marriage. The son of 6erry contested this saying that she was not the legal wife hence not a legal heir beca!se 0elicisimo was still married to 6erry. He '!stified this by saying that the divorce decree ac/!ired in Hawaii is not recognized in the Philippines of whom 0elicisimo was a citizen. The co!rt sided with the son and declared 0elicidad1s marriage to 0elicisimo as n!ll and void ab intio. The Co!rt of Appeal however& reversed this decision.
Article +.ee Crown is recognized in the Philippines R*'IN. The Civil Code also provides that 0ilipino Citizen& with regard to family laws and stat!s are governed by Philippine laws regardless of where they are. This means that paragraph two of Article 74 cannot be applied in s!ch a way that& 0ely is not yet considered an alien at the time the divorce was ac/!ired and therefore she does not have the capacity to remarry and the marriage is still considered as s!bsisting. Cras!s event!ally fo!nd o!t that 0ely married Stephen 6ic l!s in +38. The Co!rt of Appeals in deciding this case sided with 0ely. 0ely )yoy event!ally left for the States to provide for their family in +389 and in less than a year sent Cras!s doc!ments to sign with regard to a divorce that she applied for. :asing from the facts& 0ely only became a citizen in +388 and ac/!ired the divorce in +389& marrying 6ic l!s a year after.(hether or not the divorce decree granted to 6erry . REP*"'I( %s I+O+ F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. Cras!s )yoy was married to 0ely )yoy in +34+ and this marriage gave birth to five children. 0ely& being a 0ilipino Citizen then& is not permitted by o!r laws to ac/!ire a divorce decree since s!ch is not recognized in the Philippines. . The co!rt affirmed the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. Cras!s event!ally /!estioned the validity of 0ely1s s!bse/!ent marriage. This provision permits the 0ilipino form a mi2ed marriage to enter into another marriage beca!se the law does not wish to eep the person attached while the alien spo!se is free to marry and is considered single.ee Crown1s divorce decree is considered valid. I))*E (hether or not a divorce decree ac/!ired by a 0ilipino from the United States is valid and recognized in the Philippines R*'IN. of the Civil Code provides that the Philippines recognizes divorce decrees ac/!ired by the alien spo!se in another co!ntry provided that it is valid according to their national law. )n the present case& 6erry . The co!rt decided in the negative and reversed the Appellate Co!rt1s decision. and their relationship has conceived of a child.
Cipriano new event!ally that his wife has become a nat!ralized citizen of the States and learned that she has married another man after ac/!iring a divorce decree. She is considered an alien who obtained a divorce decree.ady 6yros #illan!eva in *zamis City in the year +39+.ady was no longer a citizen of the Philippines when she ac/!ired the divorce bringing her within the p!rview of Section 74. However& he failed to do so& hence& the co!rt cannot permit him to remarry. This is to permit the 0ilipino spo!se to remarry as a matter of fairness beca!se the foreign spo!se ceased to be attached to the 0ilipino. This relationship gave birth two a son and da!ghter. NIN$' %s "$+$DO. (hat is relevant here is that . The Solicitor -eneral as representative for the State contends that he cannot be granted permission to remarry beca!se . Cipriano *rbecido ))) married . This was beca!se they claimed to have been living together for five years meaning they did not need to ac/!ire a marriage license. children. Said marriage gave birth to . The co!rt in answering in the affirmative on the iss!e based their decision on paragraph 7 of Section 74 of the 0amily Code which provides for the recognition of a divorce decree validly ac/!ired by the alien spo!se in another co!ntry. I))*E (hether or not the Civil Code permits Cipriano to remarry after a divorce was ac/!ired by .9..ady was not a foreign citizen specifically when he married her and the law only recognizes divorce ac/!ired by the alien spo!se. Said son was with . This then capacitates Cipriano to remarry. "orma responded by saying that they have no ca!se of action beca!se they were not parties recognized by the Civil code p!rs!ant to Article 9. . F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari on the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. The lower co!rt decided that the death e2ting!ished the marriage of Pepito to "orma. Pepito "inal was married to Teod!lfa :ellones in +3.REP*"'I( %s OR"E(IDO III F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Regional Trial Co!rt. Petition was denied.ady when she left for the States in +384. Teod!lfa was illed after being shot by Pepito and less than 7 years after& Peptio and "orma :ayadog was married witho!t a marriage license.ady R*'IN. The co!rt r!led in the affirmative& however& it denied Cipriano permission to remarry. Unfort!nately& for his petition to be granted& he has to prove to the co!rt that a divorce decree has been validly ac/!ired by his wife. Cipriano as ed the declaration of the co!rt permitting him to remarry. Pepito event!ally died and the children from the marriage to Teod!lfa filed for the declaration of n!llity of marriage of their father to "orma.
*rland #illan!eva was married to . He also claims that the never cohabited and that he co!ldn1t have impregnated her before marriage and that the child died !pon delivery. He visited her and new of her pregnancy and the child dying beca!se of premat!re birth. Also& his claim that they did not cohabit is not a gro!nd for the ann!lment of marriage especially since he failed to prove that this was d!e to fra!d& intimidation& lac of consent and the other gro!nds for ann!lment.I))*E (hether or not the marriage between the two sho!ld be considered n!ll and void by reason of lac of marriage license R*'IN. The case was dismissed and *rland was ordered to pay . VI''$N*EV$ %s (O*RT OF $PPE$') F$(T) This is a petition for review assailing the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals.ilia damages. :asing from the facts& the parties have merely cohabited as h!sband and wife for less than 7 years. The time from which "orma and Pepito started co!nting was from the time they started to live together witho!t noting that a marriage between Pepito and Teod!lfa was still s!bsisting. The co!rt said that it too *rland fo!r years to claim that he was coerced into the marriage which then '!stifies the possibility that he is as ing for the ann!lment of said marriage by reason of a bigamy case he is facing. *ne of the marriages permitted to be solemnized witho!t a valid marriage license is that when the parties have cohabited as h!sband and wife for . Said cohabitation m!st be !nbro en and dist!rbed by a third<party. He claims to have received harassing phone calls and visits from three men.ilia Canalita<#illan!eva in +388. The co!rt r!led in the negative. This cannot be considered as cohabitation as h!sband and wife beca!se they cannot be considered one then& Pepito being a h!sband of somebody else. )n this case a third<party e2isted beca!se Pepito was still married. . I))*E (hether or not the marriage may be ann!lled R*'IN. The co!rt r!led in the affirmative. years and have lived together as s!ch only witho!t a marriage contract.ilia however contests that he freely entered into the marriage and that they lived together for one month and he wrote her letters while he was in 6anila.ilia who was then pregnant. Also& his being a sec!rity g!ard m!st have given him proper nowledge when it comes to defending himself ma ing the claims of force d!e to facts stated above !ntenable. *rland event!ally filed for ann!lment of their marriage by reason of force and d!ress employed on him in order to marry . .
This prompted respondent to file for the n!llification of their marriage& however s!mmons remained !nserved. $!ring the co!rse of their marriage& petitioner asserts that Sharon demonstrated immat!rity and irresponsibility. Herein petitioner thro!gh the Solicitor -eneral /!estions the correctness of said decision as it failed to meet the standards meant by Article 54 of the 0amily Code. Said e2tra<marital affairs contin!ed specifically that with )brahim which bore two children.REP*"'I( OF T-E P-I'IPPINE) %s . The evidence failed to show that it was a psychological illness. DEDE' %s (O*RT OF $PPE$') F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals.*INTERO--$&$NO F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. )n these g!idelines& =!intero<Hamano1s evidence failed. (hen )brahim left the co!ntry& she went bac to $edel and $edel too her in and her children with )brahim. I))*E (hether or not Tosho can be considered psychologically incapacitated to warrant the n!llification of their marriage R*'IN. After presentation of evidence& the trial co!rt declared their marriage n!ll and void by reason of psychological incapacity. He only gave two months of financial s!pport and event!ally stopped. However& Tosho left for >apan a month after and did not ret!rn as promised. He claims that Sharon entered into e2tra marital affairs and was even confined in a hospital for treatment by a clinical psychiatrist. *n >an!ary of +388& they were married in Cavite. Psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity& '!ridical antecedence and inc!rability. (ith this abandonment of Sharon& $edel . However& Sharon event!ally followed )brahim to >ordan with her two children. =!intero<Hamano was married to a >apanese "ational named Tosho Hamano. $eldel was married to Sharon Corp!z and said marriage prod!ced fo!r children. 0or psychological incapacity to prosper& the fail!re of performance of the marital obligation m!st be d!e to the psychological incapacity or illness of a person not mere fail!re or dismissal of a marital obligation. Abandonment cannot be considered psychological in nat!re. :ased on the case of 6olina& psychological incapacity1s root ca!se m!st be a? medically and clinically defined b? alleged in the complaint c? s!fficiently proven by e2perts d? clearly e2plained in the decision. Her attempts at comm!nication failed and later on fo!nd o!t that even as Tosho visited the Philippines& he did not come to see them. The co!rt r!led in the negative and petition was granted. There relationship started when they lived together in >apan in +384 and said relationship event!ally gave birth to a child.
$aya.am does not s!pport his family and he rarely comes home.see s the n!llification of their marriage. The spo!ses have been living separately and Ch!a see s the n!llification of her marriage with . A person1s se2!al infidelity and her marriage to another which ca!sed her abandonment of her family with $edel& as m!ch as these are !nfort!nate in nat!re& cannot be considered as psychological incapacity beca!se they are mere prod!cts of immat!rity and other factors. '$& %s (-*$ F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resol!tion of the Co!rt of Appeals . Ch!a claims that . To '!stify the claims& Ch!a says that he is irresponsible and eeps on as ing for money for l!2!ry items.am has been married twice before their marriage which renders it bigamo!s. This was granted by the regional trial co!rt.am.am and Ch!a were married in the eyar +389 and said marriage conceived a son. He says that the affairs that Sharon had& were d!e to an Anti<social Personality disorder.am stating that a common f!nd was agreed !pon wherein they wo!ld both contrib!te 7. . .am to pay child s!pport of 7@&@@@ a month. This decision of the trial co!rt was reversed and set aside by the Co!rt of Appeals.am was psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations.@&@@@ each for the s!pport of their child. Ch!a presented evidence stating the facts given above b!t failed to show how m!ch is needed for child s!pport. The case was reopened at her instance and she presented evidence showing that . I))*E (hether or not the marriage sho!ld be declared n!ll and void for psychological incapacity or for being bigamo!s in nat!re and whether or not the 7@&@@@ monthly s!pport is '!stified. The co!rt r!led in the negative and affirmed the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. He was also said to be a womanizer and mismanages their con'!gal properties. I))*E (hether or not it was s!fficiently proven that Sharon was psychologically incapacitated eno!gh to warrant an ann!lment of their marriage R*'IN. The Trial Co!rt declared their marriage void and ordered . This was contested by . (ith this set<!p& Ch!a had no choice b!t to agree to dissol!tion of their con'!gal partnership of gains and separation of properties. The lower co!rt garnted this by reason of psychological incapacity as attested to by $r. The CA affirmed the trial co!rts decision. (hat is necessary in psychological incapacity is to show that there is a psychological illness or disorder which is grave in nat!re that wo!ld ca!se the spo!se1s fail!re to perform the marital obligations and not '!st a show of re'ection or irresponsibility toward said obligations.
am was previo!sly married and incapacitated to marry again. .am thro!gh his petitions which only /!estioned the monthly s!pport. *nce again& in +333& he filed a petition for n!llification of their marriage now by reason of lac of marriage license at the time the marriage was solemnized.(O F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. Alcantara contested the petition by invo ing res '!dicata and for!m shopping. )n fact& in the first petition& 6allion claimed that their marriage was solemnized and celebrated in accordance with law. ($R$TIN.R*'IN. &$''ION %s $'($NT$R$ F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. Also& Ch!a failed to show the amo!nt of s!pport act!ally needed and so the co!rt !pheld the cpncept of a f!nd agreed !pon. The co!rt does not favor those who present their claims in pieces on different actions. R*'IN. Said claim was not even contested by . $!e to his fail!re to s!fficiently prove the incapacity& the co!rt denied the petition for n!llification.& 6allion filed a petition see ing thhe n!llification of their marriage by reason of psychological incapacity. The co!rt r!led in the negative.-)I$+N. Said iss!e has already been settled. The concept of res '!dicata prohibits this. )n the present case the same relief is so!ght which is the n!llification of marriage now for a different gro!nd. (ith regard to the second iss!e& the co!rt decided that the monthly s!pport was not '!stified beca!se it was decided beyond the scope of the /!estions raised. I))*E (hether or not the iss!e of marriage invalidity d!e to lac of marriage license may be raised when the n!llification of marriage was also see ed by reason of psychological incapacity. This admission prevents him from ta ing a different stand in the present case where he claims otherwise.(O %s )I$+N. The co!rt r!led in the affirmative on the first iss!e and declared it n!ll and void by reason of bigamy. )t was s!fficiently proven that . 6allion was married to Alcantara and in +33. The petition was denied as well as the motion for reconsideration s!bse/!ently filed. Res '!dicata is a bar d!e to prior '!dgment. He then is estopped from /!estioning the n!llification of marriage.
A marriage co!nselor testified that when she saw petitioner he was harassed& distra!ght and !nhappy and that she fo!nd the marriage to be dysf!nctional and destr!ctive. The marriage th!s cannot be declared n!ll and void. I))*E (hether or not one or both of the parties were proven psychologically incapacitated s!fficient to warrant the n!llification of their marriage. The testimonies of the doctor failed to show that this infidelity is ca!sed by a psychological illness or disorder. This act is ca!sed by his desire to have children which he himself admitted. %s (E(I'IO-N$V$RRO F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. However& the petitioner claims that even before their marriage respondent wo!ld complain when she didn1t get what she wanted from him and she /!arreled with him a lot d!ring their marriage for not having time for her and was always 'ealo!s. N$V$RRO Jr. 6an!el& after being married for 79 years filed a petition to the co!rt see ing the n!llification of their marriage by reason of psychological incapacity e2hibited thro!gh over domineering attit!de and ca!sing him embarrassment and h!miliation. Respondent on the other hand claims that she had no marital problems !ntil petitioner had an affair with another doctor and she ca!ght him in a motel where they had an altercation.>!anita Carating Siayngco was married to 6an!el Siayngco. The lower co!rt denied his petition. The co!rt r!led in the negative. )t is necessary that it his by reason of a psychological disorder that he will be completely !nable to perform his marital obligations. The CA on the other hand reversed the decision relying on the doctor1s findings that bith parties are psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner and respondent were childhood sweethearts who event!ally got married and their marriage gave birth to fo!r children. The respondent was said to be incapacitated beca!se she did not s!pport her h!sband and was not !nderstanding of his profession as a doctor. 6an!el1s relationship with another was ca!sed merely by his se2!al infidelity which does not fall within the p!rview of psychological incapacity. #elasco& another doctor testified that professionals per se are incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of marriage beca!se of their time and goals. The first part of their marriage was lived in harmony. The evidence add!ced failed to show s!fficiently that the co!ple or either of the spo!se were psychologically incapacitated& rather it showed that they were merely having the marital tro!ble of becoming strangers to each other and wanting to get o!t of it. Reconciliation& she said& was impossible. Petitioner event!ally stopped coming home. R*'IN. Their marriage did not prod!ce children however& the adopted a boy. She said she only ref!sed to have se2 with his . (ith regard to >!anita& 6an!el failed to show that her actions constit!te psychological incapacity that wo!ld render her !nable to perform her marital obligations and that a doctor has in fact stated otherwise.
Rolando . The Co!rt affirmed the decision of the CA. The lower co!rt denied the motion. The testimony of the marriage co!nselor was based only on the claims of petitioner and has no probative val!e and the statement of the other witness is highly debatable& hence there is do!bt. '$NDI(-O %s RE'OV$ F$(T) This is an original petition in the S!preme Co!rt. Pasia event!ally filed an action before the Co!rt of 0irst )nstance see ing to declare her marriage n!ll and void ab initio beca!se there was force& threats and intimidation and beca!se it was bigamo!s in character. . R*'IN. *ne of the g!idelines says that the b!rden of proof rests with the plaintiff and any do!bts sho!ld be decided in favor of the s!bsistence of marriage. Certiorari and prohibition with preliminary in'!nction. He then moved to s!spend the proceedings of the criminal case claiming that it raises a pre'!dicial /!estion d!e to the pending ann!lment case filed by him against 6a atangay.andicho then filed a third party complaint against 6a atangay see ing the declaration of their marriage as n!ll and void d!e to force& threat and intimidation beings what compelled him to marry 6a atnagay. $iffic!lty& ref!sal or neglect in performing then marital obligations is not s!fficient& it m!st be some psychological illness. He was charged with the offense of bigamy for the fact stated above. Psychological )ncapacity m!st be characterized by gravity& '!ridical antecedence& and inc!rability for it to n!llify a marriage. )t m!st be confined to the most serio!s cases that wo!ld tr!ly remove the significance of marriage. I))*E (hether or not a criminal case for bigamy sho!ld be s!spended while a civil action for the ann!lment of marriage is pending beca!se the latter raises a pre'!dicial /!estion . The trial co!rt held that both were psychologically incapacitated and that the marriage is now n!ll and void.andicho was married to %lvira 6a atangay when he contracted a second marriage with 0e . I))*E (hether or not the parties are psychologically incapacitated and s!ch sho!ld warrant the n!llification of their marriage. She also said that she did love her h!sband. )n this case& the /!arrels and bic ering as well as the constant arg!ments cannot be considered as psychological incapacity. Upon appeal& the Co!rt of Appeals decided that the marriage still s!bsists. A previo!s decision of the co!rt gave g!idelines for deciding similar cases. )t m!st be a mental incapacity that tr!ly renders a person incapable of performing basic marital obligations s!ch as Aliving together& observing m!t!al love& respect and fidelity as well as render m!t!al help and s!pportB.h!sband& as his h!sband claims& d!e to her discovery of the affair.o!rdes Pasia.
The co!rt relied on . A s!bse/!ent marriage cannot be contracted before a '!dicial declaration of the n!llity of the previo!s marriage is shown. He also contracted a marriage with Paz :.R*'IN. )t agreed with the decision of the lower co!rt d!e to some points. *ne is that ann!lment cases do not always raise a pre'!dicial /!estion that wo!ld render it a hindrance to a criminal proceeding. 6al!ping then moved for the s!spension of the trial for the criminal case beca!se the case on the n!llity of his second marriage was still pending and it raises a pre'!dicial /!estion. A pre'!dicial /!estion arises in a case the Aresol!tion of which /!estion is a logical antecedent of the iss!e involved in said case& and the cognizance of which pertains to another trib!nalB.eonilo $onato contracted a marriage with Rosalinda 6al!ping on >!ne 5@& +3.andicho vs Relova wherein it was stated that a pre'!dicial /!estion does not necessarily arise from a bigamy case when there is a pending ann!lment proceeding.!na& the '!dge of the Co!rt of 0irst )nstance of 6anila denied the motion. The co!rt decided in the negative. Also& an ann!lment of marriage is not for the parties to decide b!t sho!ld be left to the determination of the competent co!rts. This means that . )n the present case& it was the second wife who filed for the ann!lment of their marriage by reason of deceit and not petitioner. .8. *therwise& the party contracting a s!bse/!ent marriage is at ris of being charged of bigamy. )t is necessary that the decision in the case wo!ld determine the o!tcome of the other.andicho can still be tried for bigamy beca!se the s!bse/!ent marriage was contracted despite the fact that there was no declaration that the previo!s marriage is already n!ll and void. )t is necessary that for a pre'!dicial /!estion to arise& it was the one acc!sed of bigamy who also filed for ann!lment of the s!bse/!ent marriage beca!se of reasons s!ch as force or threat meaning he had no choice b!t to contract another marriage. )t was only a year after his second marriage when he claimed to have been forced to marry for the second time and has been living with private respondent for . years as if . The co!rt r!led in the negative. He claims that he wants his second marriage ann!lled beca!se there was no valid marriage license presented and there was !se of threat and force and that the decision in said case is material to the criminal case. DON$TO %s '*N$ F$(T) This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary in'!nction to review the resol!tion of the Co!rt of 0irst )nstance.8. Upon finding o!t that $onato had a s!bsisting marriage& Abayan filed for ann!lment of their marriage by reason of deceit beca!se she did not now he was married. . 6al!ping event!ally filed a criminal case against $onato for bigamy. Abayan on September 74& +3. I))*E (hether or not a criminal case for bigamy sho!ld be s!spended while a civil action for the ann!lment of marriage is pending beca!se the latter raises a pre'!dicial /!estion R*'IN.
E' %s )$&PIO-DI+ F$(T) This is a petition to review the orders of the >!venile and $omestic Relations Co!rt.they were h!sband and wife which made the marriage license dispensable. . /IE.4. DO&IN. (ith this it can be said that there was a marriage s!bsisting when . $elia also claims that she wor s in Sa!di Arabia and visits only for a month in a year and that she has p!rchases properties with her earnings and entr!sted the administration of these to Roberto. Petitioner is said to be p!rely dependent on $elia and is not employed. )n +385 however& she fo!nd o!t that Roberto was already married when they contracted their marriage to one %rmelina dela Paz who s!ed them for bigamy. The marriage is '!st voidable beca!se ass!ming there is force& it only falls !nder the Article 8@ of the Civil Code wherein force is classified.ilia admitted said marriage b!t claims it is n!ll and void beca!se she and %d!ardo were forced into the marriage. This means that the marriage is valid !ntil ann!lled. The co!rt fo!nd the marriage merely voidable and that there remains to be a gro!nd for n!llity of marriage.ilia *livia (iegel beca!se there was a s!bsisting marriage between her and %d!ardo A.ilia married Carl ma ing their marriage void. )n the pre<trial the iss!e agreed !pon was the stat!s of the previo!s marriage ass!ming there was force. Respondent '!dge r!led against the presentation of evidence beca!se the presence of force in the first marriage has already been agreed !pon. $elia filed an action before the co!rt see ing the declaration of the n!llity of their marriage by reason of a previo!s marriage as well as Separation of Property. 6a2ion. Roberto moved to dismiss this petition claiming that since there is a s!bsisting marriage& theirs is void from the .ilia as ed the co!rt for an opport!nity to present evidence that the first marriage was vitiated by force and that her first h!sband was already married to someone else. $elia $omingo married petitioner Roberto $omingo in +3.O %s (O*RT OF $PPE$') F$(T) This is a petition for review of the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. Carl Heinz (iegel filed an action before the co!rt for the declaration of the n!llity of his marriage with . . The presentation of evidence with regard to the marriage of the first h!sband to another is also !nnecessary beca!se a marriage needs a '!dicial declaration of its n!llity before it can be considered as a void marriage. I))*E) (hether or not the previo!s marriage was void or voidable (hether or not there is gro!nd for n!llity of marriage R*'IN. The petition for ann!lment was not his initiative hence& he cannot claim that a pre'!dicial /!estion arises. Hence& this petition.
beginning and needs no '!dicial declaration and that he had no property of the private respondent in his possession. The co!rt also r!led that the separation of property is to be r!led by provisions provided in the new civil code as related to marriages event!ally rendered void by reason of a s!bsisting marriage. Petitioner filed a petition to defer the criminal proceeding beca!se he claims that it raises a pre'!dicial /!estion seeing as there is a possibility that the civil case and criminal case wo!ld give rise to conflicting decisions. Charmaine event!ally filed a criminal case for conc!binage. )n her answer& Charmaine avers that 6eynardo was living with another woman and has abandoned them. I))*E (hether or not the pending case for the n!llification of marriage raises a pre'!dicial /!estion to the criminal case R*'IN. 0or a pre'!dicial /!estion to arise& it is necessary that the criminal case is dependent !pon the same set of facts as the civil case and that the decision in the civil case wo!ld determine the g!ilt or innocence in the criminal case. )n the present case Article 9@ of the 0amily code governs which states that the absol!te n!llity of a marriage re/!ires a final '!dgment from the co!rts. This means that when the co!rt decides !pon the n!llity of their marriage or declares it to be so& the co!rt also has '!risdiction over the terms of property separation in accordance with law. This provision is for p!rposes of ac/!iring another marriage and also for the protection of the party who may be at ris of being charged of bigamy. %vent!ally& 6eynardo filed a petiton for the n!llification of their marriage by reason of psychological incapacity. The co!rt r!led in the negative and affirmed the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. The co!rt r!led in the negative. The co!rt denied the motion to dismiss. I))*E (hether or not the co!rt erred in r!ling that a '!dicial declaration is still necessary hence motion to dismiss sho!ld be denied R*'IN. 6eynardo :eltran was married to Charmaine 0eli2 with whom he stayed married to for 79 years and prod!ced fo!r children. This petition was denied by the lower co!rt& hence the present petition. )n this case& the cohabitation with another began before a '!dgment that the previo!s marriage is void& giving the respondent the right to file a criminal case. The . P!rs!ant to "ew Civil Code which provides that a '!dicial declaration of the n!llity of marriage is necessary before the ac/!isition of a s!bse/!ent marriage& the co!rt decided that proceedings for a '!dicial declaration m!st not be dismissed. "E'TR$N %s PEOP'E F$(T) This is an instant petition filed for review to the S!preme Co!rt.
The parents event!ally wrote to him saying that >anet has left Anti/!e and that she has already given birth. )t is necessary that before contracting a marriage one is already capacitated to remarry by virt!e of a declaration of marriage and not after. This is most helpf!l before contracting a s!bse/!ent marriage. Par er then lived with him in the ship for 4 months and married her after his seman1s contract e2pired. The lower co!rt as well as the Co!rt of Appeals fo!nd him g!ilty& hence this petition. :esides& said n!llification was see ed only after a complaint for bigamy was filed against him. &ER($DO %s T$N F$(T) This is a petition for review on the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. $r. 6ercado on the other hand& filed a petition for the n!llification of his marriage with *liva which was granted by the co!rt. The 0amily Code now provides that for the absol!te n!llity of marriage to be considered& it is necessary that a '!dicial declaration of n!llity be obtained. The bigamy case proceeded and 6ercado admits that the two marriages were cons!mmated b!t contests that since the first marriage has already been declared n!ll and void& bigamy co!ld no longer be charged against him. Said provision is a safeg!ard so as to lessen the ris of being charged of bigamy. However Tan discovered that 6ercado was already married to one 6aria Thelma *liva in +3. #incent 6ercado was married to 6a.res!lt of the civil case is immaterial since a s!bse/!ent '!dgment of n!llification of marriage cannot be a defense to conc!binage. He claimed that he has loo ed for her in %ngland and even wrote letters to the bar where he met her b!t the same was ret!rned to him. The Co!rt r!led in the affirmative. "olasco . He also as ed friends for information b!t to no avail. Tan event!ally filed a complaint for bigamy against 6ercado.4 with whom he also had children. After said marriage& he was able to be employed as seaman again and left the co!ntry while >anet stayed with his parents in Anti/!e. The s!bse/!ent ac/!isition of a '!dicial declaration of the n!llity of marriage cannot be a hindrance to a bigamy case. I))*E (hether petitioner can still be proceeded against for bigamy after a s!bse/!ent declaration of the n!llity of marriage of the first one cons!mmated R*'IN. REP*"'I( OF T-E P-I'IPPINE) %s NO'$)(O F$(T) -regorio "olasco met >anet 6onica Par er in a bar in %ngland d!ring a port call& "olasco being a seaman. Cons!elo Tan in +33+ and prod!ced a child. S!ch circ!mstance is present in this case. This is beca!se it is not for the co!ples to decide and declare the n!llity of their marriage b!t a tas given to the co!rts.
The others are the year of absence and the wish to remarry. The CA affirmed the lower co!rt1s decision. Antonia Armas& the s!rviving sister of Teodorico& filed a petition to have her son declared as adminsitartor of the estate of Teodorico& her being the sole s!rviving heir of Teodorico beca!se his marriage to 6arietta was bigamo!s in nat!re. )n +337& Teodorico died intestate leaving properties amo!nting to abo!t si2 h!ndred tho!sand pesos. :asing from the above fact& the trial co!rt granted the petition. The co!rt th!s cannot declare >anet pres!mptively dead by reason of lac of well fo!nded belief. I))*E (hether or not the marriage between Teodorico and 6arietta is valid . The lower co!rt r!led in favor of Armas and garnted their petition. He is the seond h!sband of Armas since she was previo!sly married to >ames :o!nds in +394. The Co!rt r!led in the negative and reversed and set aside the decision of the lower and appellate co!rts. and 6arietta married Teodorico ++ years after the disappearance. )t can be seen that his search was not a diligent one. 6arietta contested this saying that his marriage with Teodorico is valid having contracted it only ++ years after the disappearance of the first h!sband. )n the present case& "olasco claims that he searched for >anet in %ngland& as ed friends and wrote to a bar. He did not& as he sho!ld have& ac/!ired the help and assistance of a!thorities both local and that of the :ritish %mbassy so as to perform a better search. He merely depended on chance when he loo ed for her in a big city abroad and as ed ac/!aintances. I))*E (hether or not "olasco was able to comply with the re/!isites of Article 9+ of the 0amily Code specifically the need for a well<fo!nded belief that the spo!se is dead& which wo!ld warrant the declaration of pres!mptive death R*'IN. *ne of the re/!irements for the declaration of pres!mptive death is that it is based on a well fo!nded belief. $R&$) %s ($'I)TERIO F$(T) Teodorico Calisterio was married to 6arietta. >ames diappeared in +39. The Rep!blic of the Philippines appealed this case saying that the pres!mptive death "olasco claims is not based on a well<fo!nded belief and th!s cannot be granted by the Co!rt. The CA !pon appeal however& reversed the decision basing on 6arietta1s claim that it is the Civil Code in force at the time of the marriage to Teodorico that sho!ld be !pheld and not the present 0amily Code.event!ally filed for a petition of declaration of pres!mptive death of >anet.
Tina claims that everytime she as s him abo!t these matters he slaps her.R*'IN.. Since >ames :o!nds has been absent for ++ years before the marriage between Teodorico and 6arietta too place& the marriage m!st be declared valid. The marriage between Teodorico and 6arietta too place in +3. )n the iss!e of bigamy& the co!rt '!stified their decision by the fact that ignorance of the law does not e2c!se %d!ardo from complying with the necessary re/!irements before a person can contract a second marriage. %d!ardo contends however& that Tina new of his previo!s marriage and that he believed in good faith that his marriage was already dissolved beca!se of his wife1s absence for 7@ years. )t was way beyond the seven years prescribed by law. Upon investigating& Tina discovered in the "S* that %d!ardo was already married and so she filed a case for bigamy. They were married in April of +334. )t was the time when the iss!e arose that sho!ld be considered and not the present time.8. This is also what appears in the marriage contract. He offered her marriage and even bro!ght his parents to :ag!io to meet Tina1s parents and ass!red them that their son was single. The lower co!rt as well as the appellate co!rt r!led in favor of Tina -andalera. I))*E (hether or not %d!ardo sho!ld be held liable for bigamy and that moral damages sho!ld be awarded to -anadalera. A '!dicial declaration was not yet deemed necessary at that time so long as the party involved is able to show that they have complied with the necessary re/!isites. )n his case& what was important was the '!dicial declaration of pres!mption of death of his first wife. This is beca!se of provisions in the Civil Code as well as the Revised Penal Code which . The co!rt r!led in the affirmative. %vent!ally& %d!ardo got all his things and left. After being able to b!ild a home together& event!ally %d!ardo rarely came home and did not send money for s!pport.& %d!ardo 6an!el was married to R!byl!s -ana in 6a ati. Sometime in +334& 6an!el met Tina -andalera& a st!dent& in $ag!pan. R*'IN. He then visited him and they even went to a motel where& despite Tina1s resistance& %d!ardo was able to have his way with her. *n >!ly 78& +3. $!ring said year it was the Civil Code which was in force and the provision governing their marriage states that a s!bse/!ent marriage may validly be contacted so long as the spo!se has been absent for seven consec!tive years and it is with good faith that the spo!se left remarries. &$N*E' %s PEOP'E F$(T) This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals finding petitioner g!ilty of bigamy. She was then 7+& and %d!ardo was 53. The co!rt affirmed the decision of the appellate co!rt. Said wife was event!ally convicted for estafa and 6an!el has had no comm!nication with her for 7@ years.
The co!rt r!led in the affirmative.!cia event!ally left for Canada again leaving . )n the present case& the marriage was declared void ab initio. The co!rt r!led that altho!gh bigamy was not incl!ded in the list of cases provided for by Article 7+3& moral damages may nevertheless be granted in light of Articles +3& 7@ and 7+ of the Civil Code. After discovery of this fact& he married 6aria . Also& according to Article 7@& if the standards setforth in the previo!s provision is not met& the person who willf!lly violates this is to responsible and in Article 7+& said person m!st compensate the person damages or in'!red by his act. They are +? that there is a legal right or d!ty 7? e2ercised in bad faith and 5? the sole intent of pre'!dicing or in'!ring another. 0rom these provisions& a grant of moral damages is '!stified beca!se -andalera was willf!lly made to believe that she was marrying a single man and she d!tif!lly served him as a wife only to be deceived by him. The co!rt finds the elements present in said case beca!se he ass!red -andalera that he was single and even indicated this in the marriage contract.!cia as n!ll and void meaning no marriage too place.re/!ires said '!dicial declaration to avoid being charged of bigamy. The lower co!rt in t!rn filed a case for bigamy against him. . Also& that the divorce ac/!ired by .!cia is not recognized in the Philippines& *ntario having no '!risdiction over the marriage of the co!ple.!cio. Upon appeal& the CA declared the marriage between .!cio then see ed the dismissal of his case for bigamy by reason of the declaration of his marriage with .!cia :arrette when she came home from Canada after being sweethearts for some time. They were married in +33@ at the )glecia 0ilipina "acional.!cia as n!ll and void ab initio. (hen it comes to the moral damages& the respondent claimed that said damages cannot be granted beca!se bigamy is not incl!ded in the specific cases where moral damages is to be granted according to Article 77+3 of the Civil Code.O %s PEOP'E F$(T) . )t is . They said that n!llification of marriage is not a defense for bigamy.!cia beca!se no marriage ceremony act!ally too place. Article +3 provides for the principle of Ab!se of Rights which has three re/!isites in order to be invo ed.!mbago and later on paryed for the declaratgion of the n!llity of his marriage with . I))*E (hether or not a declaration of marriage as void ab intio is a valid defense for bigamy R*'IN. . . This was also fo!nd necessary in order to prevent problems in the f!t!re with respect to the second marriage.!cia then petitioned for a divorce decree in *ntario which was later on granted by the Co!rt of *ntario.!cio 6origo decided to marry . The lower co!rt and co!rt of Appeals fo!nd that said n!llification is not a valid defense for bigamy. This means that the marriage was n!ll from the very beginning and no marriage too place by reason of the absence of an a!thorized solemnizing officer which is an essential re/!isite.!cio a/nd . &ORI.
The co!rt fo!nd it !ntenable that petitioner did not notice that defendant was pregnant at the time of marriage beca!se she was abo!t 4 months pregnant then.ap!<lap! city. I))*E (hether or not Tenebro1s marriage to #illareyes was valid and whether he may invo e psychological incapacity in the '!dicial declaration of n!llity of marriage on liability for bigamy R*'IN. Tenebro claimed that he only had children with #illareyes b!t there was no e2isting valid marriage between them beca!se there was no ceremony that too place and also there is no record of their marriage in the civil registrar.!cia and therefore when he contracted the marriage with another woman he was not considered married. (ith this& the co!rt r!led that a s!bse/!ent marriage was considered contracted while another marriage s!bsists th!s constit!ting bigamy. This marriage too place in +33@. The lower co!rt fo!nd him g!ilty of bigamy and said decision was later on affirmed by the Co!rt of Appeals. These were s!fficient doc!mentary evidence that can prove that a marriage was solemnized since that is what is stated in the doc!ment and signed by the parties. (hen a co!rt declares a marriage n!ll and void by reason of psychological incapacity it does not declare the marriage non<e2istent from the very beginning. %vent!ally Tenebro showed Anca'as a marriage certificate involving him and a #illareyes& a marriage cons!mmated in +384. (ith regard to the first iss!e& the co!rt r!led in the affirmative and r!led in the negative on the latter. Upon appeal& said decision was affirmed.!cio was never married to . . The petitioner contested this by invo ing psychological incapacity in the second marriage. Th!s& no bigamy too place. "*(($T %s "*(($T F$(T) Petitioner met defendant in +358 and married her the same year. The co!rt decided in favor of the defendant despite the fact that she did not appear. Tenebro left their home and said that he will cohabit with #illareyes.considered that . )t is for this reason that petitioner is see ing the ann!lment of their marriage. However& in +335& he married another woman named #illegas. He said she claimed to be a virgin entering into the marriage. TENE"RO %s (O*RT OF $PPE$') F$(T) Tenebro was married to Anca'as before a '!dge in a trial co!rt in . (ith this& Anca'as filed a case for bigamy. %ighty nine days into the marriage& defendant gave birth to a child. After discovering this& Anca'as corresponded with #illareyes as ing her if their marriage did ta e place and #illareyes answered in the affirmative. 0or the first iss!e& #illareyes was able to present a valid marriage certificate and her handwritten statement. This means that a marriage is still considered to have ta en place.
These evidences were his brother1s statement that he himself fathered the child and hid this fact from petitioner and showed pict!res of $elizo saying she was nat!rally pl!mp.*INO %s DE'I0O F$(T) This is a petition for review of the decision of the Co!rt of Appeals. Petitioner was able to show that the girl was nat!rally pl!mp or fat which does not ma e it obvio!s that she is pregnant. $. The co!rt r!led in the affirmative. The co!rt r!led in favor of $elizo and did not invalidate the marriage beca!se the concealment of the pregnancy does not constit!te the fra!d that wo!ld invalidate a marriage.9 while she was pregnant.I))*E (hether or not the marriage can be declared ann!lled based on the evidence add!ced R*'IN. His claim of developed abdomens being normal is not something the co!rt can accept beca!se it was not '!st a normal developed abdomen b!t one in an advanced and severe stage of pregnancy. I))*E (hether or not concealment of pregnancy constit!tes fra!d that co!ld ann!l the marriage R*'IN. This constit!tes fra!d and can '!stify an ann!lment. Conchita $elizo married 0ernando A/!ino in +3. )n the 0amily Code& the law incl!des fra!d as gro!nds for n!llification of a marriage. A/!ino now claims that her pregnancy was concealed from him beca!se it was of another man while $elizo claims that it was their child o!t of wedloc . . A/!ino tried to reopen the case b!t it was denied and the CA event!ally affirmed the lower co!rt1s decision saying that it was impossible for him not to have noticed that the girl was pregnant. )t has been shown that pregnancy is !s!ally obvio!s on the 4th month when the ro!ndness act!ally appears. A motion for reconsideration was filed or chance to present f!rther evidence to the lower co!rt which he id. This is d!e to the fact that it was impossible for a person whose intelligence cannot be /!estioned& being a first year law st!dent& to not have noticed the severe stage and advanced stage that the person he was marrying was in at that time. The petition was denied. The co!rt affirmed the decision of the lower co!rt. The case was then remanded for a new trial. A/!ino filed a petition for n!llification of marriage by reason of fra!d. )n the present case& the pregnancy was concealed from petitioner at the time of the marriage and said child was of another man. He presented the marriage contractv while $elizo did not present any. The co!rt cannot accept that there is fra!d.
T!ason responded with denial stating that their relationship was lived in harmony !ntil some differences manifested themselves. This means& he cannot claim relief from '!dgment. He claims that it was for medical reasons that he was not able to ma e it to the hearing b!t fail!re to notify co!nsel is not the fa!lt of the co!rt.7 and this relationship prod!ced children. Said '!dge immediately served s!mmons to 6argie which she did not receive beca!se her whereabo!ts were !n nown and she only fo!nd o!t abo!t it thro!gh a newspaper. *n the day of the hearing %milio failed to show !p and so he was declared to have waived his right to present evidence. The co!rt r!led in the negative. The marriage was ann!lled and event!ally 6aria filed for administration of con'!gal properties which %milio opposed. )n this case it was the negligence of petitioner which ca!sed his fail!re to present evidence. I))*E (hether or not respondent acted with bias and partiality as well as ignorance of the law . His co!nsel as ed the co!rt to have the hearing moved beca!se the co!nsel was o!t of the co!ntry. )t is necessary when attempting to have a final '!dgment set aside to be '!stified by fra!d& accident or mista e. 6aria then filed a A6otion for $issol!tion of Con'!gal Partnership of -ains and Ad'!dication to Plaintiff of the Con'!gal PropertiesB which was event!ally contested by %milio and he later on filed for relief from the decision of the co!rt. 6argie then filed a 6otion to dismiss which the '!dge disregarded and proceeded with the petition of 6ariano. He was given the chance to be in co!rt b!t he negligently threw away this chance. This was denied and the CA affirmed this decision. (ORP*) %s O(-OTOREN$ F$(T) 6ariano 6acias filed a petition for the n!llification of his marriage with 6argie 6acias. 6aria now claims that %milio manifested psychological incapacity thro!gh violence ca!sing her physical in'!ries and dr!g !se which ca!ses him a s!spended penalty. I))*E (hether or not %milio may claim for relief from the '!dgment of the CA R*'IN. The co!rt declared the marriage n!ll and void. 6aria then filed a petition for ann!lment by reason of this. He cannot blame the co!rt for this beca!se said decision was well within d!e process of law. This was raffled to >!dge *chotorena. The '!dge proceeded with the hearing witho!t the resol!tion of the motions.T*$)ON %s (O*RT OF $PPE$') F$(T) 6aria T!ason and %milio T!ason were a married in +3.
The '!dge also did not follow the R!les of Co!rt which re/!ires an investigation to be made first by the prosec!ting attorney with regard to coll!sion and if none& to intervene and chec for fabrications in the evidence. The co!rt r!led in the affirmative. The '!dge performed a so called Aproced!ral shortc!tB and ignored the motion of the petitioner. Said order by the co!rt did not ta e place th!s& the '!dge1s actions were erroneo!s. Then '!dge acted on the petition for n!llification and proceeded with it witho!t acting on the motion to dismiss which was filed within the period prescribed by law. . )t is only after this that a case may be tried on its merits.R*'IN.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.