Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digest
Digest
DECISION ISSUE:
MENDOZA, J.:
Whether or not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC entitled “Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,” is applicable to
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of the case at bench.
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC, which the Court promulgated on 15 March 2003, extends only to those HELD:
marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took effect
on 3 August 1988.
No, it does not.
FACTS:
RATIO:
Petitioner Cynthia Bolos(Cynthia)filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her
marriage to Respondent Danilo Bolos (Danilo) under Article 36 of the Family The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Code. After trial on the merits, the RTC granted the petition for annulment. A copy Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which the Court
of said decision was received by respondent Danilo and he thereafter timely filed promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the Rule, in
the Notice of Appeal. fact, reads:
The RTC denied due course to the appeal for Danilo’s failure to file the required “Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute
motion for reconsideration or new trial, in violation of Section 20 of the Rule on nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Code of the Philippines.
Marriages. Thereafter, the RTC issued the order declaring its decision declaring
the marriage null and void as final and executory and granting the Motion for Entry The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.”
of Judgment filed by Cynthia. Not in conformity, Danilo filed with the CA a petition
forcertiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the orders of the RTC as they were The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The
rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the
jurisdiction. Danilo also prayed that he be declared psychologically capacitated to Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.7 The rule sets a demarcation
render the essential marital obligations to Cynthia, who should be declared guilty line between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under
of abandoning him, the family home and their children. the Civil Code.8 The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to petitioner’s
interpretation that the phrase “under the Family Code” in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
The CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the refers to the word “petitions” rather than to the word “marriages.”
RTC declaring the nullity of marriage as final and executory. The appellate court
stated that the requirement of a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the RTC decision
appeal under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply in this case as the marriage which denied due course to respondent’s appeal and denying petitioner’s motion
between Cynthia and Danilo was solemnized on February 14, 1980 before the for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
Family Code took effect.
THIRD DIVISION Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is
already dead.
RULING:
G.R. No. 94053 March 17, 1993 No. Nolasco failed to prove that he had complied with the third
requirement under the Article 41 of the Family Code, the existence of a
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, "well-founded belief" that Janet is already dead.
vs.
GREGORIO NOLASCO, respondent. Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption to arise has
been shortened to 4 years; however, there is a need for judicial
declaration of presumptive death to enable the spouse present to
marry. However, Article 41 imposes a stricter standard before
declaring presumptive death of one spouse. It requires a "well-founded
FELICIANO, J.:
belief" that the absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration
of presumptive death can be granted.
FACTS: In the case at bar, the Court found Nolasco's alleged attempt to
ascertain about Janet's whereabouts too sketchy to form the basis of a
Nolasco, a seaman, first met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in England. reasonable or well-founded belief that she was already dead.
After that, she lived with him on his ship for 6 months. After his
seaman's contract has expired, he brought her to his hometown in San Nolasco, after returning from his employment, instead of seeking help
Jose, Antique. They got married in January 1982. of local authorities or of the British Embassy, secured another contract
to London. Janet's alleged refusal to give any information about her was
After the marriage celebration, he got another employment contract and too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her. He did not
left the province. In January 1983, Nolasco received a letter from his explain why he took him 9 months to finally reached San Jose after he
mother that 15 days after Janet gave birth to their son, she left. He cut asked leave from his captain. He refused to identify his friends whom
short his contract to find Janet. He returned home in November 1983. he inquired from. When the Court asked Nolasco about the returned
letters, he said he had lost them. Moreover, while he was in London, he
He did so by securing another contract which England is one of its port did not even dare to solicit help of authorities to find his wife.
calls. He wrote several letters to the bar where he and Janet first met,
but all were returned to him. He claimed that he inquired from his friends The circumstances of Janet's departure and Nolasco's subsequent
but they too had no news about Janet. In 1988, Nolasco filed before the behavior make it very difficult to regard the claimed belief that Janet
RTC of Antique a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of was dead a well-founded one.
his wife Janet.
ISSUE:
HELD:
FIRST DIVISION
Any decision in the civil case the fact that respondent entered into a
[G.R. No. 138509. July 31, 2000] second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision
in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It
IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs. ISAGANI D.
BOBIS, respondent. is therefore not a prejudicial question. Respondent cannot be permitted to use
his malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.
DECISION
A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime
but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of
the accused. It must appear not only that the civil case involves facts upon
FACTS: which the criminal action is based, but also that the resolution of the issues
raised in the civil action would necessarily be determinative of the civil
On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani Bobis contracted a first marriage
case. Consequently, the defense must involve an issue similar or intimately
with Ma. Dulce Javier. With said marriage not yet annulled, nullified nor
related to the same issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution
terminated, he contracted a second marriage with herein petitioner Imelda
determinative of whether or not the latter action may proceed. Its two essential
Marbella (on Jan. 25, 1996), and a third marriage with certain Julia Hernandez,
elements are (a) the civil action involves an issue raised in the criminal action;
thereafter.
and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.
Petitioner then filed a case of bigamy against respondent on Feb. 25, 1998, at
In the case at bar, the respondent’s clear intent is to obtain a judicial
the RTC of Quezon City. Thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the
declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very
declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage license. He then filed a
same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his
motion to suspend the criminal proceeding for bigamy invoking the civil case
cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is
for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal
disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and
case. The RTC granted the motion, while petitioner’s motion for
escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void and
reconsideration was denied.
the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration
ISSUE: of nullity of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage aware of the
absence of a requisite—usually the marriage license—and thereafter contract
Whether or not the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration a subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on
of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal the assumption that the first marriage is void. Such scenario would render
case for bigamy.
nugatory the provisions on bigamy. As succinctly held in Landicho v. Relova, The elements of bigamy are (1) the offender has been legally
22 SCRA 731(1968): married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case
Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared
themselves its nullity, [as] only competent courts have such authority. Prior to presumptively dead; (3) that he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the
such declaration of nullity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence
contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for of the first. The exceptions to prosecution for bigamy are those covered by
bigamy. Article 41 of the Family Code and by PD 1083 otherwise known as the Code
of Muslim Personal Laws
A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or
innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency of the allegations in
the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal
case. A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have
hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of a crime have been
adequately alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution has not
yet presented single evidence on the indictment or may not yet have rested its
case. A challenge of the allegations in the information on the ground of
prejudicial question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge
through a non-criminal suit.
Facts: Issues:
Matilde Menciano, in her behalf and in behalf of the minors 1. Was the marriage between the deceased Faustino Neri San
Carlo Magno Neri and Faustino Neri, Jr., filed a motion for Jose and Matilde Menciano valid?
declaration of heirs, alleging that she is the widow of the
deceased Faustino Neri San Jose to whom she was married on
September 28, 1944, before Rev. Father Isaias Edralin, S. J. She
claims that before the marriage the deceased and she lived 2. Are, the children Faustino Neri, Jr. and Carlo Magno Neri the
together as husband and wife, there having been no impediment legitimate children of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and
to their marriage. She further claims that as a result of their Matilde Menciano?
cohabitation before the marriage the child Carlo Magno Neri was
born on March 9, 1940 and was later baptized, said child having
enjoyed the status of a recognized natural child and that their
second child Faustino Neri, Jr., was born on April 24, 1945; and 3. Did Matilde Menciano have in her possession and illegally
that Carlo Magno Neri was legitimized by the subsequent disposed of the cash, jewels, and certain properties above
matrimony of his parents and Faustino Neri, Jr., is a legitimate mentioned?
child born in lawful wedlock.
for potency being met, the necessary conclusion is that the child
Faustino Neri, Jr., is