21. CAPILI v.

PEOPLE - thus the subsequent declaration of the nullity of the 1st marriage is
Void and Voidable Marriages | Date | Ponente immaterial because prior to its declaration of nullity, the crime had already
been consummated
DOCTRINE: The subsequent declaration of nullity of the 2nd marriage is Therefore in this case, it is immaterial that the 2nd marriage was declared void
immaterial as the crime of bigamy is already consummated the moment the because the crime of bigamy was already consummated the moment petitioner
offender enteres into the 2nd marriage without the first marriage being dissolved entered into the 2nd marriage.

FACTS:
RULING: Since the first marriage was not dissolved at the time the offender entered
- James Capili was charged with bigamy before the RTC. into the 2nd marriage, then the crime of bigamy was consummated. the fact that the
- James, accused of being previously married to Karla Medina-Capili and 2nd marriage was declared a nullity is immaterial for purposes of the criminal case
without the same being dissolved or annulled, did then and there contract a for bigamy.
2nd marriage to Shirley Tismo
- Petitioner filed motion to suspend proceedings alleging that:
- there is a pending civil case for declaration of nullity of 2nd marriage before
the RTC of Antipoli filed by Karla
- in the event that the 2nd marriage is decalred void, it would exculpate him
from the charge of bigamy
- the pendency of the civil case for nullity of the 2nd marriage is a prejudicial
question
- in the interim, the RTC declared the 2nd marriage void on the ground that a
subsequent marriage contracted by the husband during the lifetime of the legal
wife is void from the beginning
- Petitioner thereafter filed for a motion to dismiss of the criminal case filed against
him on the ground that the 2nd marriage had been declared void which was
granted

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON the subsequent declaration of nullity of the 2nd marriage is a ground for
dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy? NO
Elements for bigamy:
1. offender has been legally married
2. the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or in case spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not be presumed dead
3. the offender contracts a 2nd marriage
4. the 2nd marriage has all essential requisites for validity
- in this case, all the elements for bigamy were present when the information was
filed on june 28, 2004.
- it is undisputed that a 2nd marriage (December 1999) was contracted during the
subsistence of a valid 1st marriage between Petitioner and Karla (september
1999).
-
- jurisprudence has previously ruled that crime of bigamy is consummated on
the celebration of the 2nd valid marriage without the previous marriage
being declared void or annulled.
 Patricio v. Dario III no more beneficiary, the family home must be dissolved, because there is no more reason
for its existence. If there are beneficiaries however who survive living in the family home,
Family Home | November 20, 2006 | Ynares-Santiago J. it will continue for ten years unless at the end of ten years, there is still a minor
beneficiaries, in which case the family home continues until the child has reached the age
of majority.

DOCTRINE: To be a beneficiary of a Family Home, 3 requisites must concur: (1) Applied in the case at bar, while respondent’s son complies with the first 2 requisites, he
They must be among the persons enumerated in Art 154, (2) they live in the family cannot be considered a beneficiary of the family home because he does not depend on the
home, (3) their dependence on the family head. head of the family (the deceased) by the fact that it is respondent, his father, who provides
him with support.

RULING: As Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV is not the beneficiary of the family head who
FACTS: constituted the family home, the family home constituted by Marcelino Dario has ceased
to exist.
 Marcelino Dario died intestate and was survived by his wife, daughter, (Petitioner)
and son (Respondent). Among his properties was a parcel of land with a house and a Case is remanded to the RTC to conduct the partition of the land.
pre-school built on it.
 Both parties extrajudicially settled the estate and the title of the land was transferred
to his children. Petitioner however wanted to have the land partitioned which
respondent opposed. They thus filed an action for partition before the RTC.
 The RTC granted the action and partitioned the land as follows: 4/6 to the petitioner,
1/6 to the respondent, and 1/6 to their other brother.
 His MR having denied the respondent filed an appeal before the CA which initially
dismissed the complaint, however on MR it held that the family home should
continue despite the death of their father as long as there is a minor beneficiary and
thus cancelled the partition.
 The CA held that respondent’s son being a minor should be considered a beneficiary
of the family home.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON the subject family home may be partitioned? Yes

The law explicitly provides that occupancy of the family home either by the owner or his
beneficiaries must be actual. Actual is something real or existing as opposed to a
possibility.

Under Art 154 of the Family Code, the following are beneficiaries: (1) The husband or wife
or an unmarried person who is the head of a family, (2) Their parents, ascendants,
descendants, brothers and sisters whether legitimate or illegitimate living in the family
home and who depend on the head of the family for support.

Thus, to be a beneficiary, 3 requisites must concur: (1) They must be among the persons
enumerated in Art 154, (2) they live in the family home, (3) their dependence on the family
head.

Art 159 also provides that in case of the death of the persons who constituted the family
home, it shall continue until there are no more beneficiaries living therein. Hence if there is