This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
While the marriage was still subsisting, Mendoza got married to Olga Lema in Manila on May 14, 1941. de Asis died on Feb. 2, 1943. Then, Mendoza contracted another marriage with Carmencita Panlilio in Calamba, Laguna on Aug. 19, 1949. He was sued and convicted of bigamy for the second marriage. ISSUE: WON bigamy? Mendoza is liable for
ISSUE: WON Paras is the surviving spouse of Tolentino? HELD: Yes. Petition granted.
HELD: No. Acquitted. RATIO: 1. Sec. 29, Marriage Law Act 3613: Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void unless first marriage has been annulled, dissolved or first spouse has been absent for 7 consecutive years without news if he/she is still alive. Judicial declaration of nullity is only necessary for third case. THUS, HIS MARRIAGE WITH LEMA IS NULL AND VOID WITHOUT NEED FOR JUDICIAL DECLARATION. 2. Third marriage was contracted after the death of the first spouse, thus not bigamous. TOLENTINO V. PARAS Amado Tolentino was married to Serafia G. Tolentino on July 31, 1943. While marriage was still subsisting, he contracted another marriage with Ma. Clemente at Paombong, Bulacan on Nov. 1, 1948. He was convicted with bigamy. After serving his sentence, he continued living with Clemente until he died on July 25, 1974. Ma. Clemente was the surviving spouse indicated in his death certificate. Tolentino claims that she is the rightful surviving spouse and petitions for correction of the death certificate. Lower court dismissed petition for lack of publication.
RATIO: 1. She needs to obtain judicial declaration from court first before she can request for the correction of the entry. Publication not necessary because all the parties involved are part of the case. Court should order the publication. 2. Conviction of Tolentino for bigamy is best proof that his second marriage is null and void thus, Paras is still his rightful spouse. No need for judicial declaration of nullity for void marriages. 3. Certificate entries though presumed to be correct must yield to positive evidence establishing their inaccuracy. WIEGEL V. SEMPIO-DIY Lilia Olivia Wiegel got married to Karl Heinz Wiegel on July, 1978 at the Holy Catholic Apostolic Christian Church in Makati. Karl, upon learning that Lilia had a subsisting marriage, filed for a declaration of nullity of their marriage. Lilia contracted her first marriage with Eduardo Maxion on June 25, 1972. She claims that the first marriage is not valid because they were forced to enter the union and Maxion was married to someone else at that time. ISSUE: WON Lilia’s first marriage is void? HELD: No. dismissed. It’s voidable. Petition
RATIO: 1. Presence of force only makes a marriage voidable, not void. (CC ART. 85) It is valid until annulled and since there was no annulment, marriage is still valid. 2. Even if marriage is void, judicial declaration of nullity is still needed especially for purposes of remarriage.
TERRE V. TERRE Dorothy Terre first met Jordan Terre when they were 4th year high school classmates in Cadiz City High School. She was then married to Merlito Bercenilla. Jordan courted her and this continued when they moved to Manila to pursue their education. Jordan, then a freshman law student, told Dorothy that her marriage with Bercenilla was void ab initio because they are first cousins. Believing in Jordan and with the consent of her mother and ex-in-laws, she married Jordan on June 14, 1977. Jordan wrote “single” as Dorothy’s civil status despite latter’s protests. Jordan said it didn’t matter because marriage was void to begin with. After their marriage, Dorothy supported Jordan because he was still studying then. They had a son, Jason, who was born on June 25, 1981. Shortly after she gave birth, Jordan disappeared. She learned that he married Vilma Malicdem. Dorothy filed charges for abandonment of minor, bigamy and grossly immoral conduct. Jordan was already a member of the Bar then. Jordan claimed that he was unaware of Dorothy’s first marriage and that she sent her out of the house when he confronted her about it. He contracted the second marriage, believing that his marriage to Dorothy was void ab initio because of her prior subsisting marriage. ISSUE: WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent marriage? HELD: Yes. Jordan Terre disbarred. RATIO: 1. Jordan failed to rebut evidence presented by Dorothy. 2. As a law student, he should have known that even if Dorothy’s first marriage was void ab initio, she still needed a judicial declaration before she can contract another marriage. (GOMEZ V. LIPANA; FC ART. 40) 3. Jordan has displayed a deeply flawed moral character. Dorothy supported
him, he got her pregnant then he abandoned her. He made a mockery of the institution of marriage. Thus, not worthy to be a member of the Bar. ATIENZA V. BRILLANTES JR. Lupo Atienza lived together with Yolanda de Castro with whom he has two children. He purchased a house in BelAir, Makati where his family stayed. He stays there too whenever he’s in Manila. In Dec., 1991, he was surprised to see Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Francisco Brillantes sleeping on his bed. Their boy informed him that Brillantes had been cohabiting with de Castro. Later on, Brillantes prevented him from visiting his children. He claims that Brillantes is married to Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has five children. Atienza filed a complaint for Gross Immorality & Appearance of Impropriety against Brillantes. Brillantes claims that his marriage to Ongkiko is not valid because of lack of marriage license. According to him, Ongkiko abandoned him 19 years ago leaving their children with him. He claims that he believed that he was single when he married de Castro because his first marriage was void. ISSUE: WON Brillantes can contract a second marriage without a judicial declaration of nullity? HELD: No. Dismissed from service. RATIO: 1. FC Art. 40: judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage is needed before one can enter into a second marriage. Rule has retroactive effect thus applicable to Brillantes even if he got married under the Civil Code. 2. Bad faith and sinister motives of Brillantes proven by his marriage to Ongkiko. They underwent two ceremonies however he never got a license. Then, he immorally and
illegally cohabited with de Castro. Not fit for the judiciary. BORJA-MANZANO V. SANCHEZ Herminia Borja-Mariano was married to the late David Manzano on May 21, 1966. They had four children. However, on March 22, 1993, David contracted another marriage with Luzviminda Payao before Infanta, Pangasinan MTC Judge Roque Sanchez. During that time, Payao was also married to Domingo Relos. Payao and David issued an affidavit stating that they were both married however due to incessant quarrels, they both left their families and they no longer communicated with them. They have lived together as husband & wife for 7 years. Judge agreed to solemnize the marriage. Herminia filed charges of gross ignorance of the law against Sanchez. ISSUE: WON David Manzano’s marriage with Payao is valid? HELD: NO. Sanchez fined P20,000.00 RATIO: 1. FC Art. 34: legal ratification of marital cohabitation exempts a couple from obtaining a marriage license but the ff requisites must be present: a. lived together as husband & wife for at least five years b. no legal impediment to marry each other c. fact of absence of legal impediment must be present at time of marriage d. affidavit stating that they’ve been living together for at least 5 years & without legal impediments e. solemnizing officer should execute sworn statement that he ascertained qualifications of contracting parties. 2. None of requisites were present. They declared that they were separated but judge still solemnized marriage. Mere separation and free & voluntary cohabitation with another person do
not dissolve the marriage tie. Cohabitation for at least five years exempts them from the marriage license but it does not free them of their legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage. 3. Marriage was void & bigamous. Judge displayed gross ignorance of the law.
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.