Manuel vs Republic (G.R. No.

165842, November 29, 2005)

Petitioner: Eduardo Manuel

Respondent: Republic of the Philippines
Ponente: J. Callejo, Sr.

FACTS:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, Branch 3,
convicting the petitioner of bigamy.

The petitioner married Rubylus Gaña on July 28, 1975 in Makati. On the same
year, Gaña was charged with estafa. The petitioner visited her in jail after three
months and never saw her again. 

In January 1996, petitioner, then 39 years old met complainant Tina B.

Gandalera, 21 years old, in Dagupan City. Petitioner visited her several times
in Baguio City, at one time he brought his parents whom assured the
complainant and her parents that the petitioner is single. On April 22, 1996,
they had a civil marriage in Baguio, settling at Irisan, Baguio. In their marriage
contract, petitioner wrote that he was "single".

After three years of marriage, complainant allege that petitioner was home only
twice or thrice a year and that whenever complainant asks for sustenance, the
petitioner would slap her. On January 2001, the petitioner finally left and did
not return. Petitioner allege that the reason he left was that her wife has a lover
evidenced by the "love-bite" he saw on her neck.

The RTC of  Baguio ruled against the petitioner, sentencing him to an

indeterminate penalty from six years to ten month as minimum and ten years
as maximum, and indemnity in the amount of Php 200,000.00 by way of moral
damages. After appealing with the Court of Appeals, the sentence was reduced
to two years, four months and one day minimum and ten years maximum. 

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when
it ruled that petitioner's first wife cannot be legally presumed dead under
Article 390 of the Civil Code as there was no judicial declaration of presumptive
death as provided for under Article 41 of the Family Code.

2.  Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when
it affirmed the award of Php 200,000.00 as moral damages as it has no basis in
fact and in law.
Ruling:

1. No, the Court of Appeals did not commit an error of law. The Family Code,
having a retroactive effect, amended Article 390 of the Civil Code, wherefore
adding the third rule in the requirements for a subsequent bigamous marriage
to be considered valid, which are: (1) the prior spouse have been absent for
four consecutive years, (2) the spouse present has a well-founded belief that
the absent spouse is already dead, and (3) a judicial declaration of presumptive
death of the absent spouse (Armas vs Calisterio 330 SCRA 201), the third rule
of which is designed to harmonize with Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code
which defines and penalizes bigamy.

2. No, there is no error of law committed by the Court of Appeals. The

petitioner is liable for moral damages in accordance to Articles 19, 20, and 21
of the Civil Code. Article 19 contends that a person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duty, act with justice, give everyone his
due and observe honesty and good faith; Article 20: every person who, willfully
or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter the same;
and Article 21:  any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another, in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good customs and public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
The petitioner's collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and after his
marriage, by his and his parents' assurance that he is single, were willful,
deliberate and with malice and caused injury to the complainant. Also, the
petitioner's acts are against public policy as they undermine and subvert the
family as a social institution, and against good morals, and the interest and
general welfare of society. Therefore, the award of Php 200,000. 00 cost for
moral damages is just and reasonable.