Manuel vs Republic Case Digest

Mauel 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.