You are on page 1of 5

Persons and Family Relations

Case Digest
Glorio O. Dumandan Jr.
Te v. Choa (Te v. CA)
G. R. 126746
November 29, 2000

FACTS:

1. Arthur Te and Lil iana Choa were married i n civi l rites on 1988 (Sept. 14). They did not live
together after marriage although they would meet each other regularly.

2. 1989, Liliana gave birth to a girl. Thereafter, Arthur stopped visiting her.

3. 1990 (May 20) Arthur contracted a second marri age whil e marriage with Liliana was
subsisting.

4. Liliana filed bigamy case against Arthur and subsequently an administrative case (revocation of
engineering license for grossly immoral act) against Arthur and Julieta Santella (2
nd
wife of Arthur)

5. Arthur peti ti oned for the nul l ity of his marri age with Lil iana.

6. RTC and Board rendered decision while the petition for annulment of first marriage was pending.

ISSUE:

Marriage annulment case had to be resolved first before criminal and administrative case be rendered
judgment?

HELD:

NO.

1. P. v. Mendoza and P. v. Aragon rul ing (no judici al decree is necessary to establish the invalidity
of a marriage which is ab initio) was overturned.

2. Famil y Code Art. 40 is the prevail i ng rul e: the absol ute nul l i ty of a previ ous marriage may not
be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless there is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage
void.

3. Under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise
in a judicial proceeding.

RD: Absence of Impediment.

FC. Art. 5: any male or female of the age of 18yrs or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned under
art. 37 & 38, may contract marriage.

Case: Since it was deemed that the marriage of Arthur and Liliana was valid, bigamous marriage between Arthur
and Julieta is void. (see. NCC Art. 80)

Persons and Family Relations
Case Digest
Glorio O. Dumandan Jr.
REPUBLIC V. CA
236 SCRA 257


FACTS:

Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony without the knowledge of
Castro's parents. Defendant Cardenas personally attended the procuring of the documents required
for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of the marriage license.

After the marriage, they did not live together since their marriage was unknown to Castros parents.
They only decided to live together when Castro discovered she was pregnant. The cohabitation lasted
only for four months and the couple parted ways.

When Castro was fixing her marital status before leaving for the U.S., she discovered that there was
no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage. She then filed for a
declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license.

As evidence, she presented a certification stating that their marriage license could not be located.
The trial court denied the petition holding that the certification was inadequate to establish the
alleged non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the
parties.

RTC ruled that the "inability of the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive
to show that there was no marriage license issued. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was
reversed.

ISSUE:

W/N the marriage is valid.


HELD:

Marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970. Hence, the law governing controlling that time was the New
Civil Code. NCC provides that no marriage license shall be solemnized without a marriage license.

It is an essential requirement, hence, its absence would render the marriage void ab initio.


Persons and Family Relations
Case Digest
Glorio O. Dumandan Jr.
Morigo vs People (422 vs. SCRA 376)
G.R. No. 145226. February 6, 2004


CASE ISSUE: Bigamy

FACTS:

M and B got married by signing a marriage contract. B went back to Canada where she was working, and thereafter
filed with the Ontario Court a petition for divorce against M which was granted. M then married L.

Less than a year after the marriage, M filed a petition for Judicial Declaration of Nullity with B on the ground
that no actual marriage ceremony took place.

M was then charged him with the crime of bigamy and he was subsequently found guilty. While the criminal case
was pending in the Court of Appeals, the Judicial Declaration of Nullity of marriage between M and B was handed
down.


Ruling:

The elements of bigamy are:

(1) The offender has been legally married;

(2) The first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case the first spouse is absent; said spouse has not
been judicially declared presumptively dead;

(3) The offender contracts a subsequent marriage; and

(4) The subsequent marriage would have been valid were it not for the existence of the first.

In this case, the second marriage is not bigamous because the first marriage was void ab initio due to the fact
that no marriage ceremony was solemnized at all. Legally speaking, there is no first marriage to speak of. The
mere signing of a marriage contract without the presence of a solemnizing officer bears no semblance to a valid
marriage and thus needs no judicial declaration of nullity.

The existence and the validity of the first marriage being an essential element of bigamy, it is but logical
that a conviction for the said offense may not be sustained when there is no first marriage to speak of.

Persons and Family Relations
Case Digest
Glorio O. Dumandan Jr.
COSCA V. PALYPAYON JR.
237 SCRA 249


FACTS:

Complainants (Juvy Cosca et al.,) are employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines
Sur. Respondent Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon Jr., is the Presiding Judge of the same Court while Nelia Esmeralda-
Baroy is the Clerk of Court.

An administrative complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator charging respondents, among
others, illegal solemnization of marriage. Complainants alleged that respondent Judge solemnized 6 marriages even
without the requisite marriage license. As a consequence, their marriage contracts did not reflect any marriage
license number. The respondent Judge did not sign their marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of
solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be submitted by the
parties which was usually several days after the ceremony.

Indubitably, the marriage contracts were not filed with the local civil registrar.


ISSUE:

Whether or not the action of respondent Judge proper.


HELD:

[i]The Family Code pertinently proves that the formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a valid marriage
license except in the cases provided for therein. Complementarily, it declares that the absence of any of the
essential or formal requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio and that, while an irregularity in
the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties responsible for the
irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.


* The civil aspect is addressed to the contracting parties and those affected by the illegal marriage, and what we
are providing for herein pertains to the administrative liability of respondents, all without prejudice to their
criminal responsible. The Revised Penal Code provides that priests or ministers of any religious denomination or
sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in
accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law. This is of course, within the province of the prosecutorial
agencies of the Government.

RESPONDENT JUDGE LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON, JR. IMPOSED A FINE WITH STERN WARNING xxx

Persons and Family Relations
Case Digest
Glorio O. Dumandan Jr.
Mercado vs. Tan
337 SCRA 122


FACTS:

Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva in 1976 before he contracted marriage with
Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims she did not know. Tan filed bigamy against Mercado and after a
month the latter filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against Oliva. The decision in 1993 declared
marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and void.


ISSUE:

Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of nullity of the former marriage.


HELD:

A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally
contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty
of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as void.

In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva right after Tan filed
bigamy case. Hence, by then, the crime had already been consummated. He contracted second marriage without
the judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense
in a bigamy charge.

You might also like