CASE THEORY: CASE NO.

– PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND ACTION FOR

BIGAMY

GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

Case Theory For Marlon V. Rufo

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

MARLON V. RUFO contracted marriage on the 20th of

November 1996 to CARMELITA GO before Solemnizing Officer Hon.
Judge Ander de Saya of Br. 8, MTC of Kabankalan City. Several
months thereafter, Carmelita convinced Marlon to allow her to work in
Japan. At first, Marlon refused but due to the latter’s persistent request,
Marlon eventually gave in. In January 1997, Carmelita left for Japan a
few months after the solemnization of their marriage to seek
employment.
Sometime around the year 2000, Carmelita returned to the Philippines,
however, she did not go home to her husband nor did she stay at the
conjugal dwelling. As this aroused Marlon’s suspicion and doubts, he
conducted surveillance regarding the whereabouts of his wife.

To Marlon’s surprise, he discovered that Carmelita contracted a

second marriage on October 6, 2000 with TOMOKI YAMAMOTO, a
Japanese National, and that such marriage was solemnized by the
Hon. Judge Alana Dilon of the Regional Trial Court, Hall of Justice of
Bacolod City.

Carmelita, upon knowing that her husband, Marlon, discovered that

she had contracted a second marriage with the above-named
Japanese National, she, on February 5, 2017, filed a petition for
annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity,
based on neglect and the non-performance of the marital obligations
under the Family Code, with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of
Bacolod City .

Subsequently, on May 5, 2017, Marlon, filed a criminal case for Bigamy

against his wife, Carmelita, with the Office of the City Prosecutor,
Bacolod City. Pending resolution of the case filed by Marlon against
his wife Carmelita, the latter, on June 25, 2017, filed a motion for an
extension of time within which to file her counter-affidavit.

However, instead of filing her counter-affidavit, she filed a motion for

the suspension of the resolution of the criminal case for Bigamy against
 CASE THEORY: CASE NO. – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND ACTION FOR
BIGAMY

GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

her on the ground of prejudicial question which is her petition for

annulment of marriage which is pending in Court.

On the other hand, after Marlon has filed his reply to Carmelita’s
motion, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City issued a
Resolution on January 14, 2018, stating that “The pending case for
annulment of marriage filed by respondent, cannot be considered a
prejudicial question, which must be resolved first, in order that the
criminal case for bigamy will proceed”.

A motion for reconsideration of the subject resolution of the Office of

the City Prosecutor was filed by respondent Carmelita. However, her
motion was denied and accordingly an Information for the crime of
Bigamy was filed in Court.

Subsequently, private respondent Carmelita moved for the suspension

of the arraignment and other proceedings which the court a quo
granted in its Order dated February 14, 2018. Aggrieved, Marlon timely
filed his motion for reconsideration of said order.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION OF ANNULMENT

ON THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
WILL PROSPER.

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR THE

ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE FILED BY CARMELITA
IS NOT CONSIDERED AS A PREDJUDICIAL
QUESTION

I. On the issue of the petition of annulment of marriage on

grounds of psychological incapacity.

The petition of annulment of marriage on grounds of

psychological incapacity, filed by the respondent for her marriage with
the petitioner was done in bad faith in order to circumvent the law and
is designed by her to escape criminal liability, in violation of the crime
of Bigamy, under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
CASE THEORY: CASE NO. – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND ACTION FOR
BIGAMY

GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

 Citing the doctrine laid down in Republic vs. Molina, G.R. No.
108763, February 13, 1997, which enumerates guidelines on
determining causes on psychological incapacity:

1. The plaintiff (the spouse who filed the petition in court) has
burden of showing the nullity of the marriage. Our laws
cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family, so any
doubt is resolved in favor of the existence/continuation of the
marriage.

2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a)

medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint,(c)
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. Expert
evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and
clinical psychologists.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of

the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show
that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their
“I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not be
perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or

clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not
related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or
employment in a job.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the

disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted
as root causes.
 CASE THEORY: CASE NO. – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND ACTION FOR
BIGAMY

GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced

by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-
complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial

Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our
courts.

8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and
the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No
decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly
stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as
the case may be, to the petition.

In this current case, respondent failed to actually allege the cause of

psychological incapacity, on the grounds of neglect and non-
performance of marital obligations. In the case of Marable v. Marable,
G.R. No. 178741, January 17, 2011, it is stressed that psychological
incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” “refusal” or
“neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations. Rather,
it is essential that the concerned party was incapable of doing so,
due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage. The plaintiff has not exhibited any
evidence to the effect of proving such incapacity.

II. On the issue of the suspension of the resolution of case of

bigamy:

The petition for annulment of marriage will not bar or suspend the
criminal proceedings of such, as stated in numerous doctrines laid
down in our laws and jurisprudence:
 With regard to the case not being classified as a prejudicial
question, let us define first what a prejudicial question is:
“A prejudicial question as defined under the law, is
one based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused,
 CASE THEORY: CASE NO. – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND ACTION FOR
BIGAMY

GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must

appear not only that said case involves facts
intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based but also that in the
resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil
case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined. (Librado vs.
Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303, 309-310).

This, therefore gives us the presumption that the issue on prejudicial

question that the petition will not suspend the resolution of the
petitioner’s case of bigamy against the respondent. The petition for
annulment filed by the respondent had no real connection with the
criminal case of bigamy filed by the petitioner himself, for the former
petition does not involve facts which will affect the resolution of the
criminal case filed.

 In Capili v. People, 700 SCRA 443, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013,
citing Jarillo v. People, 601 SCRA 23, 6G.R. No. 164435, September
29, 2009, the court affirmed the accused’s conviction for bigamy
ruling that the crime of bigamy is consummated on the celebration
of the subsequent marriage without the previous one having been
judicially declared null and void, viz.:

The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of

the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the
declaration of nullity, the crime had already been
consummated. Moreover, petitioner’s assertion
would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases
considering that an accused could simply file a
petition to declare his previous marriage void and
invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial
question in the criminal case. (Capili v. People, 700
SCRA 443, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013, citing
Jarillo v. People, 601 SCRA 23, 6G.R. No. 164435,
September 29, 2009)

 In the case of Mercado v. Tan (G.R. No. 137110, August 1

2000), the Supreme Court held that subsequently obtaining a
judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage is immaterial,
in cases of Bigamy, for the crime had already been
consummated by then. Moreover, this view “effectively
encourages delay in the prosecution of bigamy cases; an
accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous
 CASE THEORY: CASE NO. – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND ACTION FOR
BIGAMY

GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a

prejudicial question in the criminal case.”
RELIEFS TO BE SOUGHT

1. Denying the motion to suspend the resolution of the bigamy

case filed against the respondent;
2. Dismissal of the petition for annulment against the petitioner.