You are on page 1of 12

yqa These are case digests spouse shall be illegal and void

from its performance, unless:


G.R. No. L-5877 Case Digest
G.R. No. L-5877, September 28, (a) The first marriage was
1954 annulled or dissolved;
People of the Philippines
vs Arturo Mendoza (b) The first spouse had been
Ponente: Paras absent for seven consecutive years
at the time of the second marriage
Facts: without the spouse present having
August 1936, Jovita de Asis and news of the absentee being alive,
Arturo Mendoza got married in or the absentee being generally
Marikina. During their marriage, considered as dead and believed to
Arturo was marred to Olga Lema in be so by the spouse present at the
Manila. When Jovita died, Arturo time of contracting such
contracted another marriage with subsequent marriage, the marriage
Carmencita Panlillio in Laguna. so contracted being valid in
This last marriage gave rise to either case until declared null
his prosecution for bigamy. and void by a competent court.

Arturo contends that his marriage This statutory provision plainly


with Lema is null and void, makes a subsequent marriage
therefore non-existent at the time contracted by any person during
he married Jovita. Then his 3rd the lifetime of his first spouse
marriage was valid also because it illegal and void from its
occurred after the death of performance, and no judicial
Jovita. decree is necessary to establish
its invalidity, as distinguished
Solicitor General argues that, from mere annullable marriages.
even assuming that Arturo's There is here no pretence that
marriage to Lema is void, he is appellant's second marriage with
not exempt from criminal liability Olga Lema was contracted in the
in the absence of judicial belief that the first spouse,
annulment of said bigamous Jovita de Asis, has been absent
marriage. for seven consecutive years or
generally considered as dead, so
as to render said marriage valid
Ruling:
until declared null and void by a
it is admitted that appellant's
competent court.
second marriage with Olga Lema was
contracted during the existence of
his first marriage with Jovita de
Asis. Section 29 of the marriage Wherefore, the appealed judgment
law (act 3613), in force at the is reversed and the defendant-
time the appellant contracted his appellant acquitted, with costs de
second marriage in 1941, provides officio so ordered.
as follows:

Illegal marriages. — Any marriage


subsequently contracted by any
person during the lifetime of the
first spouse of such person with
any person other than such first
existence of such marriage. The second
marriage that he contracted with private
People vs. Aragon respondent during the lifetime of his first
100 Phil 1033 spouse is null and void from the beginning and
of no force and effect. No judicial decree is
FACTS: necessary to establish the invalidity of a void
marriage
Proceso Rosima contracted marriage with
Gorrea. While his marriage with the latter Facts: Amado Tolentino had contracted a
subsist, he contracted a canonical marriage with second marriage with private respondent
Faicol. Gorrea is staying in Cebu while Faicol is herein, Maria Clemente, at Paombong, Bulacan,
in Iloilo. He was a traveling salesman thus, he on November 1, 1948, while his marriage with
commuted between Iloilo and Cebu. When petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, celebrated on
Gorrea died, he brought Faicol to Cebu where July 31, 1943, was still subsisting.
the latter worked as teacher-nurse. She later
on suffered injuries in her eyes caused by Petitioner charged Amado with Bigamy. Amado
physical maltreatment of Rosima and was sent pleaded guilty and after he had served the
to Iloilo to undergo treatment. While she was prison sentence imposed on him, he continued
in Iloilo, Rosima contracted a third marriage to live with respondent until his death on July
with Maglasang. CFI-Cebu found him guilty of 25, 1974. His death certificate carried the entry
bigamy. "Name of Surviving Spouse—Maria Clemente."

ISSUE: Whether or not the third marriage is null Petitioner sought to correct the name of the
and void. surviving spouse in the death certificate from
"Maria Clemente" to "Serafia G. Tolentino", her
HELD: name in in a special proceeding for correction of
entry. The lower Court dismissed the petition
The action was instituted upon the complaint of "for lack of the proper requisites under the law"
the second wife whose marriage with Rosima and indicated the need for a more detailed
was not renewed after the death of the first proceeding.
wife and before the third marriage was entered
into. Hence, the last marriage was a valid one Petitioner filed a case against private
and prosecution against Rosima for contracting respondent and the Local Civil Registrar of
marriage cannot prosper. Paombong, Bulacan, for her declaration as the
lawful surviving spouse, and the correction of
the death certificate of Amado. In an Order,
TOLENTINO v. PARAS dated October 21, 1975, respondent Court,
Topic: Void Marriages; Bigamous and upon private respondent's instance, dismissed
Polygamous Marriages the case, stating: (1) the correction of the entry
Nature of the Case: Petition for Review on in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar is not
Certiorari; reversal of respondent Court's Order, the proper remedy because the issue involved is
dismissing petitioner's suit for her "declaration . marital relationship; (2) the Court has not
. . as the lawful surviving spouse of deceased acquired proper jurisdiction because as
Amado Tolentino and the correction of the prescribed under Art. 108, read together with
death certificate of the same" Art. 412 of the Civil Code—publication is
needed in a case like this, and up to now, there
Doctrine: There is no better proof of marriage has been no such publication; and (3) in a sense,
than the admission by the accused of the the subject matter of this case has been aptly
discussed in Special Proceeding which this Court of the erroneous entry in the records of the
has already dismissed, also for lack of the Local Civil Registrar may, therefore, be validly
proper requisites under the law. made.

Issue/s:
WON the petitioner may validly rectify the Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Order, dated
erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil October 21, 1975, of respondent Court is
Registrar hereby set aside and petitioner, Serafia G.
Tolentino, hereby declared the surviving spouse
Ruling: of the deceased Amado Tolentino. Let the
YES corresponding correction be made in the
Although petitioner's ultimate objective is the latter's death certificate in the records of the
correction of entry contemplated in Article 412 Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan.
of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court, she initially seeks a judicial declaration LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs.
that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY
deceased, Amado, in order to lay the basis for and KARLHEINZ WIEGEL, respondents.
the correction of the entry in the death G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986
certificate of said deceased. The suit below is a
proper remedy. It is of an adversary character Facts:
as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding. A Karl Heinz Wiegel before the Juvenile and
claim of right is asserted against one who has an Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City filed
interest in contesting it. Private respondent, as for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
the individual most affected, is a party with Lilia Oliva Wiegel on the ground of Lilia’s
defendant, and has appeared to contest the previously existing marriage to one Eduardo A.
petition and defend her interests. The Local Civil Maxion. Lilia, while admitting the existence of
Registrar is also a party defendant. The the said prior subsisting marriage claimed that
publication required by the Court below the said marriage was null and void as she and
pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not first husband Eduardo Maxion was forced to
absolutely necessary for no other parties are enter the said marital union. In the pre-trial that
involved. ensued, the issue agreed upon by both parties
was the status of the first marriage (whether
Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, the said prior marriage is void or merely
was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence voidable). Lilia contested the validity of the pre
furnishes the necessary proof of the marital trial order asking for respondent court for an
status of petitioner and the deceased. There is opportunity to present evidence.
no better proof of marriage than the admission
by the accused of the existence of such Issue:
marriage. The second marriage that he Whether or not there is a need for Lilia Wiegel
contracted with private respondent during the to prove that her first marriage was vitiated
lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from by fore.
the beginning and of no force and effect. No
judicial decree is necessary to establish the Ruling:
invalidity of a void marriage. It can be safely There is no need for petitioner to prove that
concluded, then, without need of further proof her first marriage was vitiated by force
nor remand to the Court below, that private committed against both parties because
respondent is not the surviving spouse of the assuming this to be so, the marriage will not be
deceased Amado, but petitioner. Rectification void but merely voidable. Since no annulment
has yet been made, it is clear that when she domestic relations court on the ground that
married respondent she was still validly married latter constitutes a prejudicial question.
to her first husband, consequently, her
marriage to respondent is void. HELD:

Petitioner Leonilo Donato can’t apply rule on


TITLE: Donato vs. Luna prejudicial question since a case for annulment
CITATION: GR No. 53642, April 15, 1988 of marriage can only be considered as a
prejudicial question to the bigamy case against
FACTS: the accused if it was proved that petitioners
consent to such marriage and was obtained by
An information for bigamy against petitioner means of duress violence and intimidation to
Leonilo Donato was filed on January 23, 1979 show that his act in the second marriage must
with the lower court in Manila. This was based be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his
on the complaint of private respondent Paz conviction for the crime of bigamy.
Abayan. Before the petitioner’s arraignment on
September 28, 1979, Paz filed with Juvenile and Accordingly, there being no prejudicial question
Domestic Relations Court of Manila, a civil shown to exit the order of denial issued by the
action for declaration of nullity of her marriage respondent judge dated April 14, 1980 should
with petitioner contracted on September 26, be sustained.
1978. Said civil case was based on the ground WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
that Paz consented to entering into the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
marriage which was Donato’s second since she merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs.
had no previous knowledge that Donato was
already married to a certain Rosalinda Maluping TERRE v. TERRE
on June 30, 1978. Donato defensed that his TERRE v. TERRE
second marriage was void since it was July 3, 1992 (A.M. No. 2349)
solemnized without a marriage license and that PARTIES:
force, violence, intimidation and undue Complainant: DOROTHY B. TERRE
influence were employed by private respondent Respondent: ATTY. JORDAN TERRE
to obtain petitioner's consent to the marriage. FACTS:
Prior to the solemnization of the second On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B.
marriage, Paz and Donato had lived together as Terre charged respondent Jordan Terre, a
husband and wife without the benefit of member of the Philippine Bar with “grossly
wedlock for 5 years proven by a joint affidavit immoral conduct,” consisting of contracting a
executed by them on September 26, 1978 for second marriage and living with another woman
which reason, the requisite marriage license other than complainant, while his prior
was dispensed with pursuant to Article 76 of marriage with complainant remained subsisting
the Civil Code. Donato continued to live with No judicial action having been initiated or any
Paz until November 1978 where Paz left their judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of
home upon learning that Donato already such prior marriage of respondent with
previously married. complainant.
Respondent was charged with abandonment of
ISSUE: Whether or not a criminal case for minor and bigamy by complainant. Dorothy
bigamy pending before the lower court be Terre was then married to a certain Merlito
suspended in view of a civil case for annulment Bercenillo her first cousin, with this fact, Atty.
of marriage pending before the juvenile and Jordan Terre succesfully convinced complainant
that her marriage was void ab initio and they
are free to contract marriage. In their marriage declaration of absence, publication thereof
license, despite her objection, he wrote “single” having been made in the Official Gazette and in
as her status. After getting the complainant "El Ideal." On May 6, 1927, Marciana contracted
pregnant, Atty. Terre abandoned them and a second marriage with Felix Hortiguela. When
subsequently contracted another marriage to Marciana died intestate, Felix was appointed as
Helina Malicdem believing again that her judicial administrator of the estate. Angelita
previous marriage was also void ab initio. Jones, Marciana’s daughter from her first
marriage, filed a case and alleged that she is the
ISSUE: only heir of her mother and that her mother’s
(1) WON a judicial declaration of nullity is marriage to Felix was null and void on the
needed to enter into a subsequent marriage ground that from April 23, 1921 (when the
HELD: court issued an order for the taking effect of
Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part declaration of absence & publication thereof) to
of respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious May 6, 1927 (her mother and Felix’s marriage)
defense. In the first place, respondent has not was below the 7-year prescriptive period. With
rebutted complainant’s evidence as to the basic this, the marriage would be null and void and
fact which underscores that bad faith of would render her as the sole heir.
respondent Terre. In the second place, the
pretended defense is the same argument by ISSUE: W/N the marriage of Marciana and Felix
which he inveigled complainant into believing is null and void. W/N Felix is a legitimate heir of
that her prior marriage or Merlito A. Bercenilla Marciana.
being incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy
and Merlito being allegedly first cousins to each
other), she was free to contract a second HELD. Yes and Yes. the absence of Marciana
marriage with the respondent. Respondent Escaño's former husband should be counted
Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should from January 10, 1918, the date on which the
have known that such an argument ran counter last news concerning Arthur W. Jones was
to the prevailing case law of the supreme Court received, and from said date to May 6, 1927,
which holds that for purposes of determining more than nine years elapsed. The validity of
whether a person is legally free to contract a the marriage makes him a legitimate heir.
second marriage , a judicial declaration that the
first marriage was null and void ab initio is Republic vs. CA and Molina
essential. G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997

Jones v. Hortiguela, 64 Phil 179 FACTS:

FACTS: Marciana Escano and Arthur Jones got The case at bar challenges the decision of CA
married in December 1914. On January 10, affirming the marriage of the respondent
1918, Jones secured a passport. She never Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the
heard from him again. In 1919, she filed for a ground of psychological incapacity. The couple
proceeding to judicially declare Arthur missing. got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo
On October 25, 1919, the court declared Arthur manifested signs of immaturity and
as an absentee with the proviso that said irresponsibility both as husband and a father
judicial declaration of absence would not take preferring to spend more time with friends
effect until six months after its publication in whom he squandered his money, depends on
the official newspapers pursuant to Art. 186 of his parents for aid and assistance and was never
the Old Civil Code. In 23 April 1921, the court honest with his wife in regard to their finances.
issued another order for the taking effect of the In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and
as a result their relationship was estranged.  decision of the National Matrimonial
Roridel quit her work and went to live with her Appellate Court or the Catholic Church
parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks must be respected
later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since  court shall order the prosecuting
then he abandoned them. attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to
act on behalf of the state.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on
the ground of psychological incapacity. Choa vs. Choa
GR No. 1473376, November 26, 2002
HELD:
FACTS:
The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo
subsists and remains valid. What constitutes Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in
psychological incapacity is not mere showing of 1981. They have 2 children namely Cheryl
irreconcilable differences and confliction Lynne and Albryan. In 1993, Alfonso filed an
personalities. It is indispensable that the parties annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards,
must exhibit inclinations which would not meet he filed an amended complaint for the
the essential marital responsibilites and duties declaration of nullity of their marriage based on
due to some psychological illness. Reynaldo’s psychological incapacity. The case went to trial
action at the time of the marriage did not and the trial court further held that Alfonso
manifest such characteristics that would presented quantum evidence that Leni needs to
comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. controvert for the dismissal of the case.
The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed
that she and her husband cannot get along with Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with
each other and had not shown gravity of the perjury, concubinage and deportation which
problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its shows latter’s psychological incapacity because
incurability. In addition, the expert testimony according to him it clearly showed that his wife
by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric not only wanted him behind bars but also to
disorder but only incompatibility which is not banish outside the country.
considered as psychological incapacity.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented
The following are the guidelines as to the quantum evidence for the declaration of nullity
grounds of psychological incapacity laid set of his marriage with Leni on the ground of
forth in this case: psychological incapacity.
 burden of proof to show nullity belongs
to the plaintiff HELD:
 root causes of the incapacity must be
medically and clinically inclined The court held that documents presented by
 such incapacity should be in existence Alfonso during the trial of the case do not in any
at the time of the marriage way show the alleged psychological incapacity
 such incapacity must be grave so as to of his wife. The evidence was insufficient and
disable the person in complying with shows grave abuse of discretion bordering on
the essentials of marital obligations of absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained
marriage about three aspects of Leni’s personality
 such incapacity must be embraced in namely lack of attention to children,
Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and immaturity, and lack of an intention of
225 of the Family Code procreative sexuality and none of these three,
singly or collectively, constitutes psychological speak to her husband On November 1977, the
incapacity. respondent, who was five months pregnant
with Cristina Maria and on the pretext of re-
Psychological incapacity must be characterized evaluating her feelings with petitioner,
by gravity, juridical antecedence, and requested the latter to temporarily leave their
incurability. It must be more than just a conjugal dwelling. In his desire
difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the e to keep peace in the family and to safeguard
performance of marital obligations. A mere the respondent‘s pregnancy, the petitioner was
showing of irreconcilable differences and compelled to leave
conflicting personalities does not constitute their conjugal dwelling The respondent at
psychological incapacity. the time of the celebration of their marriage
was psychologically incapacitated to comply
Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from with the essential obligation of marriage and
other witnesses failed to identify and prove root such incapacity subsisted up to and until the
cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It present time. Such incapacity was conclusively
just established that the spouses had an found in the psychological examination
incompatibility or a defect that could possibly conducted on the relationship between the
be treated or alleviated through petitioner and the respondent Diana claims that
psychotherapy. The totality of evidence petitioner falls short of the guidelines stated in
presented was completely insufficient to sustain Molina case and there is no cause for action
a finding of psychological incapacity more so
without any medical, psychiatric or ISSUE: WON petitioner stated a cause of action
psychological examination. against Diana

Barcelona vs. Court of Appeals HELD: YES, since petition stated legal right
Facts: Respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana of Tadeo, correlative obligation of Diana,
were legally married union begot five children and her act or omission as seen infects FAILURE
On 29 March 1995, private respondent Tadeo R. TO STATE ROOT CAUSE AND GRAVE NATURE OF
Bengzon (―respondent Tadeo‖) filed a Petition ILLNESS Sec 2 of rules of declaration of absolute
for Annulment of Marriage againstpetitioner nullity of void marriage –petition does not need
Diana M. Barcelona (―petitioner to show (NOT) root cause since only experts can
Diana‖).Petition further alleged that petitioner determine it b the physical manifestations of
Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the physical incapacity
time of the celebration of their marriage to RESULT: PETITION IS DENIED, THERE IS CAUSE
comply with the essential obligations of OF ACTION
marriage and such incapacity subsists up to the
present time. The petition alleged the non- Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.
complied marital obligations: During their SIMPLIFICATION
marriage, they had frequent quarrels due
to their varied upbringing. Respondent, coming DIANA contends that the 2nd petition of his
from a rich family, was a disorganized husband is defective because it fails to allege
housekeeper and was frequently out of the the root cause of the alleged psychological
house. She would go to her sister‘s house or incapacity. It is not defective since the new
would play tennis rules do not require the petition to allege
the whole day When the family had crisis due to expert opinion on the psychological incapacity,
several miscarriages suffered by respondent it follows that there is no need to allege in the
and the sickness of a child, respondent petition the root cause of the psychological
withdrew to herself and eventually refused to
incapacity. (only experts can determine the root publication, thus, Lolita filed a motion to refer
cause and at times they couldn’t determine it). the case to the prosecutor for investigation.
What the new Rules require
the petition to allege are physical ISSUE: Whether Toshio was psychologically
manifestations indicative of psychological incapacitated to perform his marital obligation.
incapacity. Second petition of Tadeo complies
with this requirement. (he has stated in his HELD:
petition facts to support his claim
– stated in the FACTS The Court is mindful of the 1987 Constitution to
protect and strengthen the family as basic
Republic vs Quintero-Hamano autonomous social institution and marriage as
Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt
GR No. 149498, May 20, 2004 should be resolved in favor of the validity of the
marriage.
FACTS:
Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly
Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a complaint in irresponsible but it was never alleged nor
1996 for declaration of nullity of her marriage proven to be due to some kind of psychological
with Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on illness. Although as rule, actual medical
the ground of psychological incapacity. She examinations are not needed, it would have
and Toshio started a common-law relationship greatly helped Lolita had she presented
in Japan and lived in the Philippines for a evidence that medically or clinically identified
month. Thereafter, Toshio went back to Japan Toshio’s illness. This could have been done
and stayed there for half of 1987. Lolita then through an expert witness. It is essential that a
gave birth on November 16, 1987. person show incapability of doing marital
obligation due to some psychological, not
In 1988, Lolita and Toshio got married in MTC- physical illness. Hence, Toshio was not
Bacoor, Cavite. After a month of their considered as psychologically incapacitated.
marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and
promised to return by Christmas to celebrate Morigo vs People
the holidays with his family. Toshio sent Morigo vs. People
money for two months and after that he GR No. 145226, February 6, 2004
stopped giving financial support. She wrote
him several times but never respondent. In FACTS:
1991, she learned from her friend that Toshio
visited the country but did not bother to see Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were
her nor their child. boardmates in Bohol. They lost contacts for a
while but after receiving a card from Barrete
Toshio was no longer residing at his given and various exchanges of letters, they became
address thus summons issued to him remained sweethearts. They got married in 1990.
unserved. Consequently, in 1996, Lolita filed an Barrete went back to Canada for work and in
ex parte motion for leave to effect service of 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario
summons by publication. The motion was Canada, which was granted. In 1992, Morigo
granted and the summons, accompanied by a married Lumbago. He subsequently filed a
copy of the petition, was published in a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity on
newspaper of general circulation giving Toshio the ground that there was no marriage
15 days to file his answer. Toshio filed to ceremony. Morigo was then charged with
respond after the lapse of 60 days from bigamy and moved for a suspension of
arraignment since the civil case pending posed subsequent marriage contracted during the
a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. subsistence of petitioner’s valid marriage to
Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his Villareyes, petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas
would be null and void ab initio completely
marriage with Barrete was void ab initio. regardless of petitioner’s psychological capacity
Petitioner contented he contracted second or incapacity. Since a marriage contracted
marriage in good faith. during the subsistence of a valid marriage is
automatically void, the nullity of this second
ISSUE: Whether Morigo must have filed marriage is not per se an argument for the
avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy.
declaration for the nullity of his marriage with
Pertinently, Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Barrete before his second marriage in order to Code criminalizes “any person who shall
be free from the bigamy case. contract a second or subsequent marriage
before the former marriage has been legally
HELD: dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been
declared presumptively dead by means of a
judgment rendered in the proper proceedings”. A
Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio
plain reading of the law, therefore, would
considering that there was no actual marriage indicate that the provision penalizes the mere
ceremony performed between them by a act of contracting a second or a subsequent
solemnizing officer instead they just merely marriage during the subsistence of a valid
signed a marriage contract. The petitioner marriage.
does not need to file declaration of the nullity
of his marriage when he contracted his second Yaptinchay vs. Torres28
marriage with Lumbago. Hence, he did not SCRA 489, G.R. No. L-26462 June 9, 1969
commit bigamy and is acquitted in the case FACTS:
filed. •Isidro Yaptinchay and Teresita Yaptinchay, the
petitioner, lived as husband and wife openly for
423 SCRA 272 (467 Phil. 723) – Civil Law – 19 years.
Family Code – Bigamy – Exists even if one
marriage is declared void
•Isidro Yaptinchay died Intestate.
•Teresita Yaptinchay was first appointed by
Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City
Leticia Ancajas in 1990. The two lived together
continuously and without interruption until the Branch, as Special Administratrix and then
later part of 1991, when Tenebro informed as regular administratrix of the estate of Isidro
Ancajas that he had been previously married to Y. Yaptinchay.
a certain Hilda Villareyes in 1986. Petitioner •An opposition was registered by Josefina Y.
thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he Yaptinchay, the alleged legitimate wife, and
shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going Ernesto Y. Yaptinchay and other children, of the
to cohabit with Villareyes. In 1993, petitioner
contracted yet another marriage with a certain deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay, upon the
Nilda Villegas. Ancajas thereafter filed a ground that said Teresita C. Yaptinchay, not
complaint for bigamy against petitioner. Villegas being an heir of the decedent.
countered that his marriage with Villareyes •After the parties were heard, the probate
cannot be proven as a fact there being no record court granted counter-petitioners ‘prayer and
of such. He further argued that his second named Virginia Y. Yaptinchay special
marriage, with Ancajas, has been declared void
ab initio due to psychological incapacity. Hence administratrix upon aP50,000-bond.
he cannot be charged for bigamy. •This time, Teresita filed in another
branch (Pasig Branch) of the Rizal, CFI an action
ISSUE: Whether or not Tenebro is guilty of
bigamy. for replevin and preliminary injunction for
liquidation of the partnership supposedly
HELD: The prosecution was able to establish
formed during the period of her cohabitation
the validity of the first marriage. As a second or
with Isidro and for damages. Respondent judge
Torres ordered issued a temporary restraining such loans to the construction work—the
order that Virginia et. al. and their agents from evidence, on
disposing any of the properties listed in the
complaint and from interfering with Teresita’s the contrary were indicative that the loans she
rights to, and possession over the house now obtained from the bank were for purposes
standing at North Forbes Park other than the construction of the home. Thus,
the unsupported assertion that the North
ISSUE: Forbes Park house is petitioner's exclusive
W/N preliminary injunction may be granted (in property may not be permitted to override the
relation to Teresita’s prayers) prima facie presumption that house, having
been constructed on Isidro’s lot (or of the
HELD: conjugal partnership) at his instance, and
NO. Petition dismissed and writ of preliminary during his marriage with Josefina, is part of the
mandatory injunction dissolved and set aside. estate that should be under the control of the
Injunction is not to be granted for the purpose special administratrix. Nor can petitioner's
of taking property out of possession and/or claim of ownership presumably based on the
control of a party and placing it in that of provisions of Art.144, CC be decisive. Art. 144
another whose title thereto has not been says that: "When man and a woman live
clearly established. In the verified petition together as husband and wife, but they are not
before this Court, Teresita avers that married, or their marriage is void from the
construction of said North Forbes Park property beginning, the property acquired by either or
was undertaken jointly by her and deceased, both of them through their work or industry or
Teresita even contributing her own exclusive their wages and salaries shall be governed by
funds therefore. But in her amended complaint the rules on co-ownership."But stock must be
she had said that she acquired through her own taken of the fact that the creation of the civil
personal fundsand efforts real properties such relationship envisaged in Art. 144 is
as North Forbes Park house. Virginia et. al. circumscribed by conditions, the existence
dispute Teresita’s claim of complete or even of which must first be shown before rights
partial ownership of the house. Maintaining provided there under may be deemed to
that construction of that house was undertaken accrue. One such condition is that there must
by the deceased without Teresita's intervention be a clear showing that the petitioner had,
and with his own personal funds. Note that during cohabitation, really contributed to the
it was only after hearing and considering the acquisition of the property involved. Until such
evidence adduced and the fact that after the right to co-ownership is duly established,
death of Isidro the Forbes Park house was petitioner's interests in the property in
among the properties of the deceased placed controversy cannot be considered the "present
under Virginia’s administration that respondent right" or title that would make available the
judge issued the injunction order. Thus, protection or aid afforded by a writ of
petitioner herein is not entitled to the injunction. For, the existence of a clear positive
injunction she prayed for below. Furthermore, right especially calling for judicial protection
grant or denial of an injunction rests upon the is wanting. Injunction indeed, is not to protect
sound discretion of the court, in the exercise of contingent or future rights; nor is it a remedy to
which appellate courts will not interfere except enforce an abstract right.
in a clear case of abuse. Although Teresita’s
presented loans that she had contracted during
the period when said house was
under construction as proof of ownership,
evidence was wanting which would correlate
well founded belief that the absent spouse was
already dead.

Jocson vs. Robles G.R. No. L-23264 March 15, 1974


Gloria G. Jocson – Plaintiff – Appellee ROMULO TOLENTINO, petitioner,
Ricardo R. Robles – Defendant – Apellant vs.
February 10, 1968 HELEN VILLANUEVA and HONORABLE
CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, Judge of the
Facts: Juvenile and Domestic Relations
On February 4, 1963, Gloria G. Jocson Court, respondents.
commenced in the Juvenile & Domestic
Relations Court an action for the annulment of Facts:
her marriage to Ricardo R. Robles , on the Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of
ground that it was bigamous. It was alleged in his marriage to Helen Villanueva. However,
the amended complaint that previous to his despite the fact that Helen was served with
marriage to plaintiff on May 27, 1958, summons and copy of the complaint, Helen
defendant Robles had contracted a first failed to file a responsive pleading, for which
marriage with Josefina Fausto, who had reason Romulo filed a motion to declare her in
instituted a criminal action for Bigamy against default and to set the date for the presentation
the same defendant in the Court of First of his evidence.
Instance of Manila. The Plaintiff also demanded The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of
from the defendant moral and exemplary Manila declared Helen in default, but, pursuant
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, claiming to the provision of Articles 88 and 101 of the
that during their cohabitation, she was Civil Code of the Philippines, referred the case
subjected to physical maltreatment by her to the City Fiscal for investigation to determine
husband, resulting in the premature birth of whether collusion exists between the parties.
their first child, who died three days later. Romulo submitted to the City Fiscal only a copy
In his answer, defendant also assailed the of his complaint.
validity of the marriage. But he charged The fiscal issued a subpoena to Romulo’s
plaintiffs' parents with having compelled him counsel requiring him to bring Romulo with him
by force, threat and intimidation, to contract as well as copies of other documents in
that marriage with her, notwithstanding their connection with the annulment case
knowledge that he is a married man; and that However, Romulo’s counsel informed the fiscal
said threat and intimidation allegedly persisted that he could not comply with the subpoena for
until January, 1963 when he was finally able to it will unnecessarily expose his evidence.
get away and live apart from the plaintiff. In a motion, Romulo Tolentino’s counsel prayed
to set the date for the reception of his evidence
Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff’s claim of on the ground that the City Fiscal had not
bigamy is valid against the defendant, whilst submitted a report of his findings despite the
the defendant is a married man, who lapse of sixty (60) days when he submitted to
contracted previous marriage. the City Fiscal a copy of the complaint.
Respondent Judge denied the aforesaid motion
Held: No. A marriage contracted by any person of Romulo unless he submits himself for
during the subsistence of a previous marriage interrogation by the City Fiscal to enable the
shall be null and void, unless before the latter to report whether or not there is
celebration of the subsequent marriage, the collusion between the parties.
prior spouse had been absent for four Respondent Judge dismissed the complaint in
consecutive years and the spouse present had a view of the fact that Romulo is not willing to
submit himself for interrogation by the City
Fiscal pursuant to the provisions of Article 101
of the New Civil Code.
Romulo filed a petition to annul said order and
to compel the respondent Judge to receive his
evidence.

Issue:
WON the order of the respondent judge
dismissing the complaint due to the fact that
the plaintiff is not willing to submit himself for
interrogation by the City Fiscal is valid.

Held:
YES, the order of the respondent judge is valid.
Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines expressly prohibit the rendition of a
decision in suits for annulment of marriage and
legal separation based on a stipulation of facts
or by confession of judgment and direct that in
case of non-appearance of defendant, the court
shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire
whether or not collusion between the parties
exists, and if none, said prosecuting attorney
shall intervene for the State to prevent
fabrication of evidence for the plaintiff.
Institutions of marriage and of the family are
sacred and therefore are as much the concern
of the State as of the spouses. The State and
the public have vital interest in the
maintenance and preservation of these social
institutions against desecration by collusion
between the parties or by fabricated evidence.
The prohibition against annulling a marriage
based on the stipulation of facts or by
confession of judgment or by non-appearance
of the defendant stresses the fact that marriage
is more than a mere contract between the
parties; and for this reason, when the
defendant fails to appear, the law enjoins the
court to direct the prosecuting officer to
intervene for the State in order to preserve the
integrity and sanctity of the marital bonds.

You might also like