JD 1st year 1st Sem (GR.No. L-22579) Landicho vs.

Relova
Persons and Family February 23, 1968 J. FERNANDO

FACTS
Petitioner: ROLANDO LANDICHO
Respondent:
 HON. LORENZO RELOVA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas,
Branch I
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

1st wife : Elvira Makatangay

2nd wife : Fe Lourdes Pasia
Date Event
February 27, 1963 Elvira Makatangay filed a criminal action for bigamy against the petitioner
before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Batangas, Branch I .
March 15, 1963 Fe Lourdes Pasia filed a civil case against petitioner in CFI-Batangas (same
court and same respondent judge) to declare her marriage to petitioner as null
and void ab initio because of the alleged use of force, threats and intimidation
by petitioner and because of its allegedly bigamous character.
June 15, 1963 Petitioner filed a third-party complaint (civil case) against the third-party
defendant Elvira Makatangay, to declare their marriage null and void, on the
ground that by means of threats, force and intimidation, she compelled him to
appear and contract marriage with her before the Justice of the Peace of Makati,
Rizal.

 THIRD - PARTY COMPLAINT - a complaint filed against a third party by

a defendant or plaintiff alleging that the third party is liable for all
or part of a claim or counterclaim in dispute between the original
parties.

Apparently, Landicho held Elvira Makatangay liable for the bigamy case filed
against him by Fe Pasia. He contended that the 1 st marriage should be void due
to vitiated consent.Moreover, if not for Elvira’s threat, he would have married
only Fe Pasia and therefore would not have been charged with bigamy. (This is
my own understanding. There’s no explanation in the case about third party
complaint.)
October 7, 1963 Petitioner moved to suspend the hearing of the criminal case (bigamy) pending
the decision on the question of the validity of the two marriages involved in the
pending civil suit.
November 19, 1963 Respondent Judge denied the motion for lack of merit.
March 2, 1964 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration to set aside the above order, which
was likewise denied on the said date.
March 13, 1964 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
March 17, 1964 Respondent Judge was required to answer within ten (10) days, with a
preliminary injunction being issued to restrain him from further proceeding with
the prosecution of the bigamy case.
April 3, 1964. In a resolution,the Court admitted the amended petition for certiorari by
including People of the Philippines as another respondent. (Mainly because
bigamy is a criminal case)
February 23, 1968 The petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

RATIO
Whether or not the existence of a civil suit for the annulment of marriage at the instance of the
second wife against petitioner, with the latter in turn filing a third party com- plaint against the first
spouse for the annulment of the first marriage, constitutes a prejudicial question in a pending suit
for bigamy against him.
 No. An action for annulment of marriage is prejudicial to a bigamy case only if the
accused in the bigamy charge is also the one asking for annulment of the second (bigamous
marriage ) based on vitiation of consent

In order that the case of annulment of marriage be considered a prejudicial question to the
bigamy case against the accused, it must be shown that the petitioner's consent to such marriage must
be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation to show that his act in the
second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy.

The situation in the present case is markedly different. At the time the petitioner was
indicted for bigamy on Feb. 27, 1963, the fact that two marriage ceremonies had been contracted
appeared to be indisputable. And it was the second spouse, not the petitioner who filed the action for
nullity on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. And it was only on June 15, 1963, that
petitioner, as defendant in the civil action, filed a third-party complaint against the first spouse alleging
that his marriage with her should be declared null and void on the ground of force, threats and
intimidation. Assuming that the first marriage was null and void on the ground alleged by petitioner,
that fact would not be material to the outcome of the criminal case. Parties to the marriage should not
be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the
competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so
long as there is no such declaration ,the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who
contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the
risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

FALLO
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is denied and the writ of preliminary injunction issued
dissolved. With costs.
JD 1st year 1st Sem (GR. No.80116) Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera , Victor , Geiling
Civil Law Article 344 RPC June 30,1989 Regalado

FACTS
Petitioner:
Respondent:


RATIO

FALLO

PARAS, J., concurring: