PERSONS Article 36

Morigo vs. People

GR No. 145226, February 6, 2004
FACTS: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in
Bohol. They lost contacts for a while but after receiving a
card from Barrete and various exchanges of letters, they
became sweethearts. They got married in 1990. Barrete
went back to Canada for work and in 1991 she filed petition
for divorce in Ontario Canada, which was granted. In 1992,
Morigo married Lumbago. He subsequently filed a complaint
for judicial declaration of nullity on the ground that there was
no marriage ceremony.
Morigo was then charged with
bigamy and moved for a suspension of arraignment since the
civil case pending posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy
case. Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage
with Barrete was void ab initio. Petitioner contented he
contracted second marriage in good faith.
ISSUE: Whether Morigo must have filed declaration for the
nullity of his marriage with Barrete before his second
marriage in order to be free from the bigamy case.
HELD: Morigos marriage with Barrete is void ab initio
considering that there was no actual marriage ceremony
performed between them by a solemnizing officer instead
they just merely signed a marriage contract. The petitioner
does not need to file declaration of the nullity of his marriage
when he contracted his second marriage with Lumbago.
Hence, he did not commit bigamy and is acquitted in the
case filed.
TE VS. COURT OF APPEALS
Facts: Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married in civil rites.
They did not live together after the marriage although they
would meet each other regularly. Private respondent gave
birth to a girl, thereafter petitioner stopped visiting her. While
his marriage with private respondent was subsisting,
petitioner contracted a second marriage with a certain Julieta
Santella.

Petitioner filed in the RTC of QC an action for the annulment

of his marriage to private respondent on the ground that he
was forced to marry her.
Private respondent filed with the PRC an administrative case
against petitioner and Santella for the revocation of their
respective engineering licenses on the ground that they
committed acts of immorality by living together and
subsequently marrying each other despite their knowledge
that at the time of their marriage, petitioner was already
married to private respondent. Petitioner also filed with the
board of civil engineering of the PRC where the admin case
for the revocation of his engineering license was pending, a
motion to suspend the proceedings in view of the pendency
of the civil case for annulment and criminal offense for
bigamy.
The RTC denied the petition. Petitioner filed for a motion for
recon to which the CA affirmed the decision.
Issue: whether the declaration of nullity of marriage is a
prejudicial question
Ruling: *petition was denied. NO. Absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may not be invoked for purposes of
remarriage unless there is a judgment declaring such
previous marriage is void. A MARRIAGE SHALL BE DEEMED
VALID UNTIL DECLARED OTHERWISE IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING. PARTIES TO A MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE
PERMITTED TO JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES ITS NULLITY.
Administrative proceedings shall not be suspended
notwithstanding the existence of a criminal and/or civil case
against the respondent involving the same facts of the
administrative case.
CAPILI VS PEOPLE
James Walter P. Capili VS People of the Phil. and Shirley
Tismo-Capili
G.R. NO. 183805 JULY 3, 2013
Ponente: Peralta
FACTS: On or about December 8, 1999, in Pasig City, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused

being previously united in lawful marriage with Karla Y.

Medina-Capili and without said marriage having been legally
dissolved or annulled, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously contract a second marriage with Shirley G.
Tismo, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
In the interim, the RTC of Antipolo City rendered a decision
declaring the voidness or incipient invalidity of the second
marriage between petitioner and private respondent on the
ground that a subsequent marriage contracted by the
husband during the lifetime of the legal wife is void from the
beginning. Thereafter, the petitioner accused filed his
Manifestation and Motion (to Dismiss) praying for the
dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy filed against him on
the ground that the second marriage between him and
private respondent had already been declared void by the
RTC.
The motion is anchored on the allegation that this case
should be dismissed as a decision dated December 1, 2004
had already been rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo City, Branch 72 in Civil Case No. 01-6043 (entitled:
"Karla Medina-Capili versus James Walter P. Capili and Shirley
G. Tismo," a case for declaration of nullity of marriage)
nullifying the second marriage between James Walter P. Capili
and Shirley G. Tismo and said decision is already final.
In the opposition filed by the private prosecutor to the
motion, it was stated, among others, that the issues raised in
the civil case are not similar or intimately related to the issue
in this above-captioned case and that the resolution of the
issues in said civil case would not determine whether or not
the criminal action may proceed. The trial court agreed with
Capili and it dismissed the bigamy case. On appeal, the Court
of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to
the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity
of the second marriage is a ground for dismissal of the
criminal case for bigamy.
RULING: NO. Since all the elements of the crime of bigamy
were present when the Information was filed on June 28,
2004.

The elements of the crime of bigamy are:

(1) the offender has been legally married;
(2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his
or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
(3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first
marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of
nullity, the crime (bigamy) had already been consummated
at the time the second marriage was contracted while the
first marriage was subsisting.
GR 137110
August 1, 2000
VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO A.K.A. VINCENT G. MERCADO,
petitioner
vs. CONSUELO TAN, respondent
FACTS
Dr. Vincent Mercado and Ma. Consuelo Tan got married on June 27, 1991
civilly of which a Marriage Contract was duly executed and signed by the parties. As
entered in said document, the status of petitioner was single.
At the time of the celebration of the wedding, petitioner was actually married
to Ma. Thelma Oliva. This fact was known to the respondent, Consuelo Tan.
On October 5, 1992, a letter-complaint for bigamy was filed by respondent through counse
lwith the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. More than a month after the
bigamy case was lodged in the Prosecutors Office, petitioner filed an action
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Ma. Thelma V. Oliva in RTCBr. 22, Cebu City, and in a Decision issued by the latter, the marriage between
Vincent G. Mercado and Ma. Thelma V. Oliva was declared null and void.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of
the Court of Appeals in affirming the ruling of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 13848, which convicted herein
petitioner of bigamy.
ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner can still be convicted of bigamy even if the
previous marriage was already declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the
Family Code
RULING
Petitioner contends that he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his
first marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, thereby rendering it void
ab initio. Unlike voidable marriages which are considered valid until set aside
by a competent court, he argues that a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at
all.
Thus, he concludes that there is no first marriage to speak of. Petitioner also
quotes the commentaries of former Justice Luis Reyes that it is now settled that if the first
marriage is void from the beginning, it is a defense in a bigamy charge. But if
the first marriage is voidable, it is not a defense.
Respondent, on the other hand, admits that the first marriage was declared null and void
under Article 36 of the Family Code, but she points out that that declaration
came only after the Information had been filed. Hence, by then, the crime had already
been consummated. She argues that a judicial declaration of nullity of a void
previous marriage must be obtained before a person can marry for a
subsequent time. The Court agrees with the respondent and affirmed the assailed decision
of the Court of Appeals and enumerated the elements of the crime of bigamy under Art. 349
of the Revised Penal Code: (1) That the offender has been legally married; (2) That the
marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) That he
contracts a second or subsequent marriage; (4) That the second or subsequent
marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
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.

Veronico Tenebro vs Court of Appeals

FACTS: Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with Leticia
Ancajas in 1990. The two lived together continuously and
without interruption until the later part of 1991, when
Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously
married to a certain Hilda Villareyes in 1986. Petitioner
thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he shared with
Ancajas, stating that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes.
In 1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage with a
certain Nilda Villegas. Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for
bigamy against petitioner. Villegas countered that his
marriage with Villareyes cannot be proven as a fact there
being no record of such. He further argued that his second
marriage, with Ancajas, has been declared void ab initio due
to psychological incapacity. Hence he cannot be charged for
bigamy.

ISSUE: Whether or not Tenebro is guilty of bigamy.

HELD: The prosecution was able to establish the validity of

the first marriage. As a second or subsequent marriage
contracted during the subsistence of petitioners valid
marriage to Villareyes, petitioners marriage to Ancajas would
be null and void ab initio completely regardless of petitioners
psychological capacity or incapacity. Since a marriage
contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is
automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not
per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for
bigamy. Pertinently, Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code
criminalizes any person who shall contract a second or
subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been
legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been
declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment
rendered in the proper proceedings. A plain reading of the

law, therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the

mere act of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage
during the subsistence of a valid marriage.

Separate Opinion of Justice Vitug

Justice Vitug pointed out that void ab initio marriages (except
those falling under the principle of psychological
incapacity) should be allowed to be used as a valid defense
for bigamy. Void ab initio marriages require no judicial
decree to establish their nullity. It is true that the Revised
Penal Code does not require the first or second marriage to
be declared void to avoid a criminal case of bigamy but this
should only be applicable to voidable marriages because
again, void ab initio marriages really do not need such
judicial decree.

Joselito R. Pimentel, petitioner vs Maria Chrysantine L. Pimentel and

the People of the Philippines, respondents.
GR. No. 172060 September 13, 2010
FACTS: On October 25, 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel y Lacap (private
respondent) filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito R.
Pimentel (petitioner and husband of the private respondent) before the RTC
of Quezon City. Petitioner also received summons for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity which then petitioner
filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings of the criminal case on the
ground of the existence of prejudicial question. The RTC ruled on May 13,
2005 that the case was not of prejudicial question and was denied due to lack
of merit. Petitioner appealed but was denied by RTC dated August 22, 2005,
which was followed by a petition for certiorari with application for a writ of
preliminary injunction and or temporary restraining order before the Court of
Appeals, assailing orders (May 13 and August 22)of the RTC Quezon City.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The CA ruled that even if
marriage between petitioner and respondent would be void, it would be
immaterial to the criminal case of frustrated parricide. Petitioner filed
petition for review, hence this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the resolution of the action for annulment of

marriage is a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal
case for frustrated parricide
RULING: No. The elements of Prejudicial Question are (1) the previously
instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the subsequent criminal action. The case however, shows
that the criminal case was filed first, then was followed by the summons for
the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (civil case). The rule was clear that
civil action must be instituted first before filing of the criminal action. (2) the
resolution of each issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. The relationship between the offender and the victim distinguishes
the crime of parricide from murder or homicide. However, the issue of both
cases are entirely different. In this case, the petitioner was charged of
frustrated parricide the issue is whether or not he performed all the acts of
execution which would have killed respondent as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of
petitioner's will. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage is granted, will
have no effect on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the
subsistence of the marriage. In short, the nullity of the marriage will not
affect the criminal liability of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition was
DENIED. And the decision of the CA was AFFIRMED.
Notes: Prejudicial Question: defined as one that arises in a case the resolution
of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The rationale behind the
principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting questions.
TE VS CA FACTS
Petitioner Arthur Te contracted a 2nd marriage with Julieta
Santella while his marriage with private respondent Choa was
subsisting. Choa filed an action against petitioner for bigamy.
Petitioner Te filed an action for annulment on the ground that
he was forced to marry her, that she concealed her
pregnancy by another man and she was psychologically
incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations. Board
of Civil Engineering of PRC denied petitioners motion to
suspend the proceedings of administrative case for
revocation of his pending engineering license. Court of
Appeals held that no prejudicial question existed since action

sought to be suspended is administrative in nature and other

action involved is a civil case.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in in refusing to
suspend the criminal and administrative proceedings despite
the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of
marriage
RULING
No. The Court of Appeals did not err when it ruled that
the pendency of the civil case for annulment of marriage filed
by petitioner against private respondent did not pose a
prejudicial question which would necessitate that the criminal
case for bigamy be suspended until said civil case is
terminated.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
petitioners marriage to private respondent had no bearing
upon the determination of petitioners innocence or guilt in
the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for
the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be
subsisting
at
the
time
the
second
marriage
is

contracted. Petitioners argument that the nullity of his

marriage to private respondent had to be resolved first in the
civil case before the criminal proceedings could continue,
because a declaration that their marriage was void ab
initio would necessarily absolve him from criminal liability, is
untenable. It is clear from the foregoing that the pendency of
the civil case for annulment of petitioners marriage to
private respondent did not give rise to a prejudicial question
which warranted the suspension of the proceedings in the
criminal case for bigamy since at the time of the alleged
commission of the crime, their marriage was, under the law,
still valid and subsisting.
Neither did the filing of said civil case for annulment
necessitate the suspension of the administrative proceedings
before the PRC Board. As discussed above, the concept of
prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case. We
have previously ruled that there is no prejudicial question
where one case is administrative and the other is civil.