G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE ALICIA V.

SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. In an action (Family Case No. 483) filed before the erstwhile Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City, herein respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel (plaintiff therein) asked for the declaration of Nullity of his marriage (celebrated on July, 1978 at the Holy Catholic Apostolic Christian Church Branch in Makati, Metro Manila) with herein petitioner Lilia Oliva Wiegel (Lilia, for short, and defendant therein) on the ground of Lilia's previous existing marriage to one Eduardo A. Maxion, the ceremony having been performed on June 25, 1972 at our Lady of Lourdes Church in Quezon City. Lilia, while admitting the existence of said prior subsisting marriage claimed that said marriage was null and void, she and the first husband Eduardo A. Maxion having been allegedly forced to enter said marital union. In the pre-trial that ensued, the issue agreed upon by both parties was the status of the first marriage (assuming the presence of force exerted against both parties): was said prior marriage void or was it merely voidable? Contesting the validity of the pre-trial order, Lilia asked the respondent court for an opportunity to present evidence(1) that the first marriage was vitiated by force exercised upon both her and the first husband; and (2) that the first husband was at the time of the marriage in 1972 already married to someone else. Respondent judge ruled against the presentation of evidence because the existence of force exerted on both parties of the first marriage had already been agreed upon. Hence, the present petition for certiorari assailing the following Orders of therespondent Judge(1) the Order dated March 17, 1980 in which the parties were compelled to submit the case for resolution based on "agreed facts;" and (2) the Order dated April 14, 1980, denying petitioner's motion to allow her to present evidence in her favor. We find the petition devoid of merit. There is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage was vitiated by force committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriage will not be void but merely viodable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married respondent she was still validly married to her first husband, consequently, her marriage to respondent is VOID (Art. 80, Civil Code). There is likewise no need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage of her first husband at the time they married each other, for then such a marriage though void still needs according to this Court a judicial declaration 1 of such fact and for all legal intents and purposes she would still be regarded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel); accordingly, the marriage of petitioner and respondent would be regarded VOID under the law. WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit, and the Orders complained of are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

G.R. No. L-53642 April 15, 1988LEONILO C. DONATO, petitioners, vs.HON. ARTEMON D. LUNA, PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANIIA, BRANCH XXXII HON. JOSE FLAMINIANO, CITY FISCAL OF MANILA; PAZ B. ABAYAN, respondents. In this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, the question for the resolution of the Court is whether or not a criminal case for bigamy pending before the Court of First Itance of Manila should be suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage pending before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on the ground that the latter constitutes a prejudicial question. The respondent judge ruled in the negative. We sustain him. The pertinent facts as set forth in the records follow. On January 23, 1979, the City Fiscal of Manila acting thru Assistant City Fiscal Amado N. Cantor filed an information for bigamy against herein petitioner, Leonilo C. Donato with the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Criminal Case No. 43554 and assigned to Branch XXXII of said court. The information was filed based on the complaint of private respondent Paz B. Abayan. On September 28, 1979, before the petitioner's arraignment, private respondent filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila a civil action for declaration of nullity of her marriage with petitioner contracted on September 26, 1978, which action was docketed as Civil Case No. E-02627. Said civil case was based on the ground that private respondent consented to entering into the marriage, which was petitioner Donato's second one, since she had no previous knowledge that petitioner was already married to a certain Rosalinda R. Maluping on June 30, 1978. Petitioner Donato's answer in the civil case for nullity interposed the defense that his second marriage was void since it was solemnized without a marriage license and that force, violence, intimidation and undue influence were employed by private respondent to obtain petitioner's consent to the marriage. Prior to the solemnization of the subsequent or second marriage, petitioner and private respondent had lived together and deported themselves as husband and wife without the benefit of wedlock for a period of at least five years as evidenced by a joint affidavit executed by them on September 26, 1978, for which reason, the requisite marriage license was dispensed with pursuant to Article 76 of the New Civil Code pertaining to marriages of exceptional character. Prior to the date set for the trial on the merits of Criminal Case No. 43554, petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of said case contending that Civil Case No. E02627 seeking the annulment of his second marriage filed by private respondent raises a prejudicial question which must first be determined or decided before the criminal case can proceed. In an order dated April 7, 1980. Hon. Artemon D. Luna denied the motion to suspend the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 43554 for bigamy. Respondent judge's basis for denial is the ruling laid down in the case of Landicho vs. Relova. 1 The order further directed that the proceedings in the criminal case can proceed as scheduled. A motion for reconsideration was flied by herein petitioner thru counsel citing as one of his grounds for suspension of proceedings the ruling laid down by this Court in the case of De la Cruz vs. Ejercito 2 which was a much later case than that cited by respondent judge in his order of denial. The motion for reconsideration of the said order was likewise denied in an order dated April 14, 1980, for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction. A prejudicial question has been defined to be one which arises in a case, the resolution of which question is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. 3 It 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, 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. 4 A prejudicial question usually comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case. 5 The requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the case at bar. It must be noted that the issue before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court touching upon the nullity of the second marriage is not determinative of petitioner Donato's guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy. Furthermore, it was petitioner's second wife, the herein private respondent Paz B. Abayan who filed the complaint for annulment of the second marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through deceit. Petitioner Donato raised the argument that the second marriage should have been declared null and void on the ground of force, threats and intimidation allegedly employed against him by private respondent only sometime later when he was required to answer the civil action for anulment of the second marriage. The doctrine elucidated upon by the case of Landicho vs. Relova 6 may be applied to the present case. Said case states that: The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages entered into by the accused in a bigamy case does not mean that "prejudicial questions" are automatically raised in civil actions as to warrant the suspension of the case. 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 February 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, the fact would not be material to the outcome of the 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. The lower court therefore, has not abused much less gravely abused, its discretion in failing to

suspend the hearing as sought by petitioner. In the case at bar, petitioner has not even sufficiently shown that his consent to the second marriage has been obtained by the use of threats, force and intimidation. Petitioner calls the attention of this Court to the fact that the case of De la Cruz vs. Ejercito is a later case and as such it should be the one applied to the case at bar. We cannot agree. The situation in the case at bar is markedly different. In the aforecited case it was accused Milagros dela Cruz who was charged with bigamy for having contracted a second marriage while a previous one existed. Likewise, Milagros dela Cruz was also the one who filed an action for annulment on the ground of duress, as contra-distinguished from the present case wherein it was private respondent Paz B. Abayan, petitioner's second wife, who filed a complaint for annulment of the second marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through deceit since she was not aware that petitioner's marriage was still subsisting. Moreover, in De la Cruz, a judgment was already rendered in the civil case that the second marriage of De la Cruz was null and void, thus determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. In the present case, there is as yet no such judgment in the civil case. Pursuant to the doctrine discussed in Landicho vs. Relova, petitioner Donato cannot apply the rule on prejudicial questions since a case for annulment of marriage can be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused only if it is proved that the petitioner's consent to such marriage was obtained by means of duress, violence and intimidation in order to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary one and as such the same cannot be the basis for conviction. The preceding elements do not exist in the case at bar. Obviously, petitioner merely raised the issue of prejudicial question to evade the prosecution of the criminal case. The records reveal that prior to petitioner's second marriage on September 26, 1978, he had been living with private respondent Paz B. Abayan as husband and wife for more than five years without the benefit of marriage. Thus, petitioner's averments that his consent was obtained by private respondent through force, violence, intimidation and undue influence in entering a subsequent marriage is belled by the fact that both petitioner and private respondent executed an affidavit which stated that they had lived together as husband and wife without benefit of marriage for five years, one month and one day until their marital union was formally ratified by the second marriage and that it was private respondent who eventually filed the civil action for nullity. Another event which militates against petitioner's contentions is the fact hat it was only when Civil Case No. E-02627 was filed on September 28, 1979, or more than the lapse of one year from the solemnization of the second marriage that petitioner came up with the story that his consent to the marriage was secured through the use of force, violence, intimidation and undue influence. Petitioner also continued to live with private respondent until November 1978, when the latter left their abode upon learning that Leonilo Donato was already previously married. In the light of the preceding factual circumstances, it can be seen that the respondent Judge did not err in his earlier order. There is no pivotal issue that must be pre-emptively resolved in Civil Case No. E-02627 before proceedings in the criminal action for bigamy can be undertaken. Accordingly, there being no prejudicial question shown to exit the order of denial issued by the respondent judge dated April 14, 1980 should be sustained. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs.

TERRE v. TERREJuly 3, 1992 (A.M. No. 2349)PARTIES: Complainant: DOROTHY B. TERRE Respondent: ATTY. JORDAN TERRE FACTS: On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre charged respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar with grossly immoral conduct, consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained subsisting No judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent with complainant. Respondent was charged with abandonment of minor and bigamy by complainant. Dorothy Terre was then married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo her first cousin, with this fact, Atty. Jordan Terre succesfully convinced complainant that her marriage was void ab initio and they are free to contract marriage. In their marriage license, despite her objection, he wrote single as her status. After getting the complainant pregnant, Atty. Terre abandoned them and subsequently contracted another marriage to Helina Malicdem believing again that her previous marriage was also void ab initio. ISSUE: (1) WON a judicial declaration of nullity is needed to enter into a subsequent marriage HELD: Yes. The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In the first place, respondent has not rebutted complainants evidence as to the basic fact which underscores that bad faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, the pretended defense is the same argument by which he inveigled complainant into believing that her prior marriage or Merlito A. Bercenilla being incestuous and void ab initio (Dorothy and Merlito being allegedly first cousins to each other), she was free to contract a second marriage with the respondent. Respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of the supreme Court which holds that for purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage , a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential. G.R. No. L-43701 March 6, 1937In re Instate of the deceased Marciana Escao. ANGELITA JONES., petitioner-appellant-appellee, vs.FELIX HORTIGUELA, as administrator, widower and heir, oppositorappellantThis is an appeal taken from the order issued by the Court of First Instance of Cebu on March 14, 1935 , in the intestate proceedings of the deceased Marciana Escao, denying thereby: (1) the motion to appoint a new administrator and (2) to set aside the order of May 9, 1932, declaring the heirs of said deceased; (3) holding it unwarranted to declare that the properties of the intestate estate are paraphernal properties of said deceased, but reserving to the parties the right to discuss which of said properties are paraphernal and which are conjugal; (4)setting aside the order of January 10, 1933. granting to the administrator fees in the sum of P10,000, and that of June 26, 1933, approving the project of portion and the final account; and (5) ordering the presentation of another project of partition and final account. As Marciana Escao had died intestate, her widower Felix Hortiguela was appointed judicial administrator of her entire estate, and in an order issued on May 9, 1932, Angelita Jones, her daughter by her first marriage, and Felix Hortiguela, her widower by her second marriage, were declared her only heirs. In a motion filed with the conformity of the guardian of the heiress Angelita Jones, Felix Hortiguela, as administrator, prayed that his fees, as such, be fixed at P10,000 which was granted by the court in its order of January 10, 1933. The administrator later presented an inventory of the properties left by said deceased Marciana Escao, a final account of his administration, and a project of

partition of the intestate estate wherein he adjudicated to himself a part of the estate in payment of his share of the conjugal properties and his usufructuary right, and the remaining part to Angelita Jones. The latter, who was a minor, was represented in the proceedings by her guardian Paz Escao de Corominas. The project of partition and final account were approved in an order of June 26, 1933, and the properties were turned over to the respective grantees by virtue thereof. On May 3, 1934, the heiress Angelita Jones, then married to Ernesto Lardizabal, filed a motion alleging that she was the only heir of her mother, the deceased Marciana Escao; that there never was a valid marriage between her mother and Felix Hortiguela or that had such marriage been celebrated, it was null and void; and even granting that it were valid, Felix Hortiguela was not entitled to a share in usufruct of one-third of the inheritance; that the petitioner was a minor and that during the hearing of the intestate proceedings she had not been assisted by counsel but was represent by the same attorney of Felix Hortiguela; that during said proceedings there had been committed many errors and inaccuracies which impaired her rights and that the fees of P10,000 charged by the administrator were highly unreasonable and unconscionable. She prayed: (a) for the reopening of the proceedings; (b) that her husband appointed special administrator without bond; (c) that her mother's alleged marriage to Felix Hortiguela be declared null and void; (d) that the partition of the properties made by administrator or Hortiguela be declared null and void that petitioner be declared the only universal heir of her deceased mother; and (e) that in case there was a valid marriage between Felix Hortiguela and Marciana Escao, Hortiguela be declared not entitled to the widower's usufruct; the errors in the administrator's account be corrected; the latter be granted a remuneration of only P4 a day, and new partition of the properties be made. After Hortiguela's answer had been filed and the evidence for both parties received, the court issued the order of March 14, 1935, the provisions of which are stated in the first paragraph of this decision. Both parties appealed therefrom. The principal question upon the resolution of which depends that of the others, is whether or not Felix Hortiguela's alleged marriage to Marciana Escao was celebrated. It is a fact that in December, 1914, Marciana Escao married Arthur W. Jones in the suburban catholic church of San Nicolas, Province of Cebu. On January 10, 1918, Jones secured a passport to go abroad and thereafter nothing was ever heard of him. In October, 1919, proceedings were institute in the Court of First Instance of Maasin, Leyte, at the instance of Marciana Escao, to have her husband judicially declared an absentee. On the 25th of said month, the court issued an order declaring Arthur W. Jones an absentee from the Philippine Islands pursuant to the provisions of article 186 of the Civil Code, with the proviso that said judicial declaration of absence would not take effect until six months after its publication in the official newspapers. Said order directed the publication thereof in the Official Gazette and in the newspaper "El Ideal". Pursuant thereto, said order was published in the Official Gazette during the month of December, 1919, and January, February, March, April, May and June, 1920. On April 23, 1921, the court issued another order for the taking effect of the declaration of absence, publication thereof having been made in the Official Gazette and in "El Ideal." On May 6, 1927, Felix Hortiguela and Marciana Escao were married before the justice of the peace of Malitbog, Leyte, and they signed the certificate of marriage. Now, Angelita Jones contends that the declaration of absence must be understood to have been made not in the order of October 25, 1919, but in that of April 23, 1921, and that from the latter date to May 6, 1927, the date of the celebration of the marriage, only 6 years and 14 days elapsed; and in accordance with section III, paragraph 2, of General Orders, No. 68, the marriage so contracted by Felix Hortiguela and

Marciana Escao is null and void. This court does not believe so. For the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee. The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believe at the time of the celebration of the marriage (section III, paragraph 2, General orders, No. 68). In accordance with the foregoing legal provision, the absence of Marciana Escao's former husband should be counted from January 10, 1918, the date on which the last news concerning Arthur W. Jones was received, and from said date to May 6, 1927, more than nine years elapsed. Said marriage is, therefore, valid and lawful. For some unknown reason not attributable, of course, to the fault or negligence of Felix Hortiguela or Marciana Escao, the marriage contracted does not appear recorded in the marriage register of the municipality of Malitbog. Angelita Jones assigns as one of the errors of the court its having declared that failure to record said marriage does not affect the efficacy and validity thereof. On this point, the court a quo very correctly stated as follows: Section VIII of General Orders, No. 68, as amended, provides that the person solemnizing the marriage must transmit the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary, and failure to transmit such certificate shall be fined not less than twenty-five and not more than fifty dollars; but does not provide that failure to transmit such certificate to the municipal secretary annuls the marriage. Interpreting this legal provision, the Supreme Court, in its decision of September 5, 1931 (Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil., 1 ) said: "The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff's natural father and mother, while the latter was in articulo mortis failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since it does not appear that in the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity were not present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not being one said requisites." In another case (U. S. vs. De Vera, 28 Phil., 105), the court said: "Certificate issued pursuant the provisions of section 20 of the Municipal Code by municipal secretaries, marriages recorded in their respective registers, are not the only ones that can attest and prove such facts to such an extent that other proofs established by law may not be presented or admitted at trial, when through the omission or fault either of the municipal secretary himself or of the person who solemnized the marriage, it was not duly entered or recorded in the municipal register." Furthermore, Marciana Escao believed Arthur W. Jones to be dead when she contracted her second marriage. Her daughter Angelita Jones herself was of the same belief, since she lived with her mother after the latter had married Hortiguela, treated Hortiguela as her true stepfather, and lived and traveled with him together with her mother. She certainly would not have behaved so if she had not believed her father to be dead. Still furthermore, according to section 334, No. 24, of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person not heard from in seven years is presumed to be dead. Inasmuch as Felix Hortiguela was lawfully married to Marciana Escao and was divorced from her at the time of her

death there is no doubt that he is entitled to inherit in usufruct, not only in testate but also in intestate succession, as in the present case (6 and 7 Manresa, pages 497-499 and 134-141, respectively). Therefor, there is no reason to annul the order of May 9, 1932, declaring that the heirs of the deceased were her widower and her daughter Angelita Jones. Neither is there any reason to annul the order of June 26, 1933, approving the partition of the properties of the intestate estate. The inaccuracies and error attributed to the administrator Felix Hortiguela in Angelita Jones' motion and alleged therein as one of the grounds for asking for the reopening of any assignment of error. It should, therefore, be considered that the petitioner has desisted from her intention relative to this alleged ground for the nullity of the proceedings. As to the administrator's fees, the evidence shows that of the P10,000 granted by the court to Hortiguela as his own sum of P8,000 for the latter's professional services in this as well as in other cases affecting the estate of his deceased wife. Taking into consideration the nature of and the amount involved in this and in the other cases wherein Attorney Faelnar has rendered his services this court is of the opinion that the sum of P8,000 paid by the administrator is a reasonable and moderate compensation. Angelita Jones' objection to the effect that she had no reason to contribute to the payment of Faelnar's fees is untenable, considering the fact that said attorney's professional services were rendered for the benefit of the administration of the estate of the deceased Escao prior to the controversy provoked by said heiress. As to the remainder of P2,000, said administrator is entitled to collect the sum of P4 for every day employed by him as such, and considering the importance of the inheritance in question and the time elapsed since the inception of the administration proceedings this court is of the opinion that the sum of P2,000 is an adequate compensation for said administrator's services. Lastly, had the court jurisdiction to set aside, as it did, the order of January 10, 1933, approving the administrator's fees and the order of June 26, 1933, approving the partition and the final account? Had the court jurisdiction to order the presentation of another project of partition and final account? These are the questions raised by Felix Hortiguela and this court is of the opinion that said orders having therefrom, the court has lost jurisdiction that no appeal was ever taken therefrom, the court has lost jurisdiction over the case and it could not resume it under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under section 598 thereof because the abovecited section refer to grounds other than those upon which Angelita Jones' motion of May 3, 1934, is based. For all the foregoing consideration this court reverses the appealed order of March 14, 1935, in so far as it set aside the order of January 10, 1933, relative to the administrator's fees and the order of June 26, 1933, approving the final account and the project of portion, and in so far as said order of March 14, 1935, required the presentation of a new project of partition; denied the appointment of Angelita Jones husband as administrator; affirms the order of May 9, 1932, relative to declaration of heirs; and holds it unwarranted to make a finding as to whether or not the properties of this intestate estate are paraphernal properties of the deceased Marciana Escao reserving to the parties the right to discuss which are paraphernal and which are conjugal properties. So ordered.

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, The Family Code of the Philippines provides an entirely new ground (in addition to those enumerated in the Civil Code) to assail the validity of a marriage, namely, "psychological incapacity." Since the Code's effectivity, our courts have been swamped with various petitions to declare marriages void based on this ground. Although this Court had interpreted the meaning of psychological incapacity in the recent case of Santos vs. Court of Appeals, still many judges and lawyers find difficulty in applying said novel provision in specific cases. In the present case and in the context of the herein assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, the Solicitor General has labelled exaggerated to be sure but nonetheless expressive of his frustration Article 36 as the "most liberal divorce procedure in the world." Hence, this Court in addition to resolving the present case, finds the need to lay down specific guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code. Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the January 25, 1993 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 in CA-G.R. CV No. 34858 affirming in toto the May 14, 1991 decision of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, 3 Benguet, which declared the marriage of respondent Roridel Olaviano Molina to Reynaldo Molina void ab initio, on the ground of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Facts This case was commenced on August 16, 1990 with the filing by respondent Roridel O. Molina of a verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Essentially, the petition alleged that Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church 4 in Manila; that a son, Andre O. Molina was born; that after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father since he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends on whom he squandered his money; that he depended on his parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between them; that sometime in February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his job in Manila, and since then Roridel had been the sole breadwinner of the family; that in October 1986 the couple had a very intense quarrel, as a result of which their relationship was estranged; that in March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and went to live with her parents in Baguio City; that a few weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had since then abandoned them; that Reynaldo had thus shown that he was psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrel some individual who thought of himself as a king to be served; and that it would be to the couple's best interest to have their marriage declared null and void in order to free them from what appeared to be an incompatible marriage from the start. In his Answer filed on August 28, 1989, Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife, but contended that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels were due to (1) Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after their marriage; (2) Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as cooking meals; and (3) Roridel's failure to run the household and handle their finances. During the pre-trial on October 17, 1990, the following were stipulated: 1. That the parties herein were legally married on April 14, 1985 at the Church of St. Augustine, Manila; 2. That out of their marriage, a child named Albert Andre Olaviano Molina was born on July 29, 1986; 3. That the parties are separated-in-fact for more than three years;

4. That petitioner is not asking support for her and her child; 5. That the respondent is not asking for damages; 6. That the common child of the parties is in the custody of the petitioner wife. Evidence for herein respondent wife consisted of her own testimony and that of her friends Rosemarie Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla as well as of Ruth G. Lalas, a social worker, and of Dr. Teresita Hidalgo-Sison, a psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. She also submitted documents marked as Exhibits "A" to "E-1." Reynaldo did not present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial conference. On May 14, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void. The appeal of petitioner was denied by the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the RTC's decision. Hence, the present recourse. The Issue In his petition, the Solicitor General insists that "the Court of Appeals made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase 'psychological incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code) and made an incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case," adding that the appealed Decision tended "to establish in effect the most liberal divorce procedure in the world which is anathema to our culture." In denying the Solicitor General's appeal, the respondent Court relied 5 heavily on the trial court's findings "that the marriage between the parties broke up because of their opposing and conflicting personalities." Then, it added it sown opinion that "the Civil Code Revision Committee (hereinafter referred to as Committee) intended to liberalize the application of our civil laws on personal and family rights. . . ." It concluded that: As ground for annulment of marriage, We view psychologically incapacity as a broad range of mental and behavioral conduct on the part of one spouse indicative of how he or she regards the marital union, his or her personal relationship with the other spouse, as well as his or her conduct in the long haul for the attainment of the principal objectives of marriage. If said conduct, observed and considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it defeats the very objectives of marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the spouses to their individual fates. In the case at bar, We find that the trial judge committed no indiscretion in analyzing and deciding the instant case, as it did, hence, We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions thus made. Respondent, in her Memorandum, adopts these discussions of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner, on the other hand, argues that "opposing and conflicting personalities" is not equivalent to psychological incapacity, explaining that such ground "is not simply the neglect by the parties to the marriage of their responsibilities and duties, but a defect in their psychological nature which renders them incapable of performing such marital responsibilities and duties." The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. In Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals 6 this Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, ruled that "psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (nor physical) incapacity . . . and that (t)here is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of 'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the

time the marriage is celebrated." Citing Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, 7 Justice Vitug wrote that "the psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability." On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconciliable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical) illness. The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could nor get along with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological incapacity. Dr. Sison testified: 8 COURT Q It is therefore the recommendation of the psychiatrist based on your findings that it is betterfor the Court to annul (sic) the marriage? A Yes, Your Honor. Q There is no hope for the marriage? A There is no hope, the man is also living with another woman. Q Is it also the stand of the psychiatrist that the parties are psychologically unfit for each other but they are psychologically fit with other parties? A Yes, Your Honor. Q Neither are they psychologically unfit for their professions? A Yes, Your Honor. The Court has no more question s. In the case of Reynaldo, there is no showing that his alleged personality traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time of marriage celebration. While some effort was made to prove that there was a failure to fulfill prenuptial impressions of "thoughtfulness and gentleness" on Reynaldo's part of being "conservative, homely and intelligent" on the part of Roridel, such failure of expectation is nor indicative of antecedent psychological incapacity. If at all, it merely shows love's temporary blindness to the faults and blemishes of the beloved. During its deliberations, the Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on the facts of this case vis-a-vis existing law and jurisprudence. In view of the novelty of Art. 36 of the Family Code and the difficulty experienced by many trial courts interpreting and applying it, the Court decided to invite two amici curiae, namely, the Most Reverend Oscar V. Cruz, 9 Vicar Judicial (Presiding Judge) of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, 10 a member of the Family Code Revision Committee. The Court takes this occasion to thank these friends of the Court for their informative and interesting discussions during the oral argument on December 3, 1996, which they followed up with written memoranda. From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor

of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, 11 recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. The Family Code 12 echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes the permanence, inviolability and solidarity (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. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, 13 nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature explained. Expert evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist 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. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage. (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. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage. (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 noncomplied 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. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides: The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume

the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature. 14 Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decision of such appellate tribunal. Ideally subject to our law on evidence what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void. This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church while remaining independent, separate and apart from each other shall walk together in synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation. (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 he handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly staring therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. In the instant case and applying Leouel Santos, we have already ruled to grant the petition. Such ruling becomes even more cogent with the use of the foregoing guidelines. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid. Choa vs. ChoaGR No. 1473376, November 26, 2002 FACTS:Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. They have 2 children namely Cheryl Lynne and Albryan. In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he filed an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on psychological incapacity. The case went to trial and the trial court further held that Alfonso presented quantum evidence that Leni needs to controvert for the dismissal of the case. Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and deportation which shows latters psychological incapacity because according to him it clearly showed that his wife not only wanted him behind bars but also to banish outside the country. ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological incapacity. HELD: The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the case do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife. The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Lenis personality namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity. Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to identify and prove root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It just established that the spouses had an incompatibility or a defect that could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of

evidence presented was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric or psychological examination. Republic vs. Quintero-HamanoGR No. 149498, May 20, 2004 FACTS:Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a complaint in 1996 for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of psychological incapacity. She and Toshio started a common-law relationship in Japan and lived in the Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio went back to Japan and stayed there for half of 1987. Lolita then gave birth on November 16, 1987. In 1988, Lolita and Toshio got married in MTC-Bacoor, Cavite. After a month of their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised to return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his family. Toshio sent money for two months and after that he stopped giving financial support. She wrote him several times but never respondent. In 1991, she learned from her friend that Toshio visited the country but did not bother to see her nor their child. Toshio was no longer residing at his given address thus summons issued to him remained unserved. Consequently, in 1996, Lolita filed an ex parte motion for leave to effect service of summons by publication. The motion was granted and the summons, accompanied by a copy of the petition, was published in a newspaper of general circulation giving Toshio 15 days to file his answer. Toshio filed to respond after the lapse of 60 days from publication, thus, Lolita filed a motion to refer the case to the prosecutor for investigation. ISSUE: Whether Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligation. HELD:The Court is mindful of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. Toshios act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. Although as rule, actual medical examinations are not needed, it would have greatly helped Lolita had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified Toshios illness. This could have been done through an expert witness. It is essential that a person show incapability of doing marital obligation due to some psychological, not physical illness. Hence, Toshio was not considered as psychologically incapacitated. Morigo vs. PeopleGR 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.

Barcelona vs. Court of Appeals Facts: Respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana were legally married union begot five children On 29 March 1995, private respondent Tadeo R. Bengzon (respondent Tadeo) filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage against petitioner Diana M. Barcelona (petitioner Diana). Petition further alleged that petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the celebrationof their marriage to comply with the essential obligations of marriage and such incapacity subsists up to thepresent time. The petition alleged the non-complied marital obligations: During their marriage, they had frequent quarrels due to their varied upbringing. Respondent, coming from arich family, was a disorganized housekeeper and was frequently out of the house. She would go to her sisters house or would play tennis the whole day When the family had crisis due to several miscarriages suffered by respondent and the sickness of a child,respondent withdrew to herself and eventually refused to speak to her husband On November 1977, the respondent, who was five months pregnant with Cristina Maria and on the pretext of reevaluating her feelings with petitioner, requested the latter to temporarily leave their conjugal dwelling. In his desire to keep peace in the family and to safeguard the respondents pregnancy, the petitioner wascompelled to leave their conjugal dwelling The respondent at the time of the celebration of their marriage was psychologically incapacitated to complywith the essential obligation of marriage and such incapacity subsisted up to and until the present time.Such incapacity was conclusively found in the psychological examination conducted on the relationshipbetween the petitioner and the respondent Diana claims that petitioner falls short of the guidelines stated in Molina case and there is nocause for action .ISSUE: WON petitioner stated a cause of action against DianaHELD: YES, since petition stated legal right of Tadeo, correlative obligation of Diana, and her act or omission as seenin factsFAILURE TO STATE ROOT CAUSE AND GRAVE NATURE OF ILLNESSSec 2 of rules of declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage petition does not need to show (NOT) root causesince only experts can determine it b the physical manifestations of physical incapacityRESULT: PETITION IS DENIED, THERE IS CAUSE OF ACTION Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.SIMPLIFICATIONDIANA contends that the 2ndpetition of his husband is defective because it fails to allege the rootcause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It is not defective since the new rules do not require thepetition to allege expert opinion on the psychological incapacity, it follows that there is no need toallege in the petition the root cause of the psychological incapacity. (only experts can determine theroot cause and at times they couldnt determine it). What the new Rules require the petition to allegeare physical manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity. Second petition of Tadeo complieswith this requirement. (he has stated in his petition facts to support his claim stated in the F G.R. No. 150758 February 18, 2004VERONICO TENEBRO, petitioner vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, We are called on to decide the novel issue concerning the effect of the judicial declaration of the nullity of a second or subsequent marriage, on the ground of psychological incapacity, on an individuals criminal liability for bigamy. We hold that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the Philippines penal laws are concerned. As such, an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that

the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. Petitioner in this case, Veronico Tenebro, contracted marriage with private complainant Leticia Ancajas on April 10, 1990. The two were wed by Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of the City Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City. Tenebro and Ancajas lived together continuously and without interruption until the latter part of 1991, when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986. Tenebro showed Ancajas a photocopy of a marriage contract between him and Villareyes. Invoking this previous marriage, petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes.1 On January 25, 1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage, this one with a certain Nilda Villegas, before Judge German Lee, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 15.2 When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she verified from Villareyes whether the latter was indeed married to petitioner. In a handwritten letter,3 Villareyes confirmed that petitioner, Veronico Tenebro, was indeed her husband. Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner.4 The Information,5 which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 013095-L, reads: That on the 10th day of April 1990, in the City of Lapu-lapu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforenamed accused, having been previously united in lawful marriage with Hilda Villareyes, and without the said marriage having been legally dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with LETICIA ANCAJAS, which second or subsequent marriage of the accused has all the essential requisites for validity were it not for the subsisting first marriage. CONTRARY TO LAW. When arraigned, petitioner entered a plea of "not guilty".6 During the trial, petitioner admitted having cohabited with Villareyes from 1984-1988, with whom he sired two children. However, he denied that he and Villareyes were validly married to each other, claiming that no marriage ceremony took place to solemnize their union.7 He alleged that he signed a marriage contract merely to enable her to get the allotment from his office in connection with his work as a seaman.8 He further testified that he requested his brother to verify from the Civil Register in Manila whether there was any marriage at all between him and Villareyes, but there was no record of said marriage.9 On November 10, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City, Branch 54, rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing him to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.10 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition for review on the following assignment of errors: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED, AND THIS ERROR IS CORRECTIBLE IN THIS APPEAL WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR (sic) THE CRIME OF BIGAMY, DESPITE THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE AND INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. II. THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR (sic) THE CRIME OF BIGAMY DESPITE CLEAR PROOF THAT THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE ACCUSED AND PRIVATE COMPLAINANT HAD BEEN DECLARED NULL AND VOID AB INITIO AND WITHOUT LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT.11 After a careful review of the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason to disturb the assailed judgment. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the crime of Bigamy are:

(1) that the offender has been legally married; (2) that the first 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.12 Petitioners assignment of errors presents a two-tiered defense, in which he (1) denies the existence of his first marriage to Villareyes, and (2) argues that the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, which is an alleged indicator that his marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites for validity, retroacts to the date on which the second marriage was celebrated.13 Hence, petitioner argues that all four of the elements of the crime of bigamy are absent, and prays for his acquittal.14 Petitioners defense must fail on both counts. First, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence, both documentary and oral, to prove the existence of the first marriage between petitioner and Villareyes. Documentary evidence presented was in the form of: (1) a copy of a marriage contract between Tenebro and Villareyes, dated November 10, 1986, which, as seen on the document, was solemnized at the Manila City Hall before Rev. Julieto Torres, a Minister of the Gospel, and certified to by the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila;15 and (2) a handwritten letter from Villareyes to Ancajas dated July 12, 1994, informing Ancajas that Villareyes and Tenebro were legally married.16 To assail the veracity of the marriage contract, petitioner presented (1) a certification issued by the National Statistics Office dated October 7, 1995;17 and (2) a certification issued by the City Civil Registry of Manila, dated February 3, 1997.18 Both these documents attest that the respective issuing offices have no record of a marriage celebrated between Veronico B. Tenebro and Hilda B. Villareyes on November 10, 1986. To our mind, the documents presented by the defense cannot adequately assail the marriage contract, which in itself would already have been sufficient to establish the existence of a marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes. All three of these documents fall in the category of public documents, and the Rules of Court provisions relevant to public documents are applicable to all. Pertinent to the marriage contract, Section 7 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court reads as follows: Sec. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof (Emphasis ours). This being the case, the certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, was admissible as the best evidence of its contents. The marriage contract plainly indicates that a marriage was celebrated between petitioner and Villareyes on November 10, 1986, and it should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents. Moreover, an examination of the wordings of the certification issued by the National Statistics Office on October 7, 1995 and that issued by the City Civil Registry of Manila on February 3, 1997 would plainly show that neither document attests as a positive fact that there was no marriage celebrated between Veronico B. Tenebro and Hilda B. Villareyes on November 10, 1986. Rather, the documents merely attest that the respective issuing offices have no record of such a marriage. Documentary evidence as to the absence of a record is quite different from documentary evidence as to the absence of a marriage ceremony, or documentary evidence as to the invalidity of the marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes.

The marriage contract presented by the prosecution serves as positive evidence as to the existence of the marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes, which should be given greater credence than documents testifying merely as to absence of any record of the marriage, especially considering that there is absolutely no requirement in the law that a marriage contract needs to be submitted to the civil registrar as a condition precedent for the validity of a marriage. The mere fact that no record of a marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.19 There is no evidence presented by the defense that would indicate that the marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes lacked any requisite for validity, apart from the self-serving testimony of the accused himself. Balanced against this testimony are Villareyes letter, Ancajas testimony that petitioner informed her of the existence of the valid first marriage, and petitioners own conduct, which would all tend to indicate that the first marriage had all the requisites for validity. Finally, although the accused claims that he took steps to verify the non-existence of the first marriage to Villareyes by requesting his brother to validate such purported nonexistence, it is significant to note that the certifications issued by the National Statistics Office and the City Civil Registry of Manila are dated October 7, 1995 and February 3, 1997, respectively. Both documents, therefore, are dated after the accuseds marriage to his second wife, private respondent in this case. As such, this Court rules that there was sufficient evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the first and second requisites for the crime of bigamy. The second tier of petitioners defense hinges on the effects of the subsequent judicial declaration20 of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Petitioner argues that this subsequent judicial declaration retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage to Ancajas. As such, he argues that, since his marriage to Ancajas was subsequently declared void ab initio, the crime of bigamy was not committed.21 This argument is not impressed with merit. Petitioner makes much of the judicial declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, invoking Article 36 of the Family Code. What petitioner fails to realize is that a declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of absolutely no moment insofar as the States penal laws are concerned. 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.22 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. Thus, as soon as the second marriage to Ancajas was celebrated on April 10, 1990, during the subsistence of the valid first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated. To our mind, there is no cogent reason for distinguishing between a subsequent marriage that is null and void purely because it is a second or subsequent marriage, and a subsequent marriage that is null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity, at least insofar as criminal liability for bigamy is concerned. The States penal laws protecting the institution of marriage are in recognition of the

sacrosanct character of this special contract between spouses, and punish an individuals deliberate disregard of the permanent character of the special bond between spouses, which petitioner has undoubtedly done. Moreover, the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is not an indicator that petitioners marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites for validity. The requisites for the validity of a marriage are classified by the Family Code into essential (legal capacity of the contracting parties and their consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer)23 and formal (authority of the solemnizing officer, marriage license, and marriage ceremony wherein the parties personally declare their agreement to marry before the solemnizing officer in the presence of at least two witnesses).24 Under Article 5 of the Family Code, any male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 3725 and 3826 may contract marriage.27 In this case, all the essential and formal requisites for the validity of marriage were satisfied by petitioner and Ancajas. Both were over eighteen years of age, and they voluntarily contracted the second marriage with the required license before Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of the City Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City, in the presence of at least two witnesses. Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is concerned, it is significant to note that said marriage is not without legal effects. Among these effects is that children conceived or born before the judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be considered legitimate.28 There is therefore a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences. Among these legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy. To hold otherwise would render the States penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and allow individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of hapless women with the promise of futurity and commitment. As such, we rule that the third and fourth requisites for the crime of bigamy are present in this case, and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. As a final point, we note that based on the evidence on record, petitioner contracted marriage a third time, while his marriages to Villareyes and Ancajas were both still subsisting. Although this is irrelevant in the determination of the accuseds guilt for purposes of this particular case, the act of the accused displays a deliberate disregard for the sanctity of marriage, and the State does not look kindly on such activities. Marriage is a special contract, the key characteristic of which is its permanence. When an individual manifests a deliberate pattern of flouting the foundation of the States basic social institution, the States criminal laws on bigamy step in. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for the crime of bigamy is prision mayor, which has a duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the same shall be imposed in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, petitioner shall be entitled to a minimum term, to be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, i.e., prision correccional which has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the decision of the trial court which sentenced petitioner to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition for review is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21636, convicting petitioner Veronico Tenebro of the crime of Bigamy and sentencing him

to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED in toto. G.R. No. L-26462 June 9, 1969TERESITA C. YAPTINCHAY, petitioner, vs.HON. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch; VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY, in her own behalf and in her capacity as Special Administratrix in the Intestate Estate of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay and JESUS MONZON, MARY YAPTINCHAY ELIGIR, ERNESTO YAPTINCHAY, ANTONIO YAPTINCHAY, ASUNCION YAPTINCHAY, JOSEFINA Y. YAPTINCHAY, ROSA Y. MONZON, ISABEL Y. VALERIANO, REMEDIOS Y. YAPTINCHAY, FELICIDAD Y. ARGUELLES, MARY DOE and JOHN DOE, respondents. The problem posed in this, an original petition for certiorari, is whether or not this Court in the exercise of its supervisory powers should stake down as having been issued in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the respondent judge's order of June 15, 1966 in Civil Case 8873 (Court of First Instance of Rizal) directing petitioner to deliver to Special Administratrix Virginia Y. Yaptinchay of the estate of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay the North Forbes Park property hereinafter described, and to refrain from disturbing or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the latter's possession thereof, such order having been amended by said respondent judge's subsequent order of June, 28, 1966 in turn enjoining defendants in said case (private respondents herein) and/or their duly authorized agents or representatives from selling, disposing, or otherwise encumbering said property in any manner whatsoever pending the termination of said case. We granted the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction prayed for and directed respondents to return the possession of the North Forbes Park property to petitioner upon a P50,000-bond. The controlling facts are the following: On July 13, 1965, herein petitioner Teresita C. Yaptinchay sought in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch, her appointment first as Special Administratrix and then as regular administratrix of the estate of Isidro Y. Yaptinchay who died in Hongkong on July 7, 1965. This is known in the record as Special Proceedings 1944-P. Petitioner there alleged that the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay had lived with her continuously, openly and publicly as husband and wife for nineteen (19) years: from 1946 to 1964 at 1951 Taft-Avenue, Pasay City, and from 1964 to July 1965 at 60 Russel Avenue, Pasay City; that the deceased who died without a will left an estate consisting of personal and real properties situated in the Philippines, Hongkong and other places with an estimated value of about P500,000; that to petitioner's knowledge and information, the deceased left three daughters, Virginia Yaptinchay, Mary Yaptinchay Eligir and Asuncion Yaptinchay, all of age; that on July 7, 8 and 11, 1965, certain parties carted away from the residences aforesaid personal properties belonging to the deceased together with others exclusively owned by petitioner. It was averred that in these circumstances the appointment of a special administrator to take custody and care of the interests of the deceased pending appointment of a regular administrator became an urgent necessity. Upon the foregoing allegations, the court issued on July 17, 1965 an order appointing herein petitioner Teresita C. Yaptinchay special administratrix of the state of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay upon a P25,000-bond. To the petition of Teresita C. Yaptinchay, an opposition was registered by Josefina Y. Yaptinchay, the alleged legitimate wife, and Ernesto Y. Yaptinchay and other children, of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay, upon the ground that said Teresita C. Yaptinchay, not being an heir of the decedent, had no right to institute the proceeding for the settlement of the latter's estate, much less to procure appointment as administratrix thereof; and that having admittedly cohabited with the deceased for a number of years

said petitioner was not qualified to serve as administratrix for want of integrity. At the same time, oppositors counterpetitioned for the appointment of Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, daughter of the deceased, as special administratrix and of Josefina Y. Yaptinchay, the alleged surviving spouse, as regular administratrix. To give oppositors an opportunity to be heard, the probate court, on July 19, 1965, set aside its order of July 17, 1965 appointing petitioner Teresita C. Yaptinchay special administratrix. On July 30, 1965, after the parties were heard, the probate court granted counter-petitioners' prayer and named Virginia Y. Yaptinchay special administratrix upon a P50,000bond.1awphil.nt On August 18, 1965, the special administratrix submitted a preliminary inventory of the assets of the estate of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay. Included amongst these was "[a] bungalow residential house with swimming pool, situated at Park corner Talisay Road, North Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal" adverted to at the start of this opinion. It was after respondent Virginia Y. Yaptinchay had been appointed special administratrix that herein petitioner Teresita C. Yaptinchay made her second move. That was on August 14, 1965. This time, petitioner filed in another branch (Pasig Branch) of the Court of First Instance of Rizal an action for replevin and for liquidation of the partnership supposedly formed during the period of her cohabitation with Isidro Y. Yaptinchay and for damages. This case was docketed as Civil Case 8873. 1 Pending hearing on the question of the issuance of the writs of replevin and preliminary injunction prayed for, respondent judge Guillermo E. Torres issued an order of August 17, 1965 temporarily restraining defendants therein (private respondents here) and their agents from disposing any of the properties listed in the complaint and from interfering with plaintiff's (herein petitioner's) rights to, and possession over, amongst others, "the house now standing at North Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal." On August 25, 1965, defendants (private respondents herein) resisted the action, opposed the issuance of the writs of replevin and preliminary injunction, mainly upon these propositions: (1) that exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay was already vested in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch in the special proceedings heretofore mentioned (Special Proceedings No. 1944-P); (2) that the present liquidation case was filed to oust said probate court of jurisdiction over the properties enumerated in this, the second case (Civil Case 8873); and (3) that plaintiff was not entitled to the remedy of injunction prayed for, her alleged right sought to be protected thereby being doubtful and still in dispute. Said defendants (private respondents before this Court) in turn prayed the court for a writ of preliminary injunction to direct plaintiff (petitioner here) and all others in her behalf to cease and desist from disturbing in any manner whatsoever defendant Virginia Y. Yaptinchay's possession amongst others of the North Forbes Park house and to order the removal from the premises of said North Forbes Park house of the guards, agents and employees installed therein by plaintiff; to enjoin plaintiff and her agents from entering the aforesaid house and any other real property registered in the name of Isidro Y. Yaptinchay and from interfering with or from disturbing the exercise by Virginia Y. Yaptinchay of her rights and powers of administration over the assets registered in the name of Isidro Y. Yaptinchay and/or in the latter's possession at the time of his death. Came the herein disputed order of June 15, 1966 issued in said Civil Case 8873, the pertinent portion of which reads: "From the pleadings as well as the evidence already submitted and representations made to the court during the arguments, it appears that one of the properties in dispute is the property located at the corner of Park Road and Talisay Street, North Forbes Park, Makati,

Rizal which at the time of the death of the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay was still under construction and it also appears that after his death said property was among the properties of the deceased placed under the administration of the special administratrix, the defendant Virginia Y. Yaptinchay. Information has been given that in the evening of August 14, 1965, the plaintiff was able to dispossess the special administratrix from the premises in question and that since then she had been in custody of said house. While the Court is still considering the merits of the application and counter-application for provisional relief, the Court believes that for the protection of the properties and considering the Forbes Park property is really under the responsibility of defendant Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, by virtue of her being appointed Special Administratrix of the estate of the deceased Isidro Yaptinchay, the Court denies the petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction of the plaintiff with respect to the Forbes Park property and the restraining order issued by this Court is lifted. The Court also orders the plaintiff to cease and desist from disturbing in any manner whatsoever the defendant Virginia Y. Yaptinchay in the possession of said property. WHEREFORE, upon defendant's filing a bond in the amount of P10,000.00, let a writ of preliminary injunction is requiring the plaintiff, her representatives and agents or other persons acting in her behalf to deliver the possession of the property located at the corner of Park Road and Talisay Street, North Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal to the Special Administratrix Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, and to refrain from disturbing interfering in any manner whatsoever defendant's possession thereof. Which, as aforestated, was amended by the court order of June 28, 1966, which in part recites: Considering that the present case treats principally with the liquidation of an alleged partnership between the plaintiff and the deceased Isidro Yaptinchay and considering further that said house in North Forbes Park is included among the properties in dispute, the Court hereby clarifies its Order of June 15, 1966 by enjoining the defendants and/or their duly authorized agents or representatives from selling, disposing or otherwise encumbering said property in any manner whatsoever pending the termination of this case. Petitioner's motion to reconsider the June 15, 1966 order was overturned by respondent judge's order of August 8, 1966, which recites that: Considering that defendants, principally Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, took actual or physical possession of the said properties which were formerly held by the deceased Isidro Yaptinchay and the plaintiff, by virtue of her appointment and under her authority, as Special Administratrix of the estate of the deceased Isidro Yaptinchay, the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied.2 The orders of June 15 and August 8, 1966 triggered the present proceedings in this Court. 1. Petitioner's stance before us is this: As she was occupying the Forbes Park property at the time of the death of Isidro Yaptinchay, grave abuse of discretion attended respondent judge's order issuing an injunctive writ transferring possession of said property to respondent Virginia Y. Yaptinchay. A rule of long standing echoed and reechoed in jurisprudence is that injunction is not to be granted for the purpose of taking property out of possession and/or control of a party and placing it in that of another whose title thereto has not been clearly established. 3 With this as guidepost, petitioner would have been correct if she were lawfully in

possession of the house in controversy when Civil Case 8873 (where the injunctive writ was issued) was commenced in the Pasig court, and if respondent special administratrix, to whom the possession thereof was transferred, were without right thereto. But the situation here is not as petitioner pictures it to be. It is beyond debate that with the institution on July 13, 1965 of Special Proceedings 1944-P, properties belonging not only to the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay but also to the conjugal partnership of said deceased and his legitimate wife, Josefina Y. Yaptinchay, 4 were brought under the jurisdiction of the probate court, properly to be placed under administration. 5 One such property is the lot at North Forbes Park. 6 With respect to the Forbes Park house, petitioner offers varying versions. In the verified petition before this Court, petitioner avers "that the construction of said North Forbes Park property was undertaken jointly by petitioner and the deceased, petitioner even contributing her own exclusive funds therefor." 7 This is a reproduction of an allegation in petitioner's June 27, 1966 alternative motion for reconsideration or for clarification/amendment of the herein controverted order of June 15, 1966 in Civil Case 8873. 8 And again, in the affidavit of Teresita C. Yaptinchay dated August 3, 1965, she spoke of the acquisition of properties, real and personal, in her own words, "through our joint efforts and capital, among which properties are those situated" in "North Forbes Park." 9 All of which contradict her averment in the amended complaint dated October 25, 1965 also verified in said Case 8873 to the effect that she "acquired through her own personal funds and efforts real properties such as ... the house now standing at North Forbes Park, Makati, Rizal." 10 But herein private respondents vehemently dispute petitioner's claim of complete or even partial ownership of the house. They maintain that the construction of that house was undertaken by the deceased Isidro Y. Yaptinchay without her (petitioner's) intervention and the deceased paid with his own personal funds all expenses incurred in connection with the construction thereof. 11 It was only after hearing and considering the evidence adduced and the fact that after the death of Isidro Y. Yaptinchay the Forbes Park house "was among the properties of the deceased placed under the administration of" respondent Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, that respondent judge issued the injunction order of June 15, 1966 herein complained of. Worth repeating at this point is that respondent judge, in his order of August 8, 1966, declared that defendants (private respondents herein), "principally Virginia Y. Yaptinchay, took actual or physical possession", amongst others, of the North Forbes Park house "by virtue of her appointment and under her authority, as Special Administratrix." On this score, petitioner herein is not entitled to the injunction she prayed for below. 2. As well established is the rule that the grant or denial of an injunction rests upon the sound discretion of the court, in the exercise of which appellate courts will not interfere except in a clear case of abuse. 12 A considerate and circumspect view of the facts and circumstances in this case obtaining will not permit us to tag the disputed order of June 15, 1966 with the vice of grave abuse of discretion. It is quite true that, in support of the allegation that the house in North Forbes Park was her exclusive property, petitioner presented proof in the form of loans that she had contracted during the period when said house was under construction. But evidence is wanting which would correlate such loans to the construction work. On the contrary, there is much to the documentary proof presented by petitioner which would tend to indicate that the loans she obtained from the Republic Bank were for purposes other than the construction of the North Forbes Park home. And this, we gather from pages 17 to 18 of petitioner's memorandum before this Court; and the affidavit of Teresita C. Yaptinchay, Annex A thereof, which states in its paragraph 4 that she obtained various loans from the Republic Bank "for

her own exclusive account" and that the proceeds thereof "were also used by affiant both for her business and for the construction, completion and furnishing of the said house at North Forbes Park", and which cites her seven promissory notes in favor of Republic Bank, Appendices 1 to 7 of said affidavit. Not one of the promissory notes mentioned reveals use of the proceeds for the construction of the North Forbes Park house. On the contrary, there is Appendix 2, the promissory note for P54,000 which says that the purpose of the loan for "Fishpond development"; Appendix 3 for P100,000 for the same purpose; Appendix 5 for P50,000, "To augment working capital in buying & selling of appliances & gift items"; and Appendix 7 for P1,090,000, "For Agricultural Development". In plain terms, the fact alone of petitioner's indebtedness to the Republic Bank does not establish that said house was built with her own funds. It is in the context just recited that the unsupported assertion that the North Forbes Park house is petitioner's exclusive property may not be permitted to override the prima facie presumption that house, having been constructed on the lot of Isidro Y. Yaptinchay (or of the conjugal partnership) at his instance, and during the existence of his marriage with respondent Josefina Y. Yaptinchay, is part of the estate that should be under the control of the special administratrix. 3. Nor can petitioner's claim of ownership presumably based on the provisions of Article 144 of the Civil Code be decisive. Said Article 144 says that: "When man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership." . But stock must be taken of the fact that the creation of the civil relationship envisaged in Article 144 is circumscribed by conditions, the existence of which must first be shown before rights provided thereunder may be deemed to accrue. 13 One such condition is that there must be a clear showing that the petitioner had, during cohabitation, really contributed to the acquisition of the property involved. Until such right to co-ownership is duly established, petitioner's interests in the property in controversy cannot be considered the "present right" or title that would make available the protection or aid afforded by a writ of injunction. 14 For, the existence of a clear positive right especially calling for judicial protection is wanting. Injunction indeed, is not to protect contingent or future rights; 15 nor is it a remedy to enforce an abstract right. 16 At any rate, it would seem to us that the interests of the parties would be better safeguarded if the controverted North Forbes Park property be in the hands of the bonded administratrix in the estate proceedings. For then, her acts would be subject to the control of the probate court. Finding no error in the disputed orders of respondent judge, the herein petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed, and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction 17 issued by this Court is hereby dissolved and set aside. G.R. No. L-23264 March 15, 1974 ROMULO TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs.HELEN VILLANUEVA and HONORABLE CORAZON JULIANO AGRAVA, Judge of the Juvenile andDomestic Relations Court, Petitioner prays for the nullification of the order dated July 29, 1963 of the respondent Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila. On April 26, 1962, petitioner Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of his marriage to private respondent Helen Villanueva, alleging that his consent was obtained through fraud because immediately after the marriage celebration, he discovered that private respondent was pregnant despite the fact that he had no sexual relations with her prior to the marriage ceremony; and that they did not live as husband and wife as immediately after the marriage celebration, Helen Villanueva left his house and her whereabouts remained

unknown to him until January, 1962 when he discovered that she is residing in San Francisco, Cebu. Said marriage was solemnized by Quezon City Judge Mariano R. Virtucio on September 28, 1959. Said case was docketed as Civil Case No, 43347 of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila. Despite the fact that she was served with summons and copy of the complaint, Helen failed to file a responsive pleading, for which reason petitioner filed on June 13, 1962 a motion to declare her in default and to set the date for the presentation of his evidence. In an order dated June 28, 1962, respondent Judge declared private respondent in default, but, pursuant to the provision of Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, referred the case to the City Fiscal of Manila for investigation to determine whether collusion exists between the parties, directing the City Fiscal to submit his report within sixty (60) days from receipt thereof, and, in the event of a negative finding, to represent the State at the trial of the case to prevent fabrication of evidence; and likewise directed herein petitioner to furnish the City Fiscal with copies of the complaint and such other documents necessary for the City Fiscal's information and guidance. On July 3, 1962, thru counsel, petitioner submitted to the City Fiscal only a copy of his complaint. Assistant City Fiscal Rafael A. Jose, assigned to the case, issued a subpoena to petitioner's counsel requiring him to bring petitioner with him as well as copies of other documents in connection with the annulment case on August 27, 1962 at 10:00 A.M. Plaintiff's counsel, in a letter dated August 24, 1962, informed Assistant City Fiscal Jose that he could not comply with the subpoena for it will unnecessarily expose his evidence. In a motion dated and filed on October 29, 1962, petitioner, thru counsel, prayed the respondent Judge to set the date for the reception of his evidence on the ground that the City Fiscal had not submitted a report of his findings despite the lapse of sixty (60) days from July 10, 1962 when he submitted to the City Fiscal a copy of the complaint. On November 6, 1962, respondent Judge denied the aforesaid motion of petitioner unless he submits himself for interrogation by the City Fiscal to enable the latter to report whether or not there is collusion between the parties. In an order dated July 29, 1963, respondent Judge dismissed the complaint in view of the fact that petitioner is not willing to submit himself for interrogation by the City Fiscal pursuant to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 101 of the New Civil Code. His motions for the reconsideration of the aforesaid order having been denied on July 29, 1963 and on April 11, 1964, petitioner now files his petition to annul said order of July 29, 1963 and to compel the respondent Judge to receive his evidence. 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. Thus, Articles 88 and 101 state: ART. 88. No judgment annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. In case of non-appearance of the defendant, the provisions of article 101, paragraph 2, shall be observed. ART. 101. No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. In case of non-appearance of the defendant, the court shall order the

prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties exists. If there is no collusion, the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated. Even the 1940 Rules of Court, which preceded the 1950 Civil Code of the Philippines, direct that actions for the annulment of marriage or divorce shall not be decided unless the material facts alleged in the complaint are proved (Sec. 10, Rule 35, 1940 Rules of Court). The same rule is reiterated in Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1964 Revised Rules, with "legal separation" being substituted for "divorce", obviously because the present Civil Code does not authorize absolute divorce. The prohibition expressed in the aforesaid laws and rules is predicated on the fact that the institutions of marriage and of the family are sacred and therefore are as much the concern of the State as of the spouses; because 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 (De Ocampo vs. Florenciano, 107 Phil. 35, 38-40; Brown vs. Yambao, 102 Phil. 168, 172; Bigornia de Cardenas vs. Cardenas, et al., 98 Phil. 73, 78-79; Roque vs. Encarnacion, et al., 95 Phil. 643, 646). Hence, the inevitable conclusion is that the petition is without merit. WHEREFORE, THE ORDER DATED JULY 29, 1963 IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE PETITION IS HEREBY DISMISSED. WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER. G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 GLORIA G. JOCSON, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RICARDO R. ROBLES, defendant-appellant. On February 4, 1963, Gloria G. Jocson commenced in the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court an action for the annulment of her marriage to Ricardo R. Robles (Civ. Case No. E-00013), on the ground that it was bigamous. It was alleged in the amended complaint that previous to his marriage to plaintiff on May 27, 1958, defendant Robles had contracted a first marriage with Josefina Fausto, who had instituted a criminal action for Bigamy against the same defendant in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Crim. Case No. 64124). Plaintiff also demanded from the defendant moral and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, claiming that during their cohabitation, she was subjected to physical maltreatment by her husband, resulting in the premature birth of their first child, who died three days later. In his answer, defendant also assailed the validity of the marriage. But he charged plaintiffs' parents with having compelled him by force, threat and intimidation, to contract that marriage with her, notwithstanding their knowledge that he is a married man; and that said threat and intimidation allegedly persisted until January, 1963 when he was finally able to get away and live apart from the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, on the ground that no genuine issue of fact is involved in the case. It was claimed that defendant's contention, that his consent to the marriage was secured by force and intimidation employed upon his person by the relatives of plaintiff, was allegedly supported by the joint affidavit of plaintiff's father and brother, dated October 28, 1963, attached to the motion (pp. 22-32, Record on Appeal). Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings. On December 23, 1963, defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, the court ruling that before it can pass upon plaintiff's prayer for the declaration of nullity of

her marriage to defendant, there is necessity for proof that when he contracted marriage with plaintiff, defendant Robles had a previous and subsisting valid marriage. The evidentiary requirement to establish these facts, according to the court, was not met in the motion for summary judgment. Defendant's plea to have his marriage declared as having been brought about by force and intimidation, was also denied, the court finding indications of collusion between the parties in their attempt to secure the nullification of said marriage. Reconsideration of this order, sought by defendant, was denied on January 18, 1964. And, when both parties failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on March 9, 1964, the court directed the dismissal of the action. On April 17, 1964, defendant notified the court below of his intention to appeal to this Court from the abovementioned orders of December 23, 1963, January 18, 1964, and March 9, 1964. The appeal bond and amended record on appeal, dated April 15, 1964, were thereafter approved. It is noted that, as specified in the notice of appeal, defendant is taking exception from the lower court's orders of December 23, 1963, January 18, 1964, and March 9, 1964; however, there is no indication or certification or proof that the filing of the appeal notice, bond and record on appeal on April 17, 1964 were made within the reglementary period, as required by the provisions of Section 6, Revised Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Thereunder, the record on appeal must contain, not only the full names of all the parties to the proceeding, as well as the pleadings, petitions, motions and orders related to the order or judgment subject of the appeal and which are necessary for the proper understanding of the issue involved therein, but also "such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time." This requirement, incorporated in the new Rules of Court to enable the appellate courts to determine without protracted inquiry whether an appeal was timely made or not, was held to be jurisdictional, failure to comply with which shall cause the dismissal of the appeal. 1 There is here no showing that the present appeal was perfected within the reglementary period, which datum should have appeared in the record on appeal. On the merits, we are satisfied that the Court of Domestic Relations correctly denied the motion for summary judgment in view of the first paragraph of Articles 88 and 1011 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, that expressly prohibit the rendition of a decree of annulment of a marriage upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment. The affidavits annexed to the petition for summary judgment practically amount to these methods not countenanced by the Civil Code. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, this proceeding is hereby dismissed, conformable to Section (a) of Revised Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. Costs against the appellan

Issue: Should the annulment for Godofredo Buccats marriage be granted on the grounds that Luida concealed her pregnancy before the marriage? Held: No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution in which the State is interested and where society rests. In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground for annulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law student, did not suspect anything about Luidas condition considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy (highly developed physical manifestation, ie. enlarged stomach ) when they got married. Decision: SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Costs to plaintiffappellant G.R. No. L-15853 July 27, 1960 FERNANDO AQUINO, petitioner, CONCHITA DELIZO, respondent. GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.: This is a petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Court of First Instance of Rizal which dismissed petitioner's complaint for annulment of his marriage with respondent Conchita Delizo. The dismissed complaint, which was filed on September 6, 1955, was based on the ground of fraud, it being alleged, among other things, that defendant Conchita Delizo, herein respondent, at the date of her marriage to plaintiff, herein petitioner Fernando Aquino, on December 27, 1954, concealed from the latter that fact that she was pregnant by another man, and sometime in April, 1955, or about four months after their marriage, gave birth to a child. In her answer, defendant claimed that the child was conceived out of lawful wedlock between her and the plaintiff. At the trial, the attorney's for both parties appeared and the court a quo ordered Assistant Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco to represent the State in the proceedings to prevent collusion. Only the plaintiff however, testified and the only documentary evidence presented was the marriage contract between the parties. Defendant neither appeared nor presented any evidence despite the reservation made by her counsel that he would present evidence on a later date. On June 16, 1956, the trial court noting that no birth certificate was presented to show that the child was born within 180 days after the marriage between the parties, and holding that concealment of pregnancy as alleged by the plaintiff does not constitute such fraud sa would annul a marriage dismissed the complaint. Through a verified "petition to reopen for reception of additional evidence", plaintiff tried to present the certificates of birth and delivery of the child born of the defendant on April 26, 1955, which documents, according to him, he had failed to secure earlier and produce before the trial court thru excusable negligence. The petition, however, was denied. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court held that there has been excusable neglect in plaintiff's inability to present the proof of the child's birth, through her birth certificate, and for that reason the court a quo erred in denying the motion for reception of additional evidence. On the theory, however, that it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have had sexual intercourse during their engagement so that the child could be their own, and finding unbelievable plaintiff's claim that he did not notice or even suspect that defendant was pregnant when he married her, the appellate court, nevertheless, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. On March 17, 1959, plaintiff filed a motion praying that the decision be reconsidered, or, if such reconsideration be denied, that the case be remanded to the lower court for new trial. In support of the motion, plaintiff attached as annexes thereof the following documents:

Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat April 25, 1941 Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio. Facts: Godofredo Buccat and Luida Mangonon de Buccat met in March 1938, became engaged in September, and got married in Nov 26. On Feb 23, 1939 (89 days after getting married) Luida, who was 9 months pregnant, gave birth to a son. After knowing this, Godofredo left Luida and never returned to married life with her. On March 23, 1939, he filed for an annulment of their marriage on the grounds that when he agreed to married Luida, she assured him that she was a virgin. The Lower court decided in favor of Luida.

1. Affidavit of Cesar Aquino (Annex A) (defendant's brother-in-law and plaintiff's brother, with whom defendant was living at the time plaintiff met, courted and married her, and with whom defendant has begotten two more children, aside from her first born, in common-law relationship) admitting that he is the father of defendant's first born, Catherine Bess Aquino, and that he and defendant hid her pregnancy from plaintiff at the time of plaintiff's marriage to defendant; 2. Affidavit of defendant, Conchita Delizo (Annex "B") admitting her pregnancy by Cesar Aquino, her brother-in-law and plaintiff's own brother, at the time of her marriage to plaintiff and her having hidden this fact from plaintiff before and up to the time of their marriage; 3. Affidavit of Albert Powell (Annex "C") stating that he knew Cesar Aquino and defendant lived together as husband and wife before December 27, 1954, the date of plaintiff's marriage to defendant; 4. Birth Certificate of defendant's first born, Catherine Bess Aquino showing her date of birth to be April 26, 1955; 5. Birth Certificate (Annex "D") of Carolle Ann Aquino, the second child of defendant with Cesar Aquino, her brother-in-law; 6. Birth Certificate (Annex "E") of Chris Charibel Aquino, the third child of Cesar Aquino and defendant; and 7. Pictures of defendant showing her natural plumpness as early as 1952 to as late as November, 1954, the November, 1954 photo itself does not show defendant's pregnancy which must have been almost four months old at the time the picture was taken. Acting upon the motion, the Court of Appeals ordered the defendant Conchita Delizo and Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, who was representing the Government, to answer the motion for reconsideration, and deferred action on the prayer for new trial until after the case is disposed of. As both the defendant and the fiscal failed to file an answer, and stating that it "does not believe the veracity of the contents of the motion and its annexes", the Court of Appeals, on August 6, 1959, denied the motion. From that order, the plaintiff brought the case to this Court thru the present petition for certiorari. After going over the record of the case, we find that the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint cannot be sustained. Under the new Civil Code, concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage. (Art. 85, par. (4) in relation to Art. 86, par. (3). In the case of Buccat vs. Buccat (72 Phil., 19) cited in the decision sought to be reviewed, which was also an action for the annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud, plaintiff's claim that he did not even suspect the pregnancy of the defendant was held to be unbelievable, it having been proven that the latter was already in an advanced stage of pregnancy (7th month) at the time of their marriage. That pronouncement, however, cannot apply to the case at bar. Here the defendant wife was alleged to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not prepared to say that her pregnancy was readily apparent, especially since she was "naturally plump" or fat as alleged by plaintiff. According to medical authorities, even on the 5th month of pregnancy, the enlargement of a woman's abdomen is still below the umbilicus, that is to say, the enlargement is limited to the lower part of the abdomen so that it is hardly noticeable and may, if noticed, be attributed only to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman's abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent. (See Lull, Clinical

Obstetrics, p. 122) If, as claimed by plaintiff, defendant is "naturally plump", he could hardly be expected to know, merely by looking, whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their marriage more so because she must have attempted to conceal the true state of affairs. Even physicians and surgeons, with the aid of the woman herself who shows and gives her subjective and objective symptoms, can only claim positive diagnosis of pregnancy in 33% at five months. and 50% at six months. (XI Cyclopedia of Medicine, Surgery, etc. Pregnancy, p. 10). The appellate court also said that it was not impossible for plaintiff and defendant to have had sexual intercourse before they got married and therefore the child could be their own. This statement, however, is purely conjectural and finds no support or justification in the record. Upon the other hand, the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial, taken together with what has already been adduced would, in our opinion, be sufficient to sustain the fraud alleged by plaintiff. The Court of Appeals should, therefore, not have denied the motion praying for new trial simply because defendant failed to file her answer thereto. Such failure of the defendant cannot be taken as evidence of collusion, especially since a provincial fiscal has been ordered of represent the Government precisely to prevent such collusion. As to the veracity of the contents of the motion and its annexes, the same can best be determined only after hearing evidence. In the circumstance, we think that justice would be better served if a new trial were ordered. naya vs. Palaroan 36 SCRA 97 FACTS: Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in 1953. Palaroan filed an action for annulment of the marriage in 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. The complaint was dismissed and upheld the validity of the marriage and granting Auroras counterclaim. While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando divulged to her that several months prior to their marriage, he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent. She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on such ground. ISSUE: Whether or not the concealment to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage. HELD: The concealment of a husbands pre-marital relationship with another woman was not one of those enumerated that would constitute fraud as ground for annulment and it is further excluded by the last paragraph providing that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to.. chastity shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. Hence, the case at bar does not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an annulment of marriage. [G.R. No. L-8492. February 29, 1956.] In the Matter of the Declaration of the Civil Status of: LOURDES G. LUKBAN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee. This is a petition filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for a declaration that Petitioner is a widow of her husband Francisco Chuidian who is presumed to be dead and has no legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage. The Solicitor General opposed the petition on the ground that the same is not authorized by law. After Petitioner had presented her evidence, the court sustained the opposition and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. Lourdes G. Lukban, Petitioner herein, contracted marriage with Francisco Chuidian on December 10, 1933 at the Paco Catholic Church, Manila. On December 27, of the same year, Francisco left Lourdes after a violent quarrel and since then he has not been heard from despite diligent search made by

her. She also inquired about him from his parents and friends but no one was able to indicate his whereabouts. She has no knowledge if he is still alive, his last known address being Calle Merced, Paco, Manila. She believes that he is already dead because he had been absent for more than twenty years, and because she intends to marry again, she desires that her civil status be defined in order that she may be relieved of any liability under the law. We believe that the petition at bar comes within the purview of our decision in the case of Nicolai Szartraw, 46 Off. Gaz., 1st Sup., 243, wherein it was held that a petition for judicial declaration that Petitioners husband is presumed to be dead cannot be entertained because it is not authorized by law, and if such declaration cannot be made in a special proceeding similar to the present, much less can the court determine the status of Petitioner as a widow since this matter must of necessity depend upon the fact of death of the husband. This the court can declare upon proper evidence, but not to decree that he is merely presumed to be dead. (Nicolai Szartraw, 46 Off. Gaz., 1st sup. 243). The philosophy behind the ruling that such judicial pronouncement cannot be made in a proceeding of this nature is well expressed in the case above-cited. Thus, we there said that A judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if final and executory, would still be a prima facie presumption only. It is still disputable. It is for that reason that it cannot be the subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration, if it is the only question or matter involved in a case, or upon which a competent court has to pass cralaw. It is, therefore, clear that a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead, because he had been unheard from in seven years, being a presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final. Appellant claims that the remedy she is seeking for can be granted in the present proceedings because in the case of Hagans vs. Wislizenus, 42 Phil., 880, it was declared that a special proceeding is an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarybut, as already said, that remedy can be invoked if the purpose is to seek the declaration of death of the husband, and not, as in the present case, to establish a presumption of death. If it can be satisfactorily proven that the husband is dead, the court would not certainly deny a declaration to that effect as has been intimated in the case of Nicolas Szartraw, supra. Appellant also claims that the present petition can be entertained because article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in defining bigamy, provides that a person commits that crime if he contracts a second marriage before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings and, it is claimed, the present petition comes within the purview of this legal provision. The argument is untenable for the words proper proceedings used in said article can only refer to those authorized by law such as those which refer to the administration or settlement of the estate of a deceased person (Articles 390 and 391, new Civil Code). That such is the correct interpretation of the provision in question finds support in the case of Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil., 179, wherein this Court made the following comment:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary For the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee. The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that each former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse

present so believes at the time of the celebration of the marriage (section III, paragraph 2, General Orders, No. 68). The decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 JOEL JIMENEZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs.REMEDIOS CAIZARES, defendant. Republic of the Philippines, intervenor-appellant In a complaint filed on 7 June 1955 in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga the plaintiff Joel Jimenez prays for a decree annulling his marriage to the defendant Remedios Caizares contracted on 3 August 1950 before a judge of the municipal court of Zamboanga City, upon the ground that the office of her genitals or vagina was to small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation; that the condition of her genitals as described above existed at the time of marriage and continues to exist; and that for that reason he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after they had been married. On 14 June 1955 the wife was summoned and served a copy of the complaint. She did not file an answer. On 29 September 1956, pursuant to the provisions of article 88 of the Civil Code, the Court directed the city attorney of Zamboanga to inquire whether there was a collusion, to intervene for the State to see that the evidence for the plaintiff is not a frame-up, concocted or fabricated. On 17 December 1956 the Court entered an order requiring the defendant to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady physician to determine her physical capacity for copulation and to submit, within ten days from receipt of the order, a medical certificate on the result thereof. On 14 March 1957 the defendant was granted additional five days from notice to comply with the order of 17 December 1956 with warning that her failure to undergo medical examination and submit the required doctor's certificate would be deemed lack of interest on her part in the case and that judgment upon the evidence presented by her husband would be rendered. After hearing, at which the defendant was not present, on 11 April 1957 the Court entered a decree annulling the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. On 26 April 1957 the city attorney filed a motion for reconsideration of the decree thus entered, upon the ground, among others, that the defendant's impotency has not been satisfactorily established as required by law; that she had not been physically examined because she had refused to be examined; that instead of annulling the marriage the Court should have punished her for contempt of court and compelled her to undergo a physical examination and submit a medical certificate; and that the decree sought to be reconsidered would open the door to married couples, who want to end their marriage to collude or connive with each other by just alleging impotency of one of them. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed or that the wife be subjected to a physical examination. Pending resolution of his motion, the city attorney timely appealed from the decree. On 13 May 1957 the motion for reconsideration was denied. The question to determine is whether the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that his wife was and is impotent. The latter did not answer the complaint, was absent during the hearing, and refused to submit to a medical examination. Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is deeply interested. The state has surrounded it with safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The security and stability of the state are largely dependent upon it. It is the interest of each and every member of the community to prevent the bringing about of a condition that would shake its foundation and ultimately lead to its destruction. The incidents of the status are governed by law, not by will of the parties. The law specifically enumerates the legal grounds, that must be proved to exist by indubitable evidence, to annul a marriage. In the case at bar, the annulment of the marriage in question was decreed upon the

sole testimony of the husband who was expected to give testimony tending or aiming at securing the annulment of his marriage he sought and seeks. Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactorily established, becase from the commencement of the proceedings until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking part therein. Although her refusal to be examined or failure to appear in court show indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or be inferred because women of this country are by nature coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to a physical examination

unless compelled to by competent authority. This the Court may do without doing violence to and infringing in this case is not self-incrimination. She is not charged with any offense. She is not being compelled to be a witness against herself.1 "Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency."2 The lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as husband and wife. The decree appealed from is set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision, without pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. 147143 March 10, 2006 HYATT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING CORP., and YU HE CHING, Petitioners, vs. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., and PRINCETON DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondents. DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the nullification of the Decision dated May 4, 2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA) then Seventh Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 57119, which remanded Civil Case No. 94-1429 to the trial court and directed the latter to allow the deposition-taking without delay;1 and the CA Resolution dated February 13, 2001 which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.2 The facts are as follows: On April 8, 1994, respondent Ley Construction and Development Corporation (LCDC) filed a complaint for specific performance and damages with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 62 (RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1429, against petitioner Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation (Hyatt) claiming that Hyatt reneged in its obligation to transfer 40% of the pro indiviso share of a real property in Makati in favor of LCDC despite LCDCs full payment of the purchase price of P2,634,000.00; and that Hyatt failed to develop the said property in a joint venture, despite LCDCs payment of 40% of the pre -construction cost.3 On April 12, 1994, LCDC filed an amended complaint impleading Princeton Development Corporation (Princeton) as additional defendant claiming that Hyatt sold the subject property to Princeton on March 30, 1994 in fraud of LCDC.4 On September 21, 1994, LCDC filed a second amended complaint adding as defendant, Yu He Ching (Yu), President of Hyatt, alleging that LCDC paid the purchase price of P2,634,000.00 to Hyatt through Yu.5 Responsive pleadings were filed and LCDC filed notices to take the depositions of Yu; Pacita Tan Go, Account Officer of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC); and Elena Sy, Finance Officer of Hyatt. Hyatt also filed notice to take deposition of Manuel Ley, President of LCDC, while Princeton filed notice to take the depositions of Manuel and Janet Ley.6 On July 17, 1996, the RTC ordered the deposition-taking to proceed.7 At the scheduled deposition of Elena Sy on September 17, 1996, Hyatt and Yu prayed that all settings for depositions be disregarded and pre-trial be set instead, contending that the taking of depositions only delay the resolution of the case. The RTC agreed and on the same day ordered all depositions cancelled and pre-trial to take place on November 14, 1996.8 LCDC moved for reconsideration9 which the RTC denied in its October 14, 1996 Order, portion of which reads: This Court has to deny the motion, because: 1) as already pointed out by this Court in the questioned Order said depositions will only delay the early termination of this case; 2) had this Court set this case for pre-trial conference and trial thereafter, this case would have been terminated by this time; 3) after all, what the parties would like to elicit from their deponents would probably be elicited at the pre-trial conference; 4) no substantial rights of the parties would be prejudiced, if pre-trial conference is held, instead of deposition.10 On November 14, 1996, the scheduled date of the pre-trial, LCDC filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings Due to Pendency of Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals.11 The petition, which sought to annul the Orders of the RTC dated September 17, 1996 and October 14, 1996, was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 4251212 and assigned to the then Twelfth Division of the CA. Meanwhile, pre-trial proceeded at the RTC as scheduled13 and with the refusal of LCDC to enter into pre-trial, Hyatt, Yu and Princeton moved to declare LCDC non-suited which the RTC granted in its Order dated December 3, 1996, thus: On September 17, 1996, this Court noticing that this case was filed as early (as) April 4, 199414 and has not reached the pre-trial stage because of several depositions applied for by the parties, not to mention that the records of this case has reached two (2) volumes, to avoid delay, upon motion, ordered the cancellation of the depositions. On September 24, 1996, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to reconsider and set aside the order dated September 17, 1996, which motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated October 14, 1996, ruling among others that "after all, what the parties would like to elicit from these deponents would probably be elicited at the pre-trial conference", and, reiterated the order setting this case for pre-trial conference on November 14, 1996. On the scheduled pre-trial conference on November 14, 1996, a petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the Order of this Court dated September 17, 1996 and October 14, 1996, furnishing this Court with a copy on the same date. At the scheduled pre-trial conference on November 14, 1996, plaintiff orally moved the Court to suspend pre-trial conference alleging pendency of a petition with the Court of Appeals and made it plain that it cannot proceed with the pre-trial because the issue on whether or not plaintiff may apply for depositions before the pre-trial conference is a prejudicial question. Defendants objected,

alleging that even if the petition is granted, pre-trial should proceed and that plaintiff could take deposition after the pre-trial conference, insisting that defendants are ready to enter into a pre-trial conference. This Court denied plaintiffs motion to suspend proceedings and ordered plaintiff to enter into pre-trial conference. Plaintiff refused. Before this Court denied plaintiffs motion to suspend, this Court gave Plaintiff two (2) options: enter into a pre -trial conference, advising plaintiff that what it would like to obtain at the deposition may be obtained at the pre-trial conference, thus expediting early termination of this case; and, terminate the pre-trial conference and apply for deposition later on. Plaintiff insisted on suspension of the pre-trial conference alleging that it is not ready to enter into pre-trial conference in view of the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Defendants insisted that pre-trial conference proceed as scheduled, manifesting their readiness to enter into a pretrial conference. When plaintiff made it clear that it is not entering into the pre-trial conference, defendants prayed that plaintiff be declared nonsuited. x x x xxxx In the light of the foregoing circumstances, this Court is compelled to dismiss plaintiff s complaint. WHEREFORE, for failure of plaintiff to enter into pre-trial conference without any valid reason, plaintiffs complaint is dismissed. Defendants counterclaims are likewise dismissed. SO ORDERED.15 LCDC filed a motion for reconsideration16 which was denied however by the trial court in its Order dated April 21, 1997.17 LCDC went to the CA on appeal which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 57119 and assigned to the then Seventh Division of the CA.18 On July 24, 1997, the CAs then Twelfth Division,19 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42512 denied LCDCs petition for certiorari declaring that the granting of the petition and setting aside of the September 17, 1996 and October 14, 1996 Orders are manifestly pointless considering that the complaint itself had already been dismissed and subject of the appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 57119; that the reversal of the said Orders would have practical effect only if the dismissal were also set aside and the complaint reinstated; and that the dismissal of the complaint rendered the petition for certiorari devoid of any practical value.20 LCDCs motion for reconsideration of the CA-G.R. SP No. 42512 decision was denied on March 4, 1998.21 LCDC then filed with this Court, a petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 133145 which this Court dismissed on August 29, 2000.22 On May 4, 2000, the CAs then Seventh Division issued in CA-G.R. CV No. 57119 the herein assailed decision, the fallo of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the appeal meritorious, this case is remanded to the court a quo for further hearing and directing the latter to allow the deposition taking without delay. SO ORDERED.23 The CA reasoned that: LCDC complied with Section 1, Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which expressly sanctions depositions as a mode of discovery without leave of court after the answer has been served; to unduly restrict the modes of discovery during trial would defeat the very purpose for which it is intended which is a pre-trial device, and at the time of the trial, the issues would already be confined to matters defined during pre-trial; the alleged intention of expediting the resolution of the case is not sufficient justification to recall the order to take deposition as records show that the delay was brought about by postponement interposed by both parties and other legal antecedents that are in no way imputable to LCDC alone; deposition-taking, together with the other modes of discovery are devised by the rules as a means to attain the objective of having all the facts presented to the court; the trial court also erred in dismissing the complaint as LCDC appeared during the pre-trial conference and notified it of the filing of a petition before the CA; such is a legitimate justification to stall the pre-trial conference, as the filing of the petition was made in good faith in their belief that the court a quo erred in canceling the deposition scheduled for no apparent purpose.24 Hyatt and Princeton filed their respective motions for reconsideration which the CA denied on February 13, 2001. 25 Hyatt and Yu now come before the Court via a petition for review on certiorari, on the following grounds: I THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH DIVISION, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, ACTUALLY AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION, IN HOLDING IN EFFECT INVALID THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER COURT DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 AND OCTOBER 14, 1996 WHICH ARE NOT RAISED OR PENDING BEFORE IT, BUT IN ANOTHER CASE (CA-G.R. SP. No. 42512) PENDING BEFORE ANOTHER DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, TWELFTH DIVISION, AND WHICH CASE WAS DISMISSED BY THE SAID DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND FINALLY BY THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN G.R. NO. 133145. II THE COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH DIVISION, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND SERIOUS ERRORS OF LAW IN REVERSING THE LOWER COURTS ORDER DATED DECEMBER 3, 1996 AND APRIL 21, 1997 HOLDING RESPONDENT NON -SUITED FOR FAILURE TO ENTER INTO PRE-TRIAL.26 Anent the first issue, petitioners claim that: the validity of the RTC Order dated September 17, 1996 which set the case for pre-trial, as well as its Order dated October 14, 1996 denying LCDCs motion for partial reconsideration are not involved in CA-G.R. CV No. 57119 but were the subject of CA-G.R. SP No. 42512, assigned to the then Twelfth Division, which dismissed the same on July 24, 1997 and which dismissal was affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 133145; in passing upon the validity of the Orders dated September 17, 1996 and October 14, 1996, the CAs then Seventh Division in CA -G.R. CV No. 57119 exceeded its authority and encroached on issues taken cognizance of by another Division.27 On the second issue, petitioners claim that: the CAs then Seventh Division should have outrightly dismissed the appeal of LC DC as the same did not involve any error of fact or law but pertains to a matter of discretion which is properly a subject of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court; conducting discovery thru deposition is not a condition sine qua non to the holding of a pretrial and the fact that LCDC wanted to take the deposition of certain persons is not a valid ground to suspend the holding of pre-trial and subsequently the trial on the merits; the persons whose depositions were to be taken were listed as witnesses during the trial; to take their depositions before the lower court and to present them as witnesses during the trial on the merits would result in unnecessary duplicity; the fact that LCDC has a pending petition for certiorari with the CAs then Twelfth Division docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 42512 is not a ground to cancel or suspend the scheduled pre-trial on November 14, 1996 as there was no restraining order issued; LCDCs availment of the discovery procedure is causing the undue delay of the case; it is only after LCDC has f iled its complaint that it started looking for evidence to support its allegations thru modes of discovery and more than two years has already passed after the filing of the complaint yet LCDC still has no documentary evidence to present before the lower court to prove its allegations in the complaint.28 Petitioners then pray that the Decision dated May 4, 2000 and the Resolution dated February 13, 2001 of the CAs then Seventh Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 57119 be annulled and set aside and the validity of the Orders dated December 3, 1996 and April 21, 1997 of the RTC of Makati, Branch 62 in Civil Case No. 94-1429 be sustained.29

In its Comment, LCDC argues that the petitioners erred in claiming that the CAs then Seventh Division overstepped its author ity as this Court has ruled in G.R. No. 133145 that the issue of whether LCDC has been denied its right to discovery is more appropriately addressed in the appeal before the then Seventh Division in CA-G.R. CV No. 57119 below rather than by the then Twelfth Division in the certiorari proceeding in CA-G.R. SP No. 42512; and while the appeal of the final Order of the RTC dated December 3, 1996 also questioned the Orders dated September 17, 1996 and October 14, 1996, it does not render the appeal improper as this Court in G.R. No. 133145 held that the subsequent appeal constitutes an appropriate remedy because it assails not only the Order dated December 3, 1996, but also the two earlier orders.30 On the second issue, LCDC contends that: the mere fact that a deponent will be called to the witness stand during trial is not a ground to deny LCDC the right to discovery and does not cause "unnecessary duplicity", otherwise no deposition can ever be taken; a deposition is for the purpose of "discovering" evidence while trial is for the purpose of "presenting" evidence to the court; if petitioners concern was the delay in the disposition of the case, the remedy is to expedite the taking of the depositions, n ot terminate them altogether; petitioners have nothing to fear from discovery unless they have in their possession damaging evidence; the parties should be allowed to utilize the discovery process prior to conducting pre-trial since every bit of relevant information unearthed through the discovery process will hasten settlement, simplify the issues and determine the necessity of amending the pleadings; the trial court erred in not suspending the pre-trial conference pending the petition for certiorari before the then Twelfth Division of the CA since considerations of orderly administration of justice demanded that the trial court accord due deference to the CA; not only was LCDCs petition for certiorari filed in good faith, the CA found it meritorious, vindicating LCDCs insistence that the pre-trial be suspended; the undue delay in the disposition of the case was not attributable to LCDCs deposition -taking but to the flurry of pleadings filed by defendants below to block LCDCs depositions and prevent it from gaining access to critical evid ence; the critical evidence that LCDC needs to obtain through discovery is evidence that is totally within the knowledge and possession of petitioners and defendant Princeton and is not available elsewhere.31 On September 17, 2001, the Court required the parties to file their respective memoranda. 32 Hyatt and Yu on the one hand and LCDC on the other filed their respective memoranda reiterating their positions.33 On January 2, 2002, Princeton filed a "Comment" which this Court considered as its Memorandum in the Resolution dated January 30, 2002.34 In said memorandum, Princeton averred that: it is not true that Princeton failed to comply with any discovery orders as all information requested of Princeton was duly furnished LCDC and there are no pending discovery orders insofar as Princeton is concerned; LCDC is seeking to dictate its procedural strategies on the RTC and the opposing parties; LCDC was not deprived due process as it was given all the opportunity to prepare for its case and to face its opponents before the court; LCDC admits to the probability of forum shopping as it filed a petition for certiorari with the then Twelfth Division of the CA and later an appeal with the then Seventh Division of the CA; the RTC did not bar LCDC from presenting witnesses or discovering any evidence, as all it did was to transfer the venue of the testimony and discovery to the courtroom and get on with the case which LCDC did not want to do; that discovery proceedings need not take place before pre-trial conference; trial court judges are given discretion over the right of parties in the taking of depositions and may deny the same for good reasons in order to prevent abuse; the trial court did not err in not granting LCDCs motion to suspend proceedings due to the pendency of a petition for certiorari with the CA since there was no order from said court and there was no merit in the petition for certiorari as shown by the dismissal thereof by the then Twelfth Division; there was proper and legal ground for the trial court to declare LCDC non-suited; appearance at the pre-trial is not enough; there is no evidence to support LCDCs claim that Hyatt surreptitiously transferred title to Princeton.35 The Court is in a quandary why Hyatt and Yu included Princeton as respondent in the present petition when Princeton was their codefendant below and the arguments they raised herein pertain only to LCDC. With the failure of petitioners to raise any ground against Princeton in any of its pleadings before this Court, we shall treat Princetons inclusion as respondent in the presen t petition as mere inadvertence on the part of petitioners. Now to the merits. The issues that need to be resolved in this case may be simplified as follows: (1) Whether the CAs then S eventh Division exceeded its authority in ruling upon the validity of the Orders dated September 17, 1996 and November 14, 1996; and (2) Whether the CA erred in remanding the case to the trial court and order the deposition-taking to proceed. We answer both questions in the negative. Petitioners assert that the CAs then Twelfth Division in CA-GR SP No. 42512 and this Court in G.R. No. 133145 already ruled upon the validity of the Orders dated September 17, 1996 and November 14, 1996, thus the CAs then Seventh Division in CA G.R. CV No. 57119 erred in ruling upon the same. A cursory reading of the decisions in CA-GR SP No. 42512 and G.R. No. 133145, however, reveals otherwise. The CAs then Twelfth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 42512 was explicit in stating thus: x x x Any decision of ours will not produce any practical legal effect. According to the petitioner, if we annul the questioned Orders, the dismissal of its Complaint by the trial [court] will have to be set aside in its pending appeal. That assumes that the division handling the appeal will agree with Our decision. On the other hand, it may not. Also other issues may be involved therein than the validity of the herein questioned orders. We cannot pre-empt the decision that might be rendered in such appeal. The division to [which] it has been assigned should be left free to resolve the same. On the other hand, it is better that this Court speak with one voice. 36 This Court in G.R. No. 133145 also clearly stated that: x x x First, it should be stressed that the said Petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 42512) sought to set aside only the two interlocutory RTC Orders, not the December 3, 1996 Resolution dismissing the Complaint. Verily, the Petition could not have assailed the Resolution, which was issued after the filing of the former. Under the circumstances, granting the Petition for Certiorari and setting aside the two Orders are manifestly pointless, considering that the Complaint itself had already been dismissed. Indeed, the reversal of the assailed Orders would have practical effect only if the dismissal were also set aside and the Complaint reinstated. In other words, the dismissal of the Complaint rendered the Petition for Certiorari devoid of any practical value. Second, the Petition for Certiorari was superseded by the filing, before the Court of Appeals, of a subsequent appeal docketed as CAG.R. CV No. 57119, questioning the Resolution and the two Orders. In this light, there was no more reason for the CA to resolve the Petition for Certiorari. xxxx In this case, the subsequent appeal constitutes an adequate remedy. In fact, it is the appropriate remedy, because it assails not only the Resolution but also the two Orders. xxxx WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Resolutions AFFIRMED. x x x.37

With the pronouncements of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 42512 and by this Court in G.R. No. 133145 that the subsequent appeal via CA-G.R. CV No. 57119 constitutes as the adequate remedy to resolve the validity of the RTC Orders dated September 17, 1996 and November 14, 1996, the arguments of petitioners on this point clearly have no leg to stand on and must therefore fail. On the second issue, the Court finds that the CA was correct in remanding the case to the RTC and ordering the deposition-taking to proceed. A deposition should be allowed, absent any showing that taking it would prejudice any party. 38 It is accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and within the bounds of law.39 It is allowed as a departure from the accepted and usual judicial proceedings of examining witnesses in open court where their demeanor could be observed by the trial judge, consistent with the principle of promoting just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding; 40 and provided it is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, i.e., with leave of court if summons have been served, and without such leave if an answer has been submitted; and provided further that a circumstance for its admissibility exists (Section 4, Rule 23, Rules of Court).41 The rules on discovery should not be unduly restricted, otherwise, the advantage of a liberal discovery procedure in ascertaining the truth and expediting the disposal of litigation would be defeated. 42 Indeed, the importance of discovery procedures is well recognized by the Court. It approved A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC on July 13, 2004 which provided for the guidelines to be observed by trial court judges and clerks of court in the conduct of pre-trial and use of deposition-discovery measures. Under A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, trial courts are directed to issue orders requiring parties to avail of interrogatories to parties under Rule 45 and request for admission of adverse party under Rule 26 or at their discretion make use of depositions under Rule 23 or other measures under Rule 27 and 28 within 5 days from the filing of the answer. The parties are likewise required to submit, at least 3 days before the pre-trial, pre-trial briefs, containing among others a manifestation of the parties of their having availed or their intention to avail themselves of discovery procedures or referral to commissioners. 43 Since the pertinent incidents of the case took place prior to the effectivity of said issuance, however, the depositions sought by LCDC shall be evaluated based on the jurisprudence and rules then prevailing, particularly Sec. 1, Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Court which provides as follows: SECTION 1. Depositions pending action, when may be taken.--- By leave of court after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant or over property which is the subject of the action, or without such leave after an answer has been served, the testimony of any person, whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of any party, by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The attendance of witnesses may be compelled by the use of a subpoena as provided in Rule 21. Depositions shall be taken only in accordance with these Rules. The deposition of a person confined in prison may be taken only by leave of court on such terms as the court prescribes. (Emphasis supplied). As correctly observed by the CA, LCDC complied with the above quoted provision as it made its notice to take depositions after the answers of the defendants have been served. LCDC having complied with the rules then prevailing, the trial court erred in canceling the previously scheduled depositions. While it is true that depositions may be disallowed by trial courts if the examination is conducted in bad faith; or in such a manner as to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the person who is the subject of the inquiry, or when the inquiry touches upon the irrelevant or encroaches upon the recognized domains of privilege,44 such circumstances, however are absent in the case at bar. The RTC cites the delay in the case as reason for canceling the scheduled depositions. While speedy disposition of cases is important, such consideration however should not outweigh a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of cases, for the ends of justice are reached not only through the speedy disposal of cases but more importantly, through a meticulous and comprehensive evaluation of the merits of the case.45 Records also show that the delay of the case is not attributable to the depositions sought by LCDC but was caused by the many pleadings filed by all the parties including petitioners herein. The argument that the taking of depositions would cause unnecessary duplicity as the intended deponents shall also be called as witnesses during trial, is also without merit. The case of Fortune Corp. v. Court of Appeals46 which already settled the matter, explained that: The availability of the proposed deponent to testify in court does not constitute "good cause" to justify the courts order t hat his deposition shall not be taken. That the witness is unable to attend or testify is one of the grounds when the deposition of a witness may be used in court during the trial. But the same reason cannot be successfully invoked to prohibit the taking of his deposition. The right to take statements and the right to use them in court have been kept entirely distinct. The utmost freedom is allowed in taking depositions; restrictions are imposed upon their use. As a result, there is accorded the widest possible opportunity for knowledge by both parties of all the facts before the trial. Such of this testimony as may be appropriate for use as a substitute for viva voce examination may be introduced at the trial; the remainder of the testimony, having served its purpose in revealing the facts to the parties before trial, drops out of the judicial picture. x x x [U]nder the concept adopted by the new Rules, the deposition serves the double function of a method of discovery - with use on trial not necessarily contemplated - and a method of presenting testimony. Accordingly, no limitations other than relevancy and privilege have been placed on the taking of depositions, while the use at the trial is subject to circumscriptions looking toward the use of oral testimony wherever practicable.47 Petitioner also argues that LCDC has no evidence to support its claims and that it was only after the filing of its Complaint that it started looking for evidence through the modes of discovery. On this point, it is well to reiterate the Courts pronouncement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan48: What is chiefly contemplated is the discovery of every bit of information which may be useful in the preparation for trial, such as the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts; those relevant facts themselves; and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things. Hence, "the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment. No longer can the time-honored cry of fishing expedition serve to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying his opponents case. Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both par ties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession. The deposition-discovery procedure simply advances the stage at which the disclosure can be compelled from the time of trial to the period preceding it, thus reducing the possibility, of surprise.49 It also does not escape this Courts attention that the trial court, before dismissing LCDCs complaint, gave LCDC two option s: (a) enter into a pre-trial conference, advising LCDC that what it would like to obtain at the deposition may be obtained at the pre-trial conference, thus expediting early termination of the case; and (b) terminate the pre-trial conference and apply for deposition later on. The trial court erred in forcing LCDC to choose only f rom these options and in dismissing its complaint upon LCDCs refusal to choose either of the two.

The information LCDC seeks to obtain through the depositions of Elena Sy, the Finance Officer of Hyatt and Pacita Tan Go, an Account Officer of RCBC, may not be obtained at the pre-trial conference, as the said deponents are not parties to the pre-trial conference. As also pointed out by the CA: x x x To unduly restrict the modes of discovery during trial, would defeat the very purpose for which it is intended, as a pre-trial device. By then, the issues would have been confined only on matters defined during pre-trial. The importance of the modes of discovery cannot be gainsaid in this case in view of the nature of the controversy involved and the conflicting interest claimed by the parties.50 Deposition is chiefly a mode of discovery, the primary function of which is to supplement the pleadings for the purpose of disclosing the real matters of dispute between the parties and affording an adequate factual basis during the preparation for trial. 51 Further, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan52 the Court explained that: The truth is that "evidentiary matters" may be inquired into and learned by the parties before the trial. Indeed, it is the purpose and policy of the law that the parties - before the trial if not indeed even before the pre-trial - should discover or inform themselves of all the facts relevant to the action, not only those known to them individually, but also those known to their adversaries; in other words, the desideratum is that civil trials should not be carried on in the dark; and the Rules of Court make this ideal possible through the deposition- discovery mechanism set forth in Rules 24 to 29. The experience in other jurisdictions has been the ample discovery before trial, under proper regulation, accomplished one of the most necessary ends of modern procedure; it not only eliminates unessential issues from trials thereby shortening them considerably, but also requires parties to play the game with the cards on the table so that the possibility of fair settlement before trial is measurably increased. As just intimated, the deposition-discovery procedure was designed to remedy the conceded inadequacy and cumbersomeness of the pre-trial functions of notice-giving, issue-formulation and fact revelation theretofore performed primarily by the pleadings. The various modes or instruments of discovery are meant to serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 20, to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts relative to those issues. The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable the parties, consistent with recognized privileges, to obtain the fullest possible knowledge of the issues and facts before civil trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dark.53 (emphasis supplied) In this case, the information sought to be obtained through the depositions of Elena and Pacita are necessary to fully equip LCDC in determining what issues will be defined at the pre-trial. Without such information before pre-trial, LCDC will be forced to prosecute its case in the dark --- the very situation which the rules of discovery seek to prevent. Indeed, the rules on discovery seek to make trial less a game of blind mans bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest p racticable extent. 54 Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA was correct in remanding the case to the trial court and ordering the depositions to proceed. WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit.