Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC VILLASANTA April 30, 1957

In Re Charge !" LILIAN #$ VILLASANTA "!r I%%!rali&', vs. (ILARION M$ PERALTA, respondent. Ramon J. Diaz for respondent. PARAS, C. J.) G.R. No. L-9 !" has a direct bearin# on the present co$plaint. %aid case ori#inated fro$ a cri$inal action filed in the Court of &irst 'nstance of Ca#a(an b( the co$plainant a#ainst the respondent for a violation of Article " ) of the Revised Penal Code of *hich the respondent *as found #uilt(. +he verdict, *hen appealed to the Court of Appeals, *as affir$ed. +he appeal b( certiorari ta-en to this Court b( the respondent *as dis$issed for lac- of $erit. +he co$plaint see-s to dis.ualif( the respondent, a !9 / successful bar candidate, fro$ bein# ad$itted to the bar. +he basic facts are the sa$e as those found b( the Court of Appeals, to *it0 1n April !2, !9"9, the respondent *as $arried to Ri3alina E. 4alde3 in Ri3al, Nueva Eci5a. 1n or before March 6, !9 !, he courted the co$plainant *ho fell in love *ith hi$. +o have carnal -no*led#e of her, the respondent procured the preparation of a fa-e $arria#e contract *hich *as then a blan- docu$ent. 7e $ade her si#n it on March 6, !9 !. A *ee- after, the docu$ent *as brou#ht bac- b( the respondent to the co$plainant, si#ned b( the 8ustice of the Peace and the Civil Re#istrar of %an Manuel, +arlac, and b( t*o *itnesses. %ince then the co$plainant and the respondent lived to#ether as husband and *ife. %o$eti$e later, the co$plainant insisted on a reli#ious ratification of their $arria#e and on 8ul( 9, !9 !, the correspondin# cere$on( *as perfor$ed in Aparri b( the parish priest of said $unicipalit(. +he priest no lon#er re.uired the production of a $arria#e license because of the civil $arria#e contract sho*n to hi$. After the cere$on( in Aparri, the couple returned to Manila as husband and *ife and lived *ith so$e friends. +he co$plainant then discovered that the respondent *as previousl( $arried to so$eone else: *hereupon, she filed the cri$inal action for a violation of Article " ) of the Revised Penal Code in the Court of &irst 'nstance of Ca#a(an and the present co$plaint for i$$oralit( in this court.. ;pon consideration of the records of G.R. No. L-9 !" and the co$plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is i$$oral. 7e $ade $oc-er( of $arria#e *hich is a sacred institution de$andin# respect and di#nit(. 7is conviction in the cri$inal case involves $oral turpitude. +he act of respondent in contractin# the second $arria#e <even his act in $a-in# love to another *o$an *hile his first *ife is still alive and their $arria#e still valid and e=istin#> is contrar( to honest(, 5ustice, decenc(, and $oralit(. +hus lac-in# the #ood $oral character re.uired b( the Rules of Court, the respondent is hereb( declared dis.ualified fro$ bein# ad$itted to the bar. %o ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, ndencia, and !eli" JJ., concur.

+he La*phil Pro5ect - Arellano La* &oundation