Case # 26 Heirs of John Z. Sycip namely Natividad D. Sycip, Jose Sycip, John Sycip, Jr.

., Alfonso Sycip II, Rose Marie

Natividad Sycip petitioners vs
Court of Appeals, Melancio Yu, Talinanap Matualaga respondents
GR # 76487 | November 9, 1990 | Paras ponente

FACTS:
Melancio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga are spouses and native Muslims.
Prior to 1952, Talinanap Matualaga bought a parcel of land with an area of 54.4980 hectares situated at Makar,
General Santos from Cosin Bentaib and Hadji Abdua Mohamad.
June 14-16, 1952 The land was surveyed in the name of Bangon Yu (father of Melancio) by Justino Mendoza
September 11-12, 1953 The land was subdivided into 5 lots, surveyed by Justino Mendoza
July 1, 1954 The subdivision of land was approved by the Director of Lands.
Lot 1 Bengon Yu; Lot 2 Melancio Yu; Lot 3 Dominga Pinagawang; Lot 4 Talinanap Matualaga; Lot 5 Ison Yu
December 21 Melancio Yu and Talinanap Matualaga filed their respective Free Patent Application for Lots 2 and 4.
April 19, 1961 Director of Lands approved the Free Patent Application
June 22, 1961 The Free Patent was issued by authority of the President of the Philippines
July 17, 1961 The Free Patent was transmitted to the Register of Deeds
August 31, 1961 The Register of Deeds issued to Melancio Yu the Original Certificate of Title No. C-14496 P-523 but
it was not received by the latter as it was given to John Z. Sycip (now deceased)
In 1958, on account of jealousy, the spouses separated.
Upon their separation, a certain Alfonso Non approached Melancio Yu and told him that there was a buyer interested
in their land at a price of P200.00 per hectare. Melancio told him that the land belonged to his wife as her paraphernal
property.1 Therefore, he did not have any authority to sell the same.
Alfonso Non convinced Melancio that if he would sign the documents prepared by him, the former would be the one
to secure Talinanaps signature. If Talinanap would not be able to sign, then Melancios signature would be null and void.
Melancio then signed the Agreement of Transfer of Rights and Deed of Sale and the Quitclaim Deed without receiving
any consideration.
In 1963, upon their reconciliation, Melancio Yu asked Talinanap Matualaga if a certain Alfonso Non had approached
her regarding the sale of their land to John Z. Sycip to which Talinanap answered that she had never executed any
instrument conveying her property to anyone.
It turned out that the whole parcel of land was sold to John Z. Sycip at P9500.00.
The spouses then sought the assistance of the Commission on National Integration of Southern Mindanao which
informed them that their original certificate of titles were taken and delivered to John Z. Sycip by virtue of the sale
documents in question.
December 6, 1986 The spouses filed a complaint against John Sycip (+) before trial court for the Declaration of
Nullity of Document and Recovery of Possession of Real Property with a prayer for a writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction and Damages, with Lot No. 4 Psu-135740-Amd. The right of the spouses was upheld on March 2, 1971.
May 2, 1972 - The spouses filed another complaint before trial court for the Declaration of Nullity of Document and
Recovery of Possession of Real Property with a prayer for a writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and Damages, with
Lot No. 2 Psu-135740-Amd.

ISSUE:
Whether the sale of Lot No. 2 Psu-135740-Amd is null and void ab initio2

HELD:
Yes, the sale is null and void. Since the spouses-respondents are Muslims, any transaction involving the real property
with them is governed by the provisions of Sections 145 and 146 of the Revised Administrative Code of Mindanao and
Sulu, Section 120 of Public Land Act, as amended, and Republic Act. No. 3872.

1
Separate property of the wife
2
From the beginning
Section 145 Any transactions involving real property with non-Christian tribes shall bear approval of the provincial
governor wherein the same was executed or of his representative duly authorized in writing for such purpose, indorsed
upon it.

Section 146 Every contract or agreement made in violation of Section 145 is null and void.

Section 120 conveyances and encumbrances made by persons belonging to the so-called "non-Christian tribes" shall
be valid if the person making the conveyance or encumbrance is able to read and can understand the language in which
the instrument of conveyance or encumbrance is written. Conveyances and encumbrances made by illiterate non-
Christians shall not be valid unless duly approved by the Commissioner of Mindanao and Sulu.

Republic Act No. 3872 conveyances and encumbrances made by illiterate non-Christian or literate non-Christians
where the instrument of conveyance or encumbrance is in a language not understood by said literate non-Christians
shall not be valid unless duly approved by the Chairman of the Commission on National Integration.
Case # 29 Meynardo L. Beltran petitioner vs
People of the Philippines and Hon. Judge Florentino Tuazon, Jr. respondents
GR # 137567 |June 20, 2000 | Buena ponente

FACTS
June 16, 1973 Meynardo L. Beltran and Charmaine E. Felix were married at the Immaculate Concepcion Parish in
Cubao, Quezon City.
February 7, 1997 Meynardo Beltran filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
(Article 36 of Family Code) before branch87 of Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
According to Charmaine Felix, it was Meynardo Beltran who abandoned the conjugal home and lived with a certain
woman named Milagros Salting.
September 16, 1997 Charmaine Felix filed a criminal complaint for concubinage3 against Beltran and his paramour
March 20, 1998 Beltran filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings Including the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in the
criminal case based on the ground that the pendency for the declaration of nullity of his marriage posed a prejudicial
question to the determination of the criminal case.

ISSUE
Whether the pendency for the declaration of nullity of Meynardo Beltrans marriage is a prejudicial question

HELD:
It is not a prejudicial question. The rationale behind this principle is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
1st element: the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action
2nd element: the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

For a civil case to be considered prejudicial, it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon
which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.

The petitioners argument that he should be acquitted from the charge of concubinage should his marriage be declared
null and void is not a defense.

Article 40 of Family code: The absolute nullity of the previous marriage may be invoked for the purposes of remarriage
on the basis solely of final judgement declaring such previous marriage void.

This provision if interpreted solely for the purpose of remarriage. For other purpose than remarriage, one can adduce
evidence in the criminal case of nullity of his marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled that as long as there is no judicial declaration of nullity of marriage, the presumption is that
the marriage exists for all intents and purposes. Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage.

3
Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place
Case # 8 Reynalda Gatchalian petitioner vs
Anselmo Delim and Court of Appeals respondents
GR # 56487 |October 21, 1991 |Feliciano ponente

FACTS
July 11, 1973 Reynalda Gatchalian boarded respondents Thames mini bus at a point in San Eugenio, Aringay, La
Union bound for Bauang. A snapping sound was suddenly heard at shortly, the vehicle bumped a cement flower pot on
the side of the road, went off the road, turned turtle and fell into a ditch. Several passengers, including Gatchilian were
injured. They were taken to Bethany Hospital for medical treatment.
Gatchalain sustained the following injuries: lacerated wound, forehead; abrasion, left elbow; abrasion, left knee;
abrasion, lateral surface, left leg.
July 14, 1973 Adela Delim, wife of Anselmo Delim, went to the hospital and paid for the passengers hospitalization
and medical expenses. She also gave Gatchalian P12.00 to pay her transportation expense. Before she left, she asked the
injured passengers to sign a Joint Affidavit which states, among other things:
That we are no longer interested to file a complaint, criminal or civil against the said driver and owner of
the said Thames, because it was an accident and the said driver and owner of the said thames have gone
to the extent of helping us to be treated upon our injuries.
Notwithstanding the Joint Affidavit, Gatchalian filed with the Court of First Instance of La Union an action extra
contractu to recover compensatory and moral damages.
In defense, the respondents averred that the vehicular mishap was due to force majeure, and petitioner had already
been paid and moreover had waived any right to institute any action against him and his driver, when petitioner signed
the Joint Affidavit.

ISSUE
Whether the waiver was valid or not

HELD
No, the waiver is not valid. A waiver, to be valid and effective, must in the first place be couched in clear and
unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a person to give up a right or benefit which legally
pertains to him. A waiver may not casually be attributed to a person when the terms thereof do not explicitly and clearly
evidence an intent to abandon a right vested in such person.

The Joint Affidavit only expressed the desire to make a waiver and showed that the injured passengers did not actually
waive their right to claim damages. The waiver is not in clear and unequivocal terms.

It should also be considered that when Adela Delim asked her to sign the Affidavit, she is reeling from the effects of a
vehicular accident and while reading the same, she experienced dizziness. Upon seeing the other passengers sign the
document, she too signed it without bothering to read it in its entirety. Considering this, there appears to be a
substantial doubt as to whether Gatchalian understood fully the document and whether she actually intended to waive
any right of action against the responded.

For a waiver to be valid, it should not be contrary to laws, morals, public order, public policy The supposedly waiver
is against public policy since a waiver of any right to claim damages by an injured passenger would dilute and weaken
the standard of extraordinary diligence enacted by the law from common carriers.
Case # 28 Rolando Landicho petitioner vs
Hon. Lorenzo Relova and People of the Philippines respondents
GR # L-22579 | February 3, 1968 | Fernando ponente

FACTS:
Rolando Landicho is lawfully married to Elvira Makatangay. Their marriage has not been legally dissolved.
Petitioner therein contracted a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia.
February 27, 1963 Petitioner was charged by the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch I, presided over by the
respondent judge, with the offense of Bigamy4.
March 15, 1963 Fe Lourdes Pasia filed before the Court of First Instance of Batangas an action seeking to declare her
marriage to petitioner as null and void ab initio because of the alleged use of force, threats, and intimidation by the
petitioner and because of its allegedly bigamous character.
June 15, 1963 Rolando Landicho filed a third-party complaint against the third-party defendant Elvira Makatangay,
praying that his marriage with her be null and void, on the ground that by means of threat, force and intimidation, she
compelled him to appear and contract marriage with her before the Justice of the Peace of Makati, Rizal.
The bigamy charge was filed upon the complaint of the first spouse Elvira Makatangay.

ISSUE:
Whether the existence of a civil suit for annulment of marriage at the instance of the second wife against the petitioner,
with the latter in turn filing a third party complaint against the first spouse for the annulment of the first marriage,
constitutes a prejudicial question

HELD:
No, it is not a prejudicial question. Even if the first marriage be declared as null and void, that fact would be immaterial
to the case. According to Viada, parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for
this must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of a marriage is so declared can
it be held a 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 first marriage assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for bigamy.

The Supreme Court ruled that the existence of the civil suit does not constitute a prejudicial question to warrant the
suspension of the criminal case for bigamy because prior to the annulment of the first marriage, the same cannot be
considered as without effect and, therefore, shall be presumed to be validly existing.

4
The crime committed by the act of marrying while the spouse of a former marriage is still alive and former marriage is still in force.
Case # 29 People of the Philippines plaintiff-appellee vs
Abelo Aragon defendant-appellant
GR # L-5930 | February 7, 1954 | Labrador ponente

FACTS
On September 21, 1947, Abelo Aragon contracted a marriage with Efigenia Palomer while his previous valid marriage
with Martina Godinez was still subsisting and had not been dissolved.
Abelo Aragon was charged in the Court of First Instance of Cebu with the crime of bigamy.
October 11, 1951 Efigenia C. Palomer filed a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Cebu against Abelo Aragon
since the latter forced her to marry him by means of force, threats and intimidation of bodily harm and prayed that
their marriage be annulled.
April 30, 1952 Abelo Aragon filed a motion in the criminal case for bigamy, praying that the criminal charged be
provisionally dismissed, on the ground that the civil action for annulment of the second marriage is a prejudicial
question.
The court denied the motion on the ground that the validity of the second marriage may be determined in the very
criminal action for bigamy.

ISSUE
Whether the civil action for annulment of the second marriage is a prejudicial question

HELD
No, it is not a prejudicial question. Prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is
a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
First element: the prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court
Second element: Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal

[There is prejudicial question if Abelo Aragon claimed that the first marriage is null and void (1 st element). It has to be
decided in a different tribunal (2nd element) before the action for bigamy can proceed. The validity of the first marriage
is a prejudicial question.]

In the case presented, the pendency of civil action for the annulment of the marriage filed by Efigenia Palomer is
absolutely immaterial to the criminal action filed against Abelo Aragon. The decision that shall be made based from the
annulment case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. Therefore, the civil action for the
annulment of the second marriage is not a prejudicial question.