Anda di halaman 1dari 7

VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO A.K.A. VINCENT G. MERCADO VS. CONSUELO TAN Facts: Dr. Vincent Mercado and Ma.

Consuelo Tan got married on June 27, 1991 civilly of which a Marriage Contract was duly executed and signed by the parties. As entered in said document, the status of petitioner was single. At the time of the celebration of the wedding, petitioner was actually married to Ma. Thelma Oliva. This fact was known to the respondent, Consuelo Tan. On October 5, 1992, a letter-complaint for bigamy was filed by respondent through counsel with the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. On November 13, 1992, or more than a month after the bigamy case was lodged in the Prosecutors Office, petitoner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Ma. Thelma V. Oliva in RTC-Br. 22, Cebu City, and in a Decision dated May 6, 1993 the marriage between Vincent G. Mercado and Ma. Thelma V. Oliva was declared null and void. Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals in affirming the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 13848, which convicted herein petitioner of bigamy. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can still be convicted of bigamy even if the previous marriage was already declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. Ruling: Numerous rulings have been rendered on cases like the one at hand. Petitioner contends that he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, thereby rendering it void ab initio. Unlike voidable marriages which are considered valid until set aside by a competent court, he argues that a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all. Thus, he concludes that there is no first marriage to speak of. Petitioner also quotes the commentaries of former Justice Luis Reyes that it is now settled that if the first marriage is void from the beginning, it is a defense in a bigamy charge. But if the first marriage is voidable, it is not a defense. Respondent, on the other hand, admits that the first marriage was declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code, but she points out that that declaration came only after the Information had been filed. Hence, by then, the crime had already been consummated. She argues that a judicial declaration of nullity of a void previous marriage must be obtained before a person can marry for a subsequent time. The Court agrees with the respondent and affirmed the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals and enumerated the elements of the crime of bigamy under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) That the offender has been legally married; (2) That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; (4) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. ---------------Republic v Nolasco 220 SCRA 20 Facts: The case passed before the Supreme Court is a Petition for Review stating that the Regional Trial Court of Antique, Branch 10 and the Court of Appeals have erred in their decision to grant respondent's [Gregorio Nolasco] Petition for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife

[Janet Parker], in alternative, that the marriage be declared null and void. The respondent working as a seaman and his wife, a british subject, met in England during one of the respondent's port call. Without having much information about Janet Parker's whereabouts or family they lived together on his ship for six months until the respondent went home to his hometown in Antique after the expiration of his conract. They got married sometime in January 1982 in the Cathedral of San Jose, Antique and after the celebration of their marriage respondent obtained a contract and left his wife on his parents while working overseas. Sometime in January 1983, respondent got a letter from his mother that his wife gave birth to their son and left them. Respondent claimed he immediately asked permission to go back home and was eventually home on November of 1983. On August 5, 1988, respondent filed petition for the declaration of presumptive death before the RTC, on the other hand, petitioner argued that the respondent has no well-founded belief that his spouse is already dead but the lower court granted respondent's petition in pursuant of Article 41 of the Family Code and declared Janet Parker as presumptively dead. Petitioner immediately appealed to the Court of Appeals the decision made by the RTC of Antique on the same argument of no well-founded belief, CA, however affirmed the RTC's decision holding that the respondent has sufficiently established a basis to form a belief that his wife is already dead. Issue: Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead. Held: The Decision of the CA is REVERSED and both decisions [of the RTC and CA] are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE with costs agianst respondent. Ratio: Despite the fact that respondent, going back to England, tried to find his wife, the effort is still lacking of diligence on the basis that the respondent has failed to report it to the authorities [both in the Philippines and in England] or the British Embassy for the easy search rather than finding her alone. In fine, respondent failed to establish that he had the well-founded belief required by law that his absent wife was already dead that would sustain the issuance of a court order declaring Janet Monica Parker presumptively dead. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lukban vs Republic L-8492, February 29, 1956 FACTS: Lourdes Lukban and Francisco Chuidian got married in 1933 and after a violent quarrel he left Lukban and has not been heard of since then. She diligently looked for him asking the parents and friends but no one knew his whereabouts. She believes that husband is already dead since he was absent for more than 20 years and because she intends to marry again, she desires to have her civil status put in order to be relieved on any liability under the law. ISSUE: Whether Lukban needs to secure declaration of presumptive death before she can remarry. HELD: The court ruled that Lukban does not need to secure declaration of presumptive death of her husband because Civil Code prevails during their marriage in 1933. It provides that 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Armas vs. Calisterio GR No. 136467, April 6, 2000 FACTS: Teodorico Calisterio, husband of Marietta Calisterio, the respondent, died intestate in April 1992 leaving several parcel of land estimated value of P604,750.00. He was the second husband of Marietta who was previously married with William Bounds in January 1946. The latter disappeared without a trace in February 1947. 11 years later from the disappearance of Bounds, Marietta and Teodorico were married in May 1958 without Marietta securing a court declaration of Bounds presumptive death. Antonia Armas y Calisterio, surviving sister of Teodorico filed a petition claiming to be the sole surviving heir of the latter and that marriage between Marietta and his brother being allegedly bigamous is thereby null and void. She prayed that her son Sinfroniano be appointed as administrator, without bond, of the estate of the deceased and inheritance be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the estate would have been settled. ISSUE: Whether Marrieta and Teodoricos marriage was void due to the absence of the declaration of presumptive death. HELD: The marriage between the respondent and the deceased was solemnized in May 1958 where the law in force at that time was the Civil Code and not the Family Code which only took effect in August 1988. Article 256 of the Family Code itself limit its retroactive governance only to cases where it thereby would not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Since Civil Code provides that declaration of presumptive death is not essential before contracting marriage where at least 7 consecutive years of absence of the spouse is enough to remarry then Marrietas marriage with Teodorico is valid and therefore she has a right can claim portion of the estate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------Valdez vs. Republic GR No. 180863, September 8, 2009 FACTS: Angelita Valdez was married with Sofio in January 1971. She gave birth to a baby girl named Nancy. They argued constantly because Sofio was unemployed and did not bring home any money. In March 1972, the latter left their house. Angelita and her child waited until in May 1972, they decided to go back to her parents home. 3 years have passed without any word from Sofio until in October 1975 when he showed up and they agreed to separate and executed a document to that effect. It was the last time they saw each other and had never heard of ever since. Believing that Sofio was already dead, petitioner married Virgilio Reyes in June 1985. Virgilios application for naturalization in US was denied because petitioners marriage with Sofio was subsisting. Hence, in March 2007, petitioner filed a petition seeking declaration of presumptive death of Sofio. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners marriage with Virgilio is valid despite lack of declaration of presumptive death of Sofio.

HELD: The court ruled that no decree on the presumption of Sofios death is necessary because Civil Code governs during 1971 and not Family Code where at least 7 consecutive years of absence is only needed. Thus, petitioner was capacitated to marry Virgilio and their marriage is legal and valid. ------------------------------------------------------------------Anaya 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 premarital 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat, 72 Phil 19 (1941) Translated Text by Paolo Celeridad [No. 47101 April 25, 1941] GODOFREDO BUCCAT, plaintiff-appellant, v. LUIDA MANGONON DE BUCCAT, defendant-appellee Marriage; Validity Marriage is a most sacred institution. It is the foundation upon which society rests. To nullify it would need clear and authentic proof. In this case no such proof exists. Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio. Carlos, J. Feliciano Leviste, Toms P. Paganiban and Sotera N. Megia for appellants Luida Mangonon de Buccat on her own behalf. The facts are stated in the decision of the court. Horrilleno, J.: This case has been elevated to this court from the Court of First Instance of Baguio, since it only raises a question purely of law. On March 20, 1939 the plaintiff initiated the present case, in which the defendant did not appear, despite

being duly summoned. On account of this, plaintiff was permitted to present his proof, and the lower court decided in favor of the defendant. Thus this appeal. The plaintiff prays for the annulment of his marriage to Luida Mangonon de Buccat on November 26, 1938 in the City of Baguio, on the grounds that when agreeing to the marriage promise, he did so because the defendant assured him that she was a virgin. From the decision of the lower court, the following facts are given: The plaintiff met the defendant in March 1938. After several meetings, they became engaged in September 19 of the same year. In November 26, the plaintiff married the defendant in the Catholic cathedral of Baguio City. After living together for eighty-nine days, the defendant gave birth to a son (of nine months) in February 23, 1939. As a result of this event, the plaintiff left the defendant and never returned to married life with her. We see no reason to revoke the appealed sentence. In effect, it is unlikely that the allegation of the plaintiffappellant that he did not even suspect the serious situation of the defendant, being as it is proven, an advanced pregnant condition. On account of this, there is no reason to consider the fraud of which the plaintiff-appellant speaks. The allegation that it is not rare to find persons with developed abdomens, seems to us childish to deserve our consideration, all the more that the plaintiff is a first-year student of law. Marriage is a most sacred institution. It is the foundation upon which society rests. To nullify it would need clear and authentic proof. In this case no such proof exists. Finding the appealed sentence reconciled to law, it must be affirmed, and we hereby affirm it in toto. Costs to plaintiff-appellant. So ordered. Avancea, C.J., Imperial, Daz, and Laurel, JJ., concur. Decision affirmed. 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. Godofredo left Luida and 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. Issue: WON Luidas concealment of her pregnancy constituted a ground for the annulment of marriage (fraud) H eld: No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution in which the State is interested. In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting a ground for annulment; it was unlikely that Godofredo, a firstyear law student, did not suspect anything about Luidas condition considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy when they got married. D ecision: SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Zhai Garcia ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Aquino v Delizo 109 Phil 21 Facts: This case is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals on petitioner's complaint on fraud. The petitioner [Fernando Aquino] and respondent [Conchita Delizo] got married on December 27, 1954 and after four months, respondent gave birth to a child who petitioner denies his own and alleges that respondent is impregnated by another man before the celebration of their marriage. Respondent claims that the child was conceived out of wedlock by her and the petitioner. On September 6, 1955, petitioner filed a case against respondent in the Court of First Intsance in Rizal based on the ground of fraud 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 that would annul a marriage dismissed the complaint. The petitioner filed a petition to reopen for reception of additional evidence but the petition was denied. The case was then appealed to the Court of Appeals that held 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. Evidences show however, that respondent lived with Cesar Aquino [petitioner's brother] as husband and wife and in fact was the father of the child born. Petitioner then filed a motion of reconsideration and if denied, the case be remanded to the lower court for a new trial but then again it was not granted. Issue: Will the case be remanded to the lower court for a new trial? Held: Wherefore, the decision complained of is set aside and the case remanded to the court a quo for new trial. Without costs. Ratio:

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... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jimenez vs. Canizares L-12790, August 31, 1960 FACTS: Joel Jimenez, the petitioner, filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Remedios Canizares on the ground that the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ for copulation. It has existed at the time of the marriage and continues to exist that led him to leave the conjugal home two nights and one day after the marriage. The court summoned and gave a copy to the wife but the latter did not file any answer. The wife was ordered to submit herself to physical examination and to file a medical certificate within 10 days. She was given another 5 days to comply or else it will be deemed lack of interest on her part and therefore rendering judgment in favor of the petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage can be annulled with only the testimony of the husband. HELD: The wife who was claimed to be impotent by her husband did not avail of the opportunity to defend herself and as such, claim cannot be convincingly be concluded. It is a well-known fact that women in this country are shy and bashful and would not readily and unhesitatingly submit to a physical examination unless compelled by competent authority. Such physical examination in this case is not self-incriminating. She is not charged with any offense and likewise is not compelled to be a witness against herself. Impotence being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The case was remanded to trial court. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------