Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-5877 September 28, 1954

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTURO MENDOZA, defendant-appellant. Nestor A. Andrada for appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for appellee. PARAS, C.J.: The defendant, Arturo Mendoza, has appealed from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, finding him guilty of the crime of bigamy and sentencing him to imprisonment for an indeterminate term of from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, with costs. The following facts are undisputed: On August 5, 1936, the appellant and Jovita de Asis were married in Marikina, Rizal. On May 14, 1941, during the subsistence of the first marriage, the appellant was married to Olga Lema in the City of Manila. On February 2, 1943, Jovita de Asis died. On August 19, 1949, the appellant contracted another marriage with Carmencita Panlilio in Calamba, Laguna. This last marriage gave rise to his prosecution for and conviction of the crime of bigamy. The appellant contends that his marriage with Olga Lema on May 14, 1941 is null and void and, therefore, non-existent, having been contracted while his first marriage with Jovita de Asis August 5, 1936 was still in effect, and that his third marriage to Carmencita Panlilio on August 19, 1949 cannot be the basis of a charge for bigamy because it took place after the death of Jovita de Asis. The Solicitor General, however, argues that, even assuming that appellant's second marriage to Olga Lema is void, he is not exempt from criminal liability, in the absence of a previous judicial annulment of said bigamous marriage; and the case of People vs. Cotas, 40 Off. Gaz., 3134, is cited. The decision invoked by the Solicitor General, rendered by the Court of Appeals, is not controlling. Said case is essentially different, because the defendant therein, Jose Cotas, impeached the validity of his first marriage for lack of necessary formalities, and the Court of Appeals found his factual contention to be without merit. In the case at bar, it is admitted that appellant's second marriage with Olga Lema was contracted during the existence of his first marriage with Jovita de Asis. Section 29 of the marriage law (act 3613), in force at the time the appellant contracted his second marriage in 1941, provides as follows:
1wphl.nt

Illegal marriages. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance, unless: (a) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; (b) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or the absentee being generally considered as dead and believed to be so by

the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, the marriage so contracted being valid in either case until declared null and void by a competent court.
This statutory provision plainly makes a subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the lifetime of his first spouse illegal and void from its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity, as distinguished from mere annulable marriages. There is here no pretence that appellant's second marriage with Olga Lema was contracted in the belief that the first spouse, Jovita de Asis, has been absent for seven consecutive years or generally considered as dead, so as to render said marriage valid until declared null and void by a competent court.
1wphl.nt

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is reversed and the defendant-appellant acquitted, with costs de officio so ordered. Pablo, Bengzon, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions REYES, J., dissenting: I dissent. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code punishes with prision mayor "any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved". Though the logical may say that where the former marriage was void there would be nothing to dissolve still it is not for the spouses to judge whether that marriage was void or not. That judgment is reserved to the courts. As Viada says "La santidad e importancia del matrinonio no permite que los casados juzguen por si mismos de su nulidad; esta ha de someterse precisamente al judicio del Tribunal competente, y cuando este declare la nulidad del matrimonio, y solo entonces, se tendra por nulo; mientras no exista esta declaracion, la presuncion esta siempre a favor de la validez del matrimonio, y de consiguente, el que contrae otro segundo antes de dicha declaracion de nulidad, no puede menos de incurrir la pena de este articulo."(3 Viada, Codigo penal p. 275.) "This is a sound opinion," says Mr. Justice Tuason in the case of People vs. Jose Cotas, (CA), 40 Off. Gaz., 3145, "and is in line with the well-known rule established in cases of adultery, that "until by competent authority in a final judgment the marriage contract is set aside, the offense to the vows taken and the attack on the family exist." Padilla and Montemayor, JJ., concur. -

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-10016 February 28, 1957

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle, vs. PROCESO S. ARAGON, defendant-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Adolfo Brillantes for appellee. Prospero V. Manuel, Fernando Moncada and Antonio Abad Tornis for defendant and appellant. LABRADOR, J.: Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu finding appellant guilty of bigamy. The facts are not disputed and, as found by the trial court, are as follows:

On September 28, 1925, the accused, under the name of Proceso Rosima, contracted marriage with a certain Maria Gorrea in the Philippine Independent Church in Cebu (Exhibits "1" and "1-A"). While his marriage with Maria Gorrea was subsisting, the accused under the name of Proceso Aragon, contracted a canonical marriage with Maria Faicol on August 27, 1934, in the Santa Teresita Church in Iloilo City. The sponsors of the accused and Maria Faicol were Eulogio Giroy, who was then an employee of the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Iloilo, and a certain Emilio Tomesa, a clerk in the said office (Exhibit "A" and testimonies of Eulogio Giroy and complainant Maria Faicol). After the said marriage, the accused and Maria Faicol established residence in Iloilo. As the accused was then a traveling salesman, he commuted between Iloilo where he maintained Maria Faicol, and Cebu where he maintained his first wife, Maria Gorrea died in Cebu City on August 5, 1939 (Exhibit "2"). After Maria Gorrea's death, and seeing that the coast was dear in Cebu, the accused brought Maria Faicol to Cebu City in 1940, where she worked as a teacher-nurse. It would seem that the accused and Maria Faicol did not live a happy marital life in Cebu, for it appears that in 1949 and 1950, Maria Faicol suffered injuries to her eyes because of physical maltreatment in the hands of the accused. On January 22, 1953, the accused sent Maria Faicol to Iloilo, allegedly for the purpose of undergoing treatment of her eyesight. During her absence, the accused contracted a third marriage with a certain Jesusa C. Maglasang on October 3, 1953, in Sibonga, Cebu. (See Exhibits "C", "D", "E" and "F") The accused admitted having contracted marriage with Jesusa C. Maglasangin Sibonga, Cebu, on October 3, 1953, Although the accused made an attempt to deny his previous marriage with Maria Faicol, the Court, however, believes that the attempt is futile for the fact of the said second marriage was fully established not only by the certificate of the said marriage, but also by the testimony of Maria Faicol and of Eulogio Giroy, one of the sponsors of the wedding, and the identification of the accused made by Maria Faicol. (See Exhibits "A" and "B"; t.s.n. pp. 32-33, 40, 41, hearing of April 27, 1954).

The Court of First Instance of Cebu held that even in the absence of an express provision in Act No. 3613 authorizing the filing of an action for judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage void ab initio, defendant could not legally contract marriage with Jesusa C. Maglasang without the dissolution of his marriage to Maria Faicol, either by the death of the latter or by the judicial declaration of the nullity of such marriage, at the instance of the latter. Authorities given for this ruling are 5 Viada, 5th edition, 651; 35 American Jurisprudence, Marriage, Sec. 46, p. 212; Bickford vs. Bickford, 74 N. H. 466, 69 A. 579. Appellant in this Court relies on the case of People vs. Mendoza, (95 Phil., 845; 50 Off. Gaz., [10] 4767). In this case the majority of this Court declared:

The statutory provision (section 29 of the Marriage Law or Act No. 3613) plainly makes a subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the lifetime of his first spouse illegal and void from its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity, as distinguished from mere annullable marriages. There is here no pretense that appellant's second marriage with Olga Lema was contracted in the belief that the first spouse, Jovita de Asis, had been absent for seven consecutive years or generally considered as dead, so as to render said marriage valid until declared null and void by a subsequent court.
We are of the very weighty reasons by Justice Alex Reyes in the dissent in the case above-quoted But this weighty reasons notwithstanding, the very fundamental principle of strict construction of penal laws in favor of the accused, which principle we may not ignore, seems to justify our stand in the above-cited case of People vs. Mendoza. Our Revised Penal Code is of recent enactment and had the rule enunciated in Spain and in America requiring judicial declaration of nullity of ab initio void marriages been within the contemplation of the legislature, an express provision to that effect would or should have been inserted in the law. In its absence, we are bound by said rule of strict interpretation already adverted to. It is to be noted that the action was instituted upon complaint of the second wife, whose marriage with the appellant was not renewed after the death of the first wife and before the third marriage was entered into. Hence, the last marriage was a valid one and appellant's prosecution for contracting this marriage can not prosper. For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendantappellant acquitted, with costs de oficio, without prejudice to his prosecution for having contracted the second bigamous marriage. So ordered. Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions REYES, A.J., dissenting: I dissent. Dissenting in the case of People vs. Mendoza, replied on by the majority, I there said:

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code punishes with prision mayor "any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved."

Though the logician may say that there were the former marriage was void there would be nothing to dissolve, still it is not for the spouses to judge whether that marriage was void or not. That judgment is reserved to the courts. As Viada says, 'La satidad e importancia del matrimonio no permite que los casados juzguen por si mosmos de su nulidad; esta ha de someterse [precisamente al juicio del Tribunalcompetente, y cuando este declare la nulidad del matrimonio, y solo entonces, se tendra por nulo; mientras no exista esta declaracion, la presuncion esta siempre a favor de la validez del matrimonio, yde consiguiente, el que contrae otro segundo antes de dicha declaracio de nulidad, no puede menos de incurrir la pena de este articulo. (3 Viada, Codigo Penal, p. 275.) "This is a sound opinion," says Mr. Justice Tuason in the case of People vs. Jose Cotas, (CA), 40 Off. Gaz. 3145, "and is in line with the well-known rule established in cases of adultery, that "until by competent authority in a final judgment the marriage contract is set aside, the offense to the vows taken and the attack on the family exists."
I may add that the construction placed by the majority upon the law penalizing bigamy would frustrate the legislative intent rather than give effect thereto. Padilla and Montemayor, JJ., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-43905 May 30, 1983 SERAFIA G. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. HON. EDGARDO L. PARAS, MARIA CLEMENTE and THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAOMBONG, BULACAN,respondents. Amelita G. Tolentino for petitioner. Hermin E. Arceo for Maria Clemente. The Solicitor General for respondents.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

The reversal of respondent Court's Order, dismissing petitioner's suit for her "declaration ... as the lawful surviving spouse of deceased Amado Tolentino and the correction of the death certificate of the same", is sought in this Petition for Review on Certiorari. The records disclose that Amado Tolentino had contracted a second marriage with private respondent herein, Maria Clemente, at Paombong, Bulacan, on November 1, 1948 (Annex "C", Petition), while his marriage with petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, celebrated on July 31, 1943, was still subsisting (Annex "A", Petition).

Petitioner charged Amado with Bigamy in Criminal Case No. 2768 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II, which Court, upon Amado's plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the corresponding penalty. After Amado had served the prison sentence imposed on him, he continued to live with private respondent until his death on July 25, 1974. His death certificate carried the entry "Name of Surviving Spouse Maria Clemente." In Special Proceedings No. 1587-M for Correction of Entry, petitioner sought to correct the name of the surviving spouse in the death certificate from "Maria Clemente" to "Serafia G. Tolentino", her name. The lower Court dismissed the petition "for lack of the proper requisites under the law" and indicated the need for a more detailed proceeding, Conformably thereto, petitioner filed the case below against private respondent and the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan, for her declaration as the lawful surviving spouse, and the correction of the death certificate of Amado. In an Order, dated October 21, 1976, respondent Court, upon private respondent's instance, dismissed the case, stating: The Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants in this case, thru counsel Atty. Hernan E. Arceo, for the reasons therein mentioned, is hereby GRANTED. Further: (1) the correction of the entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar is not the proper remedy because the issue involved is marital relationship; (2) the Court has not acquired proper jurisdiction because as prescribed under Art. 108, read together with Art. 412 of the Civil Code publication is needed in a case like this, and up to now, there has been no such publication; and (3) in a sense, the subject matter of this case has been aptly discussed in Special Proceeding No. 1587-M, which this Court has already dismissed, for lack of the proper requisites under the law. In view of the above dismissal, all other motions in this case are hereby considered MOOT and ACADEMIC.
SO ORDERED. 1

Thus, petitioner's present recourse mainly challenging the grounds relied upon by respondent Court in ordering dismissal. We rule for petitioner.
First, for the remedy. Although petitioner's ultimate objective is the correction of entry contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the deceased, Amado, in order to lay the basis for the correction of the entry in the death certificate of said deceased. The suit below is a proper remedy. It is of an adversary character as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding. A claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. Private respondent, as the individual most affected; is a party defendant, and has appeared to contest the petition and defend her interests. The Local Civil Registrar is also a party defendant. The publication required by the Court below pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not absolutely necessary for no other parties are involved. After all, publication is required to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. 2 Besides, even assuming that this is a proceeding under Rule 108, it was the Court that was caned upon to order the publication, 3 but it did not. in the ultimate analysis, Courts are not concerned so much with the form of actions as with their substance. 4 Second, for the merits. Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased. There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage. 5 The

second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect. 6 No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. 7 It can be safely concluded, then, without need of further proof nor remand to the Court below, that private respondent is not the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado, but petitioner. Rectification of the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar may, therefore, be validly made.

Having arrived at the foregoing conclusion, the other issues raised need no longer be discussed.
In fine, since there is no question regarding the invalidity of Amado's second marriage with private respondent and that the entry made in the corresponding local register is thereby rendered false, it may be corrected. 8 While document such as death and birth certificates, are public and entries therein are presumed to be correct, such presumption is merely disputable and will have to yield to more positive evidence establishing their inaccuracy. 9

WHEREFORE, the Order, dated October 21, 1975, of respondent Court is hereby set aside and petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, hereby declared the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado Tolentino. Let the corresponding correction be made in the latter's death certificate in the records of the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan. No costs. SOORDERED. Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. Relova, J., is on leave.

Footnotes

1 p. 54, Rollo. 2 Uy Sioco vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 692 (1966). 3 Rule 108, Sec. 4. 4 City of Manila vs. Gawkee, 71 Phil. 195, 199 (1940). 5 People vs. Samson, 7 SCRA 478 (1963). 6 Art. 80 (4), Civil Code; People vs. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957). 7 People vs. Aragon, supra8 Alisoso vs. Lastimoso, 14 SCRA 210 (1965). 9 In re Florentino Mallare, 59 SCRA 45 (1974)

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 LILIA 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. Dapucanta, Dulay & Associates for petitioner. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office for private respondent.

PARAS, J.:

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. SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Fernan Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Vda. de Consuegra vs. GSIS, 37 SCRA 315.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-53642 April 15, 1988 LEONILO 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. Leopoldo P. Dela Rosa for petitioner. Emiterio C. Manibog for private respondent. City Fiscal of Manila for public respondent.

GANCAYCO, J.:

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. E-02627 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 ofLandicho 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 thirdparty 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. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Cruz and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 22 SCRA 731. 2 68 SCRA 1.

3 People va. Aragon, 94 Phil. 357; Isip vs. Gonzales, 39 SCRA 255; Rojas vs. People, 57 SCRA 243. 4 Libra va. Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303. 5 Ibid. 6 22 SCRA 73.
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 2349 July 3, 1992 DOROTHY B. TERRE, complainant, vs. ATTY. JORDAN TERRE, respondent.

PER CURIAM: In a sworn complaint filed with this Court on 24 December 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. The Court resolved to require respondent to answer the complaint. 1 Respondent successfully evaded five (5) attempts to serve a copy of the Court's Resolution and of the complaint by moving from one place to another, such that he could not be found nor reached in his alleged place of employment or residence. 2 On 24 April 1985, that is after three (3) years and a half, with still no answer from the respondent, the Court noted respondent's success in evading service of the complaint and the Court's Resolution and thereupon resolved to "suspend respondent Atty. Jordan Terre from the practice of law until after he appears and/or files his answer to the complaint against him" in the instant case. 3 On 28 September 1985, respondent finally filed an Answer with a Motion to Set Aside and/or Lift Suspension Order. In his Answer, Atty. Terre averred that he had contracted marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre on 14 June 1977 upon her representation that she was single; that he subsequently learned that Dorothy was married to a certain Merlito A. Bercenilla sometime in 1968; that when he confronted Dorothy about her prior marriage, Dorothy drove him out of their conjugal residence; that Dorothy had mockingly told him of her private meetings with Merlito A. Bercenilla and that the child she was then carrying (i.e., Jason Terre) was the son of Bercenilla; that believing in good faith that his marriage to complainant was null and void ab initio, he contracted marriage with Helina Malicdem at Dasol, Pangasinan. 4 In her Reply, complainant Dorothy denied that Jason Terre was the child of Merlito A. Bercenilla and insisted that Jason was the child of respondent Jordan Terre, as evidenced by Jason's Birth Certificate and physical resemblance to respondent. Dorothy further explained that while she had given birth to Jason Terre at the PAFGH registered as a dependent of Merlito Bercenilla, she had done so out of extreme necessity and to avoid risk of death or injury to the fetus which happened to be in a difficult breech position. According to Dorothy, she had then already been abandoned by respondent Jordan Terre, leaving her penniless and without means to pay for the medical and hospital bills arising by reason of her pregnancy.

The Court denied respondent's Motion to Set Aside or Lift the Suspension Order and instead referred; by a Resolution dated 6 January 1986, the complaint to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. 5 Then Solicitor Pio C. Guerrero was appointed investigator by the Office of the Solicitor General. He set the case for hearing on 7 July 1986 with notice to both parties. On 7 July 1986, complainant Dorothy appeared and presented her evidence ex parte, since respondent did not so appear. 6 The Investigating Solicitor scheduled and held another hearing on 19 August 1986, where he put clarificatory questions to the complainant; respondent once again did not appear despite notice to do so. Complainant finally offered her evidence and rested her case. The Solicitor set still another hearing for 2 October 1986, notifying respondent to present his evidence with a warning that should he fail once more to appear, the case would be deemed submitted for resolution. Respondent did not appear on 2 October 1986. The Investigating Solicitor accordingly considered respondent to have waived his right to present evidence and declared the case submitted for resolution. The parties were given time to submit their respective memoranda. Complainant Dorothy did so on 8 December 1986. Respondent Terre did not file his memorandum. On 26 February 1990, the Office of the Solicitor General submitted its "Report and Recommendation" to this Court. The Report summarized the testimony of the complainant in the following manner:

Complainant Dorothy Terre took the witness stand and testified substantially as follows: she and respondent met for the first time in 1979 as fourth year high school classmates in Cadiz City High School (tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 9); she was then married to Merlito Bercenilla, while respondent was single (id.); respondent was aware of her marital status (ibid, p. 14); it was then that respondent started courting her but nothing happened of the courtship (ibid, p. 10); they [complainant and respondent] moved to Manila were they respectively pursued their education, respondent as a law student at the Lyceum University (tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 12, 15-16); respondent continued courting her, this time with more persistence (ibid, p. 11); she decided nothing would come of it since she was married but he [respondent] explained to her that their marriage was void ab initio since she and her first husband were first cousins (ibid, p. 12); convinced by his explanation and having secured favorable advice from her mother and ex-in-laws, she agreed to marry him [respondent] (ibid, 12-13, 16); in their marriage license, despite her [complainant's] objection, he [respondent] wrote "single" as her status explaining that since her marriage was void ab initio, there was no need to go to court to declare it as such (ibid, 14-15); they were married before Judge Priscilla Mijares of the City Court of Manila on June 14, 1977 (Exhibit A; tsn, July 7, 1986, pp. 16-17); Jason Terre was born of their union on June 25, 1981 (Exhibit B, tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 18); all through their married state up to the time he [respondent] disappeared in 1981, complainant supported respondent, in addition to the allowance the latter was getting from his parents (ibid, pp. 19-20); she was unaware of the reason for his disappearance until she found out later that respondent married a certain Vilma [sic] Malicdem (Exhibit C, tsn, July 7, 1986, pp. 21-22); she then filed a case for abandonment of minor with the City Fiscal of Pasay City (ibid, p. 23) which was subsequently filed before Branch II of the City Court of Pasay City as Criminal Case No. 816159 (Exhibit D; tsn, July 7, 1986, p. 24); she likewise filed a case for bigamy against respondent and Helina Malicdem with the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, where a prima facie case was found to exist (Exhibit E; tsn, July 7, pp. 25-26); additionally, complainant filed an administrative case against respondent with the Commission on Audit where he was employed, which case however was considered closed for being moot and academic when respondent was considered automatically separated from the service for having gone on absence without official leave (Exhibit F; tsn, July 7, 1986, pp. 28-29). 7
There is no dispute over the fact that complainant Dorothy Terre and respondent Jordan Terre contracted marriage on 14 July 1977 before Judge Priscilla Mijares. There is further no dispute over the fact that on 3 May 1981, respondent Jordan Terre married Helina Malicdem in Dasol, Pangasinan. When the second marriage was entered into, respondent's prior marriage with complainant was 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 Jordan Terre sought to defend himself by claiming that he had believed in good faith that his prior marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre was null and void ab initio and that no action for a judicial declaration of nullity was necessary. The Court considers this claim on the part of respondent Jordan Terre as a spurious defense. In the first place, respondent has not rebutted complainant's evidence as to the basic facts which underscores the bad faith of respondent Terre. In the second place, that pretended defense is the same argument by which he had inveigled complainant into believing that her prior marriage to 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 this 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. 8 Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument, his first marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second marriage to Helina Malicdem must be regarded as bigamous and criminal in character. That the moral character of respondent Jordan Terre was deeply flawed is shown by other circumstances. As noted, he convinced the complainant that her prior marriage to Bercenilla was null and void ab initio, that she was still legally single and free to marry him. When complainant and respondent had contracted their marriage, respondent went through law school while being supported by complainant, with some assistance from respondent's parents. After respondent had finished his law course and gotten complainant pregnant, respondent abandoned the complainant without support and without the wherewithal for delivering his own child safely in a hospital. Thus, we agree with the Solicitor General that respondent Jordan Terre, by his actions, "eloquently displayed, not only his unfitness to remain as a member of the Bar, but likewise his inadequacy to uphold the purpose and responsibility of his gender" because marriage is a basic social institution. 9 In Pomperada v. Jochico, 10 the Court, in rejecting a petition to be allowed to take the oath as a member of the Bar and to sign the Roll of Attorneys, said through Mme. Justice Melencio-Herrera:

It is evident that respondent fails to meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in the legal profession. Whether the marriage was a joke as respondent claims, or a trick played on her as claimed by complainant, it does not speak well of respondent's moral values. Respondent had made a mockery of marriage, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects (Article 216, Civil Code). 11
In Bolivar v. Simbol, 12 the Court found the respondent there guilty of "grossly immoral conduct" because he made a dupe of complainant, living on her bounty and allowing her to spend for his schooling and other personal necessities while dangling before her the mirage of a marriage, marrying another girl as soon as he had finished his studies, keeping his marriage a secret while continuing to demand money from complainant. . . . ." The Court held such acts "indicative of a character not worthy of a member of the Bar." 13 We believe and so hold that the conduct of respondent Jordan Terre in inveigling complainant Dorothy Terre to contract a second marriage with him; in abandoning complainant Dorothy Terre after she had cared for him and supported him through law school, leaving her without means for the safe delivery of his own child; in contracting a second marriage with Helina Malicdem while his first marriage with complainant Dorothy Terre was subsisting, constituted "grossly immoral conduct" under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment of respondent Jordan Terre. He was unworthy of admission to the Bar in the first place. The Court will correct this error forthwith. WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DISBAR respondent Jordan Terre and to STRIKE OUT his name from the Roll of Attorneys. A copy of this decision shall be spread on the personal record of respondent Jordan Terre in the Bar Confidant's Office. A copy of this resolution shall also be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and shall be circularized to all the courts of the land. SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Resolution, 16 June 1992. Rollo, p. 6. 2 Three (3) attempts were made by registered mail: the first two (2), at respondent's address at Abelardo Street, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental, and the third, at respondent's employment address at Commission on Audit, Cadiz City. Another attempt was made at respondent's address at Bliss Project Daga, Cadig City, through the assistance of the P.C. Command at Bacolod City; and another at Lumbunao Calinog Sugar Mill, Iloilo (Court's Resolution dated 24 April 1985, Rollo, p. 47). 3 Resolution, 24 April 1985. Rollo, p. 52. 4 Rollo, p. 53. 5 Id., p. 70. 6 In his Answer with Motion to Set Aside and/or Lift Suspension Order, respondent Jordan Terre stated his address as "c/o 4th Floor, PAIC Building, 105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati, Metro Manila." Court papers sent to him at that address were, however, returned unserved with the notation "not known at given address" (Rollo, p. 63). It thus appears that Jordan Terre once more submerged to evade service of legal papers on him. 7 Rollo, p. 73. 8 Gomez v. Lipana, 33 SCRA 615 (1970); Vda. de Consuegra v. Government Service Insurance System, 37 SCRA 316 (1971); Wiegel v. Hon. Alicia Sempio-Diy, etc., et al, 143 SCRA 499 (1986). This rule has been cast into statutory form by Article 40 of the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, dated 6 July 1987). 9 Arroyo v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 96602 and 96715, 19 November 1991. 10 133 SCRA 309 (1984). 11 133 SCRA at 316. See also Cordova v. Cordova, 179 SCRA 680 (1989) and Laguitan v. Tinio, 179 SCRA 837 (1989). 12 16 SCRA 623 (1966). 13 16 SCRA 630.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation