ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 148350.August 8, 2001]

VENTURA vs. LAMATAN

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2001.

G.R. No. 148350(Anna Lyn Ventura vs. Eddie Lamatan.)

Petitioner Anna Lyn Ventura and respondent Eddie Lamatan were married in Manila on June 4, 1993. On August 25, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint for bigamy against respondent, alleging that he had previously contracted marriage with another woman in Pagadian City on August 27, 1988 and that said marriage was still subsisting. Upon finding that there was probable cause against respondent, the City Prosecutor filed an information for bigamy against him in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The case was eventually assigned to Branch 9 thereof.

In turn, respondent filed a complaint for annulment of their marriage against petitioner on November 18, 1994 in the RTC of Pagadian City, alleging that he had been forced by petitioner's father to marry her. The case was assigned to Branch 20 of the court. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of litis pendentia, forum shopping, lack of cause of action, and lathes. However, her motion was denied, as was her motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, but the petition was dismissed. Her motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner contends that respondent's complaint for annulment should have been dismissed because (1) it does not state a cause of action; (2) it is barred by laches and the pendency of the criminal case; (3) it constitutes forum shopping; and (4) it is intended merely to delay the criminal action for bigamy. In the alternative, petitioner prays that if the case for annulment of marriage is not dismissed, it be at least consolidated with the bigamy case and that the two cases be jointly tried in the RTC, Branch 9, Manila.

The petition has no merit.

First. The complaint for annulment of marriage alleges that respondent was forced to marry petitioner after the latter's father, a member of the Manila Police Department, threatened respondent for getting petitioner pregnant. A case for annulment of marriage on the ground of vitiated consent is thus clearly alleged in the complaint.

Second. The RTC of Pagadian's refusal to dismiss respondent's action for annulment of marriage is proper because the determination of the validity of the panics' marriage is a prejudicial question insofar as the criminal action for bigamy is concerned (Merced v. Diez, 109 Phil. 155 (1960)). It, therefore, takes precedence over the criminal action.

Third. With respect to petitioner's alternative prayer that the venue of the annulment case be transferred from Pagadian City to Manila, suffice it to say that the mere convenience of petitioner is not a compelling reason to order such transfer. The venue of the civil action was properly laid in Pagadian City considering that respondent resides in that place. Rule 4, �2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that venue of a personal action is the place of residence of the plaintiff or that of the defendant "at the election of the plaintiff," in this case at the election of respondent. Petitioner's complaint that she cannot expect anything other than a "hometown decision" in Pagadian City is a mere conjecture.

The petition should be denied for the additional reason that the affidavit of service accompanying it states the date of service of the petition on the respondent and the lower courts to be June 21, 2001, whereas the registry receipts show that service was made much later on July 18, 2001.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Petitioner's motion for extension of thirty (30) days within which to file petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THIS BE THE LAST EXTENSION, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period and conditioned upon the timeliness of the motion and movant's compliance with the requisites for its filing.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE