Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > September 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5877 September 28, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO MENDOZA

095 Phil 845:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5877. September 28, 1954.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTURO MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

Nestor A. Andrada, for Appellant.

Solicitor General Pompeyo Diaz and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete, for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. BIGAMY; MARRIAGE CONTRACTED DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE IS VOID AB INITIO; NO JUDICIAL DECREE IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH ITS VALIDITY. — A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the lifetime of his espouse is illegal and void from its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity. A prosecution for bigamy based on said void marriage will not lie.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


The defendant, Arturo Mendoza, has appealed from a judgment of t pe 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 v. 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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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 pretense 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.

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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent.

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code punishes with prison 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 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 matrimoni 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 consiguiente, 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 v. 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.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





September-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6647 September 2, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL VIROLA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 759

  • G.R. Nos. L-7594 & 7596 September 8, 1954 - INSUREFCO PAPER PULP & PROJECT WORKER’S UNION v. SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION

    095 Phil 761

  • G.R. No. L-6312 September 9, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. W. D. CHAPMAN

    095 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-5585 September 16, 1954 - IN RE: ROMAN OZAETA v. ROSA GONZALES VDA. DE PALANCA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-6017 September 16, 1954 - ONG SE LUN AND GO UAN v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. L-6074 September 16, 1954 - DAMASO RODRIGO v. GUILLERMO CABRERA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-6851 September 16, 1954 - FEDERICO MAGALLANES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 795

  • G.R. No. L-6902 September 16, 1954 - URBANO CASILLAN v. FRANCISCA E. VDA. DE ESPARTERO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 799

  • G.R. No. L-7344 September 16, 1954 - SUSANA VILLORIA v. EDMUNDO PICCIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-7648 September 17, 1954 - JOSE DE LEON, ET AL. v. ASUNCION SORIANO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 806

  • G.R. No. L-6711 September 20, 1954 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA v. MAXIMA TINOCO VDA. DE CRUZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 818

  • G.R. No. L-6442 September 21, 1954 - TRADERS INSURANCE & SURETY CO. v. JUAN GOLANGCO Y OTRA

    095 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-6760 September 22, 1954 - IN RE: FRANCISCA GARCIA v. RODOLFO RIVERA

    095 Phil 831

  • G.R. No. L-7201 September 22, 1954 - DEE C. CHUAN & SONS, INC. v. BENITO NAHAG, ET AL.

    095 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-5877 September 28, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO MENDOZA

    095 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-6205 September 28, 1954 - DIONISIA CAÑAVERAL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO C. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 848

  • G.R. No. L-6801 September 28, 1954 - HERBERT BROWNELL v. MACARIO BAUTISTA

    095 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-6866 September 28, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO ANITO

    095 Phil 865

  • G.R. No. L-6920 September 28, 1954 - BLUE BAR COCONUT COMPANY, ET AL. v. JOAQUIN BOO

    095 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-5295 September 29, 1954 - CARLOS IÑIGO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL ABACA & OTHER FIBERS CORPORATION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-5828 September 29, 1954 - EUFEMIA ACIERTO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-6379 September 29, 1954 - IN RE: WILFRED UYTENGSU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-6606 September 29, 1954 - JOSE M. LEZAMA v. EMUNDO PICCIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-6060 September 30, 1954 - FERNANDO A. FROILAN v. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO.

    095 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-6425 September 30, 1954 - MAGDALEN VILLADORES Y ORTO v. EL HONORABLE DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    095 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6629 September 30, 1954 - EUFROCINA HIDALGO CABACUNGAN, ET AL. v. QUINTIN CORRALES, ET AL.

    095 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-6637 September 30, 1954 - WARNER BARNES & CO., LTD. v. LUZON SURETY CO., INC.

    095 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-6904 September 30, 1954 - PINEDA & AMPIL MANUFACTURING CO., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BARTOLOME, ET AL.

    095 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-7199 September 30, 1954 - CONCEPCION NAVAL, ET AL. v. DOLORES JONSAY, ET AL.

    095 Phil 939