PEOPLE vs. ARAGON

FACTS:

FIRST MARRIAGE:

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.

SECOND MARRIAGE:

August 27, 1934:

While his marriage with Maria Gorrea was subsisting, the

accused under the name of Proceso Aragon, contracted

a canonical marriage with Maria Faicol in the Santa

Teresita Church in Iloilo City.

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, Gorrea.

August 5, 1939

First wife, Maria Gorrea died in Cebu City.

After Maria Gorrea's death, 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.

THIRD MARRIAGE:

October 3, 1953

The accused admitted having contracted marriage with

Jesusa C. Maglasangin Sibonga, Cebu.

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.

ISSUE:

Is the accused guilty of bigamy with regards to his third

marriage?

RULING:

NO. Prior the Family Code, a judicial decree declaring a

marriage as void ab initio is not required.

The second marriage (Faicol and Aragon) is void ab initio

because it was celebrated during the subsistence of a

previous marriage. 3rd marriage is valid. Aragon is not

guilty of bigamy.

MERCADO v. TAN

FACTS:

Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma

Oliva in 1976 before he contracted marriage with

Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims she did not

know. Tan filed bigamy against Mercado, and after a

month the latter filed an action for declaration of nullity

of marriage against Oliva. The decision in 1993 declared

marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and void.

ISSUE:

Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing

the declaration of nullity of the former marriage.

RULING:

YES. Mercado is guilty of bigamy. A judicial declaration of

nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a

subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who

enters into a subsequent marriage without first

obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy.

This principle applies even if the earlier union is

characterized by statute as “void.”

In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of

nullity of his marriage with Oliva right after Tan filed

bigamy case. Hence, by then, the crime had already been

consummated. He contracted second marriage without

the judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the

first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense

in a bigamy charge.

TENEBRO v. CA

FACTS:

Tenebro contracted marriage with Ancajas in 1990. The

two lived together continuously and without

interruption until the latter part of 1991, when Tenebro

informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to

a certain Hilda Villareyes in 1986. Petitioner thereafter

left the conjugal dwelling which he shared with Ancajas,

stating that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes. In

1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage with a

certain Nilda Villegas. Ancajas thereafter filed a

complaint for bigamy against petitioner. Villegas

countered that his marriage with Villareyes cannot be

proven as a fact there being no record of such. He further

argued that his second marriage, with Ancajas, has been

declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity.

Hence he cannot be charged for bigamy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Tenebro is guilty of bigamy.

RULING:

The prosecution was able to establish the validity of the

first marriage. As a second or subsequent marriage

contracted during the subsistence of petitioner’s valid

marriage to Villareyes, petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas

would be null and void ab initio completely regardless of

petitioner’s psychological capacity or incapacity. Since a

marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid

marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second

marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of

criminal liability for bigamy. Pertinently, Article 349 of

the Revised Penal Code criminalizes “any person who

shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before

the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before

the absent spouse has been declared presumptively

dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper

proceedings”. A plain reading of the law, therefore,

would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act

of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during

the subsistence of a valid marriage.

Separate Opinion of Justice Vitug

Justice Vitug pointed out that void ab initio marriages

(except those falling under the principle of psychological

incapacity) should be allowed to be used as a valid

defense for bigamy. Void ab initio marriages require no

judicial decree to establish their nullity. It is true that the

Revised Penal Code does not require the first or second

marriage to be declared void to avoid a criminal case of

bigamy but this should only be applicable to voidable

marriages - because again, void ab initio marriages really

do not need such judicial decree.

Just in case: the OTHER ARAGON case

PEOPLE v. ARAGON

FACTS:

Aragon was charged with the crime of bigamy for having

contracted a second marriage with one Efigenia C.

Palomer on September 21, 1947, while his previous valid

marriage with Martina Godinez was still subsisting and

had not been dissolved. While the said case was pending

trial, Efigenia C. Palomer filed a civil action in the same

court against Aragon alleging that the latter "by means

of force, threats and intimidation of bodily harm, forced

plaintiff to marry him” and praying that the marriage be

annulled. Aragon filed a motion in the criminal case for

bigamy, praying that the criminal charge be provisionally

dismissed, on the ground that the civil action for

annulment of the second marriage is a prejudicial

question. The court denied this motion on the ground

that the validity of the second marriage may be

determined in the very criminal action for bigamy. This

appeal has been presented to this court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not prejudicial question exists between the

annulment case filed by Palomer and the criminal case

for bigamy against Aragon.

RULING:

Prejudicial question has been defined to be that 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. The

prejudicial question must be determinative of the case

before the court; this is first element. Jurisdiction to try

said question must be lodged in another tribunal; this is

the second element.

In an action for bigamy, for example, if the accused

claims that the first marriage is null and void and the right

to decide such validity is vested in another tribunal, the

civil action for nullity must first be decided before the

action for bigamy can proceed; hence, the validity of the

first marriage is a prejudicial question.

Should Palomer’s allegations regarding Aragon’s use of

force be true, it is no doubt illegal and void, however, this

does not bar him from prosecution against the crime of

bigamy. The pendency of the civil action for the

annulment of the marriage filed by Palomer, is absolutely

immaterial to the criminal action filed against defendant-

appellant. It does not determine the existence of any of

the elements of the charge of bigamy. A decision thereon

is not essential to the determination of the criminal

charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question.