G.R. No. 53642 - Donato vs. Luna

Information for Bigamy
On January 23, 1979, the City Fiscal of Manila, through Assistant City Fiscal Amado N. Cantor, filed an information for bigamy against petitioner Leonilo C. Donato before the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXII, docketed as Criminal Case No. 43554.
The information was based on the complaint of private respondent Paz B. Abayan, alleging that Donato contracted a second marriage while a prior marriage to Rosalinda R. Maluping (solemnized June 30, 1978) was still subsisting.

Civil Action for Nullity of Marriage
On September 28, 1979, before Donato’s arraignment in the bigamy case, Paz B. Abayan filed Civil Case No. E-02627 in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila, seeking declaration of nullity of her marriage to Donato (solemnized September 26, 1978).
The ground was that her consent was vitiated by deceit—she lacked knowledge of Donato’s existing marriage.
In his answer, Donato contended that the second marriage was void for lack of marriage license and alleged that Abayan used force, violence, intimidation, and undue influence to secure his consent.
Prior to solemnization, Donato and Abayan had cohabited as husband and wife for over five years; a joint affidavit dated September 26, 1978, invoked Article 76 of the New Civil Code to dispense with a marriage license.

Procedural History
Before trial in Criminal Case No. 43554, Donato moved to suspend proceedings, arguing that the civil nullity case raised a prejudicial question that must be resolved first.
On April 7, 1980, Judge Artemon D. Luna denied the motion, citing Landico vs. Relova (22 SCRA 731), and ordered the criminal proceedings to continue.
Donato’s motion for reconsideration, invoking De la Cruz vs. Ejercito (68 SCRA 1), was denied on April 14, 1980, for lack of merit.
Donato then petitioned for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.

Whether the civil action for annulment of marriage pending before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court constitutes a prejudicial question that requires suspension of the criminal bigamy proceedings.