Case Digest (G.R. No. 255335)
Facts:
Maria Victoria Natividad‑Florentino v. Antonio G. Florentino, Jr., G.R. Nos. 255335 and 255636, August 27, 2025, Supreme Court Third Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Antonio G. Florentino, Jr. (Antonio) contracted an alleged first marriage with Marilou Jarmin on May 18, 1984, evidenced by a Marriage Contract; Antonio later contended the ceremony never occurred and that the contract was not solemnized, offering witness testimony (Pol Natividad) to that effect. Marilou left for the United States; Antonio asserted they never consummated the marriage, never cohabited, and never registered the contract.
Fifteen years later Antonio married Maria Victoria Natividad‑Florentino (Victoria) on November 8, 1999. They lived together until a 2011 National Statistics Office certification reflected two marriages for Antonio (1984 and 1999), after which Victoria left and later filed a criminal complaint for bigamy (Criminal Case No. 12‑1476, Branch 61, RTC Makati). Antonio filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage against Marilou (Civil Case No. 12‑327, Branch 144, RTC Makati) on April 19, 2012.
Antonio moved to suspend the criminal proceedings, invoking the pending nullity petition as a prejudicial question. The RTC (Branch 61) denied his motion in a Resolution dated November 23, 2012; his reconsideration was likewise denied, and he filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). In an initial Decision dated September 28, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC, but on Antonio’s motion for reconsideration it recalled and set aside that Decision in an Amended Decision (July 3, 2019), ruling that the absence of a solemnizing officer rendered the first marriage void ab initio and that the pending nullity petition was a prejudicial question warranting suspension of the bigamy case. The CA denied motions for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 12, 2021.
The Office of the Solicitor General (for the People) and Victoria separately ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the pendency of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage constitute a prejudicial question that requires suspension of a related criminal prosecution for bigamy?
- May the alleged void‑ab‑initio character of a prior marriage (e.g., for lack of a solemnizing officer) be raised and resolved as a defense in a bigamy prosecution without a prior civ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)