Case Summary (G.R. No. 138509)
Article 40 and Remarriage Requirements
Article 40 of the Family Code mandates that before contracting a subsequent marriage, a party must secure a final judicial declaration of the nullity of any previous marriage. This requirement underscores that parties cannot unilaterally declare their own marriages void; validity endures until duly annulled by competent courts.
Elements of Bigamy and Respondent’s Strategy
Bigamy under the Revised Penal Code requires proof of a subsisting first marriage and the contracting of a subsequent marriage that would have been valid but for the first. Here, respondent’s second marriage was contracted without first obtaining a nullity decree for his 1985 marriage. He then filed a civil suit for nullity of the first marriage and sought suspension of the bigamy case on the ground that the nullity suit was a prejudicial question.
Court’s Rejection of Suspension
The Supreme Court held that respondent’s civil action for nullity, filed after his bigamy charge, does not qualify as a prejudicial question. The resolution of that suit cannot alter the fact that the second marriage occurred during the subsistence of the first. Allowing suspension would enable respondents to frustrate criminal prosecution by belatedly seeking nullification—contrary to Article 40’s intent and established jurisprudence.
Presumption of Marriage Validity and Judicial Intervention
Under Civil Code Articles 76 and 220, every marriage is presumed valid and indissoluble until declared null by final judgment. Even a manifest defect, such as lack of license, requires court determination. Consequ
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 138509)
Facts of the Case
- On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani D. Bobis entered into a first marriage with Maria Dulce B. Javier, which was never annulled, nullified, or terminated.
- On January 25, 1996, respondent contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis while the first marriage remained subsisting.
- Allegedly, respondent also entered into a third marriage with a Julia Sally Hernandez.
- Petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit for bigamy, leading to Criminal Case No. Q98-75611 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City, docketed on February 25, 1998.
- Subsequently, respondent filed a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage, alleging it was celebrated without a marriage license.
- Respondent moved to suspend the bigamy proceedings on the ground that the pending nullity case constituted a prejudicial question; the trial court granted the suspension on December 29, 1998.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Procedural Posture
- Criminal information for bigamy filed by petitioner in 1998.
- Respondent initiated civil nullity proceedings after indictment.
- Trial court granted suspension of the criminal case in reliance on the civil nullity action as a prejudicial question.
- Petitioner’s reconsideration denied; petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question justifying the suspension of a criminal prosecution for bigamy.
Prejudicial Question: Definition and Nature
- A prejudicial question is a fact-based issue distinct from, yet intimately connected to, the crime, whose resolution is a logical antecedent to determining guilt or innocence.
- It tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the information and does not conclusively determin