CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY

GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

Case Theory For Marlon V. Rufo

Brief Statement of Facts:

MARLON V. RUFO contracted marriage on the 20th of

November 1996 to CARMELITA GO before Solemnizing Officer Hon.

Judge Ander de Saya of Br. 8, MTC of Kabankalan City. Several

months thereafter, Carmelita convinced Marlon to allow her to work in

Japan. At first, Marlon refused but due to the latter’s persistent request,

Marlon eventually gave in. In January 1997, Carmelita left for Japan a

few months after the solemnization of their marriage to seek

employment over the objection of her husband.

Sometime around the year 2000, Carmelita returned to the Philippines,

however, she did not go home to her husband nor did she stay at the

conjugal dwelling. As this aroused Marlon’s suspicion and doubts, he

conducted surveillance regarding the whereabouts of his wife.

To Marlon’s surprise, he discovered that Carmelita contracted a

second marriage on October 6, 2000 with TOMOKI YAMAMOTO, a

Japanese National, and that such marriage was solemnized by the

Hon. Judge Alana Dilon of the Regional Trial Court, Hall of Justice of

Bacolod City.
 CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

Carmelita, upon knowing that her husband, Marlon, discovered that

she had contracted a second marriage with the above-named

Japanese National, she, on February 5, 2017, filed a petition for

annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity,

based on neglect and the non-performance of the marital obligations

under the Family Code, with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of

Bacolod City .

Subsequently, on May 5, 2017, Marlon, filed a criminal case for

Bigamy against his wife, Carmelita, with the Office of the City

Prosecutor, Bacolod City. Pending resolution of the case filed by

Marlon against his wife Carmelita, the latter, on June 25, 2017, filed a

motion for an extension of time within which to file her counter-affidavit.

However, instead of filing her counter-affidavit, she filed a motion for

the suspension of the resolution of the criminal case for Bigamy

against her on the ground of prejudicial question which is her petition

for annulment of marriage which is pending in Court.

On the other hand, after Marlon has filed his reply to Carmelita’s

motion, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City issued a

Resolution on January 14, 2018, stating that “The pending case for

annulment of marriage filed by respondent, cannot be considered a

 CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

prejudicial question, which must be resolved first, in order that the

criminal case for bigamy will proceed”.

A motion for reconsideration of the subject resolution of

the Office of the City Prosecutor was filed by respondent Carmelita.

However, her motion was denied and accordingly an Information for

the crime of Bigamy was filed in Court,

Subsequently, private respondent Carmelita moved

for the suspension of the arraignment and other proceedings which the

court a quo granted in its Order dated February 14, 2018. Aggrieved,

Marlon timely filed his motion for reconsideration of said order.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION OF ANNULMENT ON THE

GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY WILL PROSPER.

II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF

MARRIAGE FILED BY CARMELITA IS NOT CONSIDERED AS A

PREDJUDICIAL QUESTION; AND WILL SUSPEND THE

RESOLUTION OF THE CASE ON BIGAMY.

 CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

I. On the issue of the petition of annulment of marriage on

grounds of psychological incapacity.

The petition of annulment of marriage on grounds of

psychological incapacity, filed by the respondent for her marriage with

the petitioner was done in bad faith in order to circumvent the law and

is designed by her to escape criminal liability, in violation of the crime

of Bigamy, under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

 Citing the doctrine laid down in Republic vs. Molina, G.R. No.

108763, February 13, 1997, which enumerates guidelines on

determining causes on psychological incapacity:

1. The plaintiff (the spouse who filed the petition in court)

has burden of showing the nullity of the marriage. Our laws

cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family, so

any doubt is resolved in favor of the existence/continuation

of the marriage.

2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be

(a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the

complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly

explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code

requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not

physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms

CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

may be physical. Expert evidence may be given by

qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time

of the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must

show that the illness was existing when the parties

exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness

need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself

must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or

clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be

absolute or even relative only in regard to the other

spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the

same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant

to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily

to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a

profession or employment in a job.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the

disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of

marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities,

mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be

accepted as root causes.

CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

6. The essential marital obligations must be those

embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as

regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221

and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their

children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must

also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and

included in the text of the decision.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate

Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the

Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be

given great respect by our courts.

8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or

fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the

state. No decision shall be handed down unless the

Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be

quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons

for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the

petition.

In this current case, respondent failed to actually allege the

cause of psychological incapacity. Neglect and the

non-performance of marital obligations on the part of the

 CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

petitioner is not of his own fault; for the respondent had chosen to

leave the petitioner for work abroad and would eventually violate

the sanctity of their marriage by marrying another man.

II. On the issue of the suspension of the resolution of case of

bigamy while a petition for annulment of marriage:

The petition for annulment of marriage will not bar or suspend the

criminal proceedings of such, as stated in numerous doctrines laid

down in our laws and jurisprudence:

 The prevailing rule is found in Article 40 of the Family Code. The

said article states that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage

may not be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless there is a

final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

Article 40 of the Family Code states:

“The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be

invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final

judgment declaring such previous marriage void.”

Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or

voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a

judicial proceeding.
 CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is

necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other

purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship,

legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of

property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass

upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to

question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the

case.

 With regard to the case not being classified as a prejudicial

question, the petition of the respondent has become a prejudicial

question, as the substantive law expounded. A prejudicial

question is defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate

from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it

determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to

suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said

case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the

criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the

resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt

or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.

(Librado vs. Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303, 309-310).

This, therefore gives us the natural presumption that the petition will

not bar or suspend the resolution of the petitioner’s case against the

respondent.
 CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

 In Capili v. People, 700 SCRA 443, G.R. No. 183805, July 3,

2013, citing Jarillo v. People, 601 SCRA 23, 6G.R. No. 164435,

September 29, 2009, the court affirmed the accused’s conviction

for bigamy ruling that the crime of bigamy is consummated on

the celebration of the subsequent marriage without the previous

one having been judicially declared null and void, viz.:

The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first

marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of

nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover,

petitioner’s assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy

cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to

declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of

that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case.

 Also, the petition for annulment of marriage has its own legal

effects and consequences, including that of criminal liability.

Citing Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 150758, 18

February 18, 2004): “Although the judicial declaration of the

nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity

retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as

the vinculum between the spouses is concerned, it is significant

to note that said marriage is not without legal effects. Among

these effects is that children conceived or born before the

judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be considered

 CASE THEORY – PETITION FOR ANNULMENT AND BIGAMY
GROUP 5 – BAYLIN, GARCENIEGO, GEROLIN, ZAFRA

legitimate. There is therefore a recognition written into the law

itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still

produce legal consequences. Among these legal consequences

is incurring criminal liability for bigamy.”

RELIEFS TO BE SOUGHT

1. Denying the motion to suspend the resolution of the bigamy

case filed against the respondent; and allow

2. Dismissing the petition for annulment against the petitioner.