Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    Quoted Hereunder, For Your Information, Is A Resolution of This Court Dated MAY 17 1999

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette
    This document summarizes a court case between Leni O. Choa and Hon. Beldia & Alfonso Choa. Leni initiated a case for concubinage against her husband Alfonso in 1991. In 1994, when a decision was about to be made, Alfonso filed for annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity. The regional trial court issued a restraining order and denied Leni's motion for intervention. The issue is whether the judge abused discretion by suspending the promulgation due to an alleged prejudicial question. The court found no abuse of discretion and denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Quoted Hereunder, For Your Information, Is A Resolution of This Court Dated MAY 17 1999

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette
    141 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between Leni O. Choa and Hon. Beldia & Alfonso Choa. Leni initiated a case for concubinage against her husband Alfonso in 1991. In 1994, when a decision was about to be made, Alfonso filed for annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity. The regional trial court issued a restraining order and denied Leni's motion for intervention. The issue is whether the judge abused discretion by suspending the promulgation due to an alleged prejudicial question. The court found no abuse of discretion and denied the petition.

    Original Description:

    persons

    Original Title

    Choa vs Beldia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between Leni O. Choa and Hon. Beldia & Alfonso Choa. Leni initiated a case for concubinage against her husband Alfonso in 1991. In 1994, when a decision was about to be made, Alfonso filed for annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity. The regional trial court issued a restraining order and denied Leni's motion for intervention. The issue is whether the judge abused discretion by suspending the promulgation due to an alleged prejudicial question. The court found no abuse of discretion and denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views2 pages

    Quoted Hereunder, For Your Information, Is A Resolution of This Court Dated MAY 17 1999

    Uploaded by

    Bernadette
    This document summarizes a court case between Leni O. Choa and Hon. Beldia & Alfonso Choa. Leni initiated a case for concubinage against her husband Alfonso in 1991. In 1994, when a decision was about to be made, Alfonso filed for annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity. The regional trial court issued a restraining order and denied Leni's motion for intervention. The issue is whether the judge abused discretion by suspending the promulgation due to an alleged prejudicial question. The court found no abuse of discretion and denied the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    LENI O. CHOA vs. HON.

    BELDIA & ALFONSO CHOA


    FIRST DIVISION
    Gentlemen:
    Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 17 1999.
    G.R. No. 120582 (Leni O. Choa vs. Hon. Rolindo O. Beldia, Jr., Judge. RTC, Branch 41, Bacolod City; and
    Alfonso Choa.)
    This petition for certiorari and mandamus seeks to annul and set aside the order dated October 26,
    19941 [Petition, rollo, p. 33.] denying petitioner's motion for leave to intervene and motion to dismiss, and
    the order dated October 27, 19942 [Petition, rollo, pp. 34-36.] denying the motion to dismiss filed by
    Bacolod's Assistant City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado.
    In 1991, petitioner Leni Choa initiated a case for concubinage against her husband, Alfonso Choa, in the
    MTCC, Bacolod City, docketed as Criminal Case NO. 49106. In March 1994, when the promulgation of the
    decision was about to take place, Alfonso filed with the RTC, Bacolod City, a complaint for annulment of
    marriage based on psychological incapacity. Thus, Alfonso filed with the MTCC a motion in an order dated
    March 23, 1994. His motion for reconsideration having been likewise denied, on June 22, 1994, he filed with
    the RTC, Bacolod City, a petition for certiorari with injunction against the trial court. On July 13, 1994, the
    RTC issued a restraining order, and denied Leni Choa's motion for intervention.3 [Ibid, pp. 79-80.]
    Hence, this petition.
    The issue is whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in suspending the
    promulgation of judgement in Criminal Case No. 49106 of the MTCC in the concubinage case due to a
    prejudicial question.
    A prejudicial question comes into play generally in a situation where a civil action and a criminal action are
    both pending and there exist in the former an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal
    action may proceed, because howsoever the issue in the civil action resolved would be determinative juris et
    de jure of the guilt innocence of the accused in the criminal case.4[Carlos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
    109887, February 10, 1997.]
    The prejudicial question is the issue raised in the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage based on
    psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Under this article, a marriage was
    psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations of marriage.5 [Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil
    Code of the Philippines, vol. 1, p. 274.] True enough, the nullity of marriage between petitioner and private
    respondent brings about two things: One, there is no marriage at all; Two, there is no ground to convict
    Alfonso Choa of concubinage because one element of the crime is not attendant, that is, the man must be
    married at the time of its commission.
    The TRO issued by the RTC merely interlocutory; hence, the proper remedy is appeal in due time from the
    decision of the case.
    WHEREFORE, finding that the regional trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion, we resolve to
    DENY the petition.
    No costs.
    Very truly yours,

    You might also like