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

54.1 Bobis vs. Bobis Digest

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

MARBELLA-BOBIS v.

BOBIS
July 31, 2000 (G.R. No. 138509)

FACTS:
October 21, 1985, first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Not annulled, nullified or terminated
January 25, 1996, second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis
Third marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez
February 25, 1998, Imelda Bobis filed bigamy
Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of
his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license
Petitioner argues that respondent should have first obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first
marriage before entering into the second marriage
*After petitioner sued for bigamy, its just when the respondent filed a declaration of absolute nullity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy

HELD:

A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved therein.3It is a question 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. Its two essential
elements are:7
(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action;
and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
In Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having obtained the judicial declaration of
nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. In the
current jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any
party can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void. The reason is that, without a
judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar,
respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his
second marriage with petitioner.
Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second
marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the
determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question
*Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent courts
having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond
question. A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy
(Landicho v. Relova)

DOCTRINE:

Article 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the time of celebration of the second marriage,
requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may remarry. The
clear implication of this is that it is not for the parties, particularly the accused, to determine the validity
or invalidity of the marriage.[8] Whether or not the first marriage was void for lack of a license is a matter
of defense because there is still no judicial declaration of its nullity at the time the second marriage was
contracted. It should be remembered that bigamy can successfully be prosecuted provided all its elements
concur two of which are a previous marriage and a subsequent marriage which would have been valid had
it not been for the existence at the material time of the first marriage.[9]

Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot even be successfully invoked as an
excuse.[16] The contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been
complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the
Revised Penal Code.[17] The legality of a marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to
know the law. As respondent did not obtain the judicial declaration of nullity when he entered into the
second marriage, why should he be allowed to belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to delay
his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by his own disobedience of the law? If he wants to
raise the nullity of the previous marriage, he can do it as a matter of defense when he presents his
evidence during the trial proper in the criminal case.

In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having obtained the judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered into the second
marriage. Per current jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of
such fact before any party can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void.[19] The
reason is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be
subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man
at the time he contracted his second marriage with petitioner.[20] Against this legal backdrop, any decision
in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage
during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the
determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question. As stated above,
respondent cannot be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.[21]

You might also like