Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases on prohibited resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid

oresaid civil action, the

motions, meritorious motions, archiving of cases
 guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
The petitioner need not present a final judgment declaring his
BELTRAN VS. PEOPLE marriage void for he can adduce evidence in the criminal case of the
G R NO. 137567 nullity of his marriage other than proof of a final judgment declaring his
Facts: marriage void. More importantly, parties to the marriage should not be
Meynardo Beltran and Charmaine E. Felix were married on June permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be
16, 1973 at the Immaculate Conception Parish Church in Cubao, Quezon submitted to judgment of the competent courts and only when the
City. On Feb. 7, 1997, after 24 years of marriage and four children, nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long
petitioner Meynardo Beltran filed a petition for nullity of marriage on as there is no such declaration the presumptions is that the marriage
the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family exists for all intents and purposes. Therefore, he who cohabits with a
Code. woman not his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the
In her answer, Charmaine Felix alleged that it was petitioner who marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage.
abandoned the conjugal home and lived with a certain woman named
Milagros Salting. She subsequently filed a criminal complaint for
concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code against
petitioner and his paramour.
On March 20, 1998, petitioner, in order to forestall the issuance
of a warrant for his arrest, filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings including
the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in the criminal case. Petitioner
argued that the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of his
marriage posed a prejudicial question to the determination of the
criminal case. Judge Alden Vasquez Cervantes denied the foregoing
motion.
Issues:
Whether or not the civil case for the nullity of marriage under
psychological incapacity is a prejudicial question to the criminal case of
concubinage.
Ruling:
The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to
avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (a) the
civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the criminal action; (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of petitioner’s
marriage is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage case. For a civil
case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the
suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case,
it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts
upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the
ABUNDIO MERCED, petitioner, vs. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ. ETC. been questioned in the civil action. This civil action must be decided
ET AL., respondents before the prosecution for bigamy can proceed. In order that a person
G.R. No. L-15315. August 26, 1960 may be held guilty of the crime of bigamy, the second and subsequent
FACTS: On January 30, 1958, Abundio Merced, already married to marriage must have all the essential elements of a valid marriage, were
Eufrocina Tan, filed a complaint for annulment of his second marriage it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. One of the elements is
with Elizabeth Ceasar on the ground that he was threatened and consent, without it, a marriage would be illegal and void. Since Merced
intimidated into signing an affidavit that he and Elizabeth had been claims that he was forced into the marriage, the validity of the second
living as husband and wife which was used by the Elizabeth in securing marriage is determinative of the guilt of Merced in the crime of bigamy.
their marriage of exceptional character, without the need for marriage
license; that he was again threatened by Elizabeth and her relatives to The denial of the suspension of the criminal case was based on the case
enter into the marriage on August 21, 1957; and that he never lived with of People vs. Mendoza. The same cannot be applied in this case because
her. Merced prays for annulment of the marriage and for moral damages of different set of facts. In this case, Mendoza was first married with
in the amount of P2,000. Josefa, then married Olga, and after the death of Josefa, married
Carmencita. Olga filed a case of bigamy because of the third marriage.
In her answer to the civil case, Elizabeth Ceasar denied the allegations of The Court held that he is not guilty of bigamy since the marriage with
the complaint and avers that neither she nor her relatives know of Olga was void, having been contracted when Josefa was still alive,
plaintiff’s previous marriage. According to her, it was Merced who whereas the marriage with Carmencita is valid because it was contracted
insisted on the marriage. As a counterclaim she asked for P50, 000 for when the first wife was already dead.
moral damages. She later on filed a criminal complaint for bigamy
against Merced. For the second element, (NOTE: IN THIS CASE, THE CIVIL CASE AND
THE CRIMINAL CASE WERE BOTH FILED IN THE SAME COURT) Spanish
Merced filed a motion to hold to trial of said criminal case in abeyance jurisprudence, requires that the essential element determinative of the
until final termination of the civil case on the ground that the latter criminal action must be cognizable by another court. This requirement is
involves facts which if proved will determine the innocence of the due to the fact that Spanish courts jurisdictions’ are exclusively divided
accused. This motion was granted, but upon a motion for into civil or criminal. In the Philippines, where our courts are vested
reconsideration by the fiscal, the order for suspension was set aside and with both civil and criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial
denied on the ground that in People vs Mendoza, judicial declaration of question is to be applied even if there is only one court before which the
nullity of a second and bigamous marriage is not necessary. civil action and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this case the
court when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil action for the
ISSUE: Whether or not an action to annul the second marriage is a annulment of marriage is considered as a court distinct and different
prejudicial question in a prosecution for bigamy. from itself when trying the criminal action for bigamy.

HELD: The civil case presents a prejudicial question which must first be
resolved before the criminal case.
The elements of prejudicial question are the following: (1) it must be
determinative of the case before the court; (2) jurisdiction to try said
question must be lodged in another tribunal.

For the first element, in order that the Merced be held guilty of the
crime of bigamy, the marriage which she contracted for the second time
with Elizabeth Ceasar, must first be declared valid. But its validity has
DONATO V. LUNA Obviously, petitioner merely raised the issue of prejudicial question to
FACTS: evade the prosecution of the criminal case. The records reveal that prior
Leonilo Donato was charged for Bigamy. Before the arraignment of to petitioner's second marriage on September 26, 1978, he had been
Donato, the private respondent filed a civil action for nullity of marriage. living with private respondent Paz B. Abayan as husband and wife for
Said civil case was based on the ground that private respondent more than five years without the benefit of marriage.
consented to entering into the marriage, which was petitioner Donato's
second one, since she had no previous knowledge that petitioner was
already married to a certain Rosalinda R. Maluping on June 30, 1978.
Petitioner Donato's answer in the civil case for nullity interposed the
defense that his second marriage was void since it was solemnized
without a marriage license and that force, violence, intimidation and
undue influence were employed by private respondent to obtain
petitioner's consent to the marriage. Prior to the solemnization of the
second marriage, petitioner and private respondent had lived together
as husband and wife without the benefit of wedlock for a period of at
least five years as evidenced by their joint affidavit.
Prior to the date set for trial of Criminal case, petitioner filed a motion to
suspend on the ground that Civil case seeking his annulment of marriage
raises a prejudicial question, which must be determined first before the
criminal case may proceed.
RTC: Denied the motion to suspend proceedings in Criminal case and the
motion for reconsideration.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the civil case herein raises a prejudicial question
RULING:
The requisites of a prejudicial question do not obtain in the case at bar. It
must be noted that the issue before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court touching upon the nullity of the second marriage is not
determinative of petitioner Donato's guilt or innocence in the crime of
bigamy. Furthermore, it was petitioner's second wife, the herein private
respondent Paz B. Abayan who filed the complaint for annulment of the
second marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through
deceit.
Petitioner Donato raised the argument that the second marriage should
have been declared null and void on the ground of force, threats and
intimidation allegedly employed against him by private respondent only
sometime later when he was required to answer the civil action for
anulment of the second marriage. Petitioner has not even sufficiently
shown that his consent to the second marriage has been obtained by the
use of threats, force and intimidation.
G.R. No. 161075 July 15, 2013 criminal case on the ground of existence of a prejudicial question due to
RAFAEL JOSE-CONSING, JR., Petitioner, the pendency of the Pasig and Makati civil cases.
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
RTC – issued an order suspending the proceedings in the Makati
An independent civil action based on fraud initiated by the criminal case on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question.
defrauded party does not raise a prejudicial question to stop the CA - Is the resolution of the Pasig civil case prejudicial to the Cavite and
proceedings in a pending criminal prosecution of the defendant for Makati criminal cases?
estafa through falsification. This is because the result of the We hold that it is. The resolution of the issue in the Pasig case, i.e.
independent civil action is irrelevant to the issue of guilt or whether or not private respondent may be held liable in the questioned
innocence of the accused. transaction, will determine the guilt or innocence of private respondent
Consing in both the Cavite and Makati criminal cases.
Facts: Consing negotiated with and obtained for himself and his mother,
Cecilia de la Cruz various loans totaling ₱18,000,000.00 from Unicapital Plus Builders commenced its own suit for damages against Consing.
Inc.). The loans were secured by a real estate mortgage constituted on a Another information for estafa through falsification of public document
parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-687599 of was filed against Consing and De la Cruz in the RTC in Imus,
the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite registered under the CaviteConsing filed a motion to defer the arraignment on the ground of
name of de la Cruz. In accordance with its option to purchase the the existence of a prejudicial question
mortgaged property, Unicapital agreed to purchase one-half of the RTC - denied Consing’s motion. Later on, it also denied his motion for
property for a total consideration of ₱21,221,500.00. Payment was reconsideration.
effected by off-setting the amounts due to Unicapital under the CA – granted Consing’ petition for certiorari and setting aside the
promissory notes of de la Cruz and Consing in the amount of January 27, 2000 order of the RTC, and permanently enjoining the RTC
₱18,000,000.00 and paying an additional amount of ₱3,145,946.50. The from proceeding with the arraignment and trial until the Pasig and
other half of the property was purchased by Plus Builders, Inc. a joint Manila civil cases had been finally decided.
venture partner of Unicapital.
In the case at bar, we find no prejudicial question that would justify the
Before Unicapital and Plus Builders could develop the property, they suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case (the Cavite criminal
learned that the title to the property was really owned by Po Willie Yu case). The issue in Civil Case is whether or not respondent (Consing)
and Juanito Tan Teng. merely acted as an agent of his mother, Cecilia de la Cruz; while in (the
Manila civil case), for Damages and Attachment, the question is whether
Unicapital demanded the return of the total amount of ₱41,377,851.48 respondent and his mother are liable to pay damages and to return the
but the latter ignored the demands. Consing filed for injunctive relief, amount paid by PBI for the purchase of the disputed lot. Even if
thereby seeking to enjoin Unicapital from proceeding against him for the respondent is declared merely an agent of his mother in the transaction
collection of the ₱41,377,851.48 on the ground that he had acted as a involving the sale of the questioned lot, he cannot be adjudged free from
mere agent of his mother. Unicapital initiated a criminal complaint for criminal liability. An agent or any person may be held liable for
estafa through falsification of public document and for the recovery of a conspiring to falsify public documents.
sum of money and damages, with an application for a writ of preliminary
attachment. Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the
criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City filed against Consing and other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
De la Cruz an information for estafa through falsification of public Procedure, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
document. Consing moved to defer his arraignment in the Makati Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended
party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the charged in the criminal action.
offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action. it was not improper for the CA to apply the ruling of plus builders to his
case with Unicapital, for, although the Manila and Makati civil cases
The Pasig and Makati civil cases did not raise a prejudicial question that involved different complainants the civil actions Plus Builders and
would cause the suspension of the Makati criminal case. Consing Unicapital had separately instituted against him were undeniably of
contended that the rulings of the court was not binding because it similar mold, i.e., they were both based on fraud, and were thus covered
involved Plus Builders, which was different from Unicapital, the by Article 33 of the Civil Code. Clearly, the Makati criminal case could not
complainant in the Makati criminal case. He added that the decision did be suspended pending the resolution of the Makati civil case that
not yet become final and executory, and could still be reversed at any Unicapital had filed.
time, and thus should not control as a precedent to be relied upon; and
that he had acted as an innocent attorney-in-fact for his mother, and Even if respondent is declared merely an agent of his mother in the
should not be held personally liable under a contract that had involved transaction involving the sale of the questioned lot, he cannot be
property belonging to his mother as his principal. adjudged free from criminal liability. An agent or any person may be
held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents. Hence, the
ISSUE: Did the CA err in reversing itself on the issue of the existence of a determination of the issue involved in Civil Case No. SCA 1759 for
prejudicial question that warranted the suspension of the proceedings in Injunctive Relief is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the respondent
the Makati criminal case? in the criminal case for estafa through falsification of public document.

Held: NO. Consing has hereby deliberately chosen to ignore the firm
holding in the rulings in the first case to the effect that the proceedings
in the criminal case could not be suspended because the Makati civil case
was an independent civil action, while the Pasig civil case raised no
prejudicial question. That was wrong for him to do considering that the
ruling fully applied to him due to the similarity between his case with
Plus Builders and his case with Unicapital.

A perusal of Unicapital’s complaint in the Makati civil case reveals that

the action was predicated on fraud. As such, the action was one that
could proceed independently of the criminal case pursuant to Article 33
of the Civil Code.

Moreover, neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the

criminal action can, according to law, proceed independently of each
other. Under Rule 111, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, in the cases provided in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the
Civil Code, the independent civil action may be brought by the offended
party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the
Pimentel v Pimentel the offender and the victim distinguishes the crime of parricide from
FACTS: murder[14] or homicide.[15] However, the issue in the annulment of
On October 25, 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel filed an action for marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal
frustrated parricide against Joselito Pimentel. On 7 February 2005, case for parricide.
petitioner received summons to appear before the RTC, for the pre-trial The issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage is whether
and trial of Civil Case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity. marital obligations. The issue in parricide is whether the accused killed
On 11 February 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the the victim. In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and
proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable
of a prejudicial question. Petitioner asserted that since the relationship since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was still
between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide. married to respondent.
RTC: Denied the petition on the ground of prejudicial question. The
pendency of the case before the RTC Antipolo is not a prejudicial
question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case before it. The
RTC Quezon City held that the issues in Criminal Case are the injuries
sustained by respondent and whether the case could be tried even if the
validity of petitioners marriage with respondent is in question.
CA: the issue in the civil action for annulment of marriage is whether
petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations. The Court of Appeals ruled that even if the marriage
between petitioner and respondent would be declared void, it would be
immaterial to the criminal case because prior to the declaration of
nullity, the alleged acts constituting the crime of frustrated parricide had
already been committed. The Court of Appeals ruled that all that is
required for the charge of frustrated parricide is that at the time of the
commission of the crime, the marriage is still subsisting.
ISSUES:
Whether or not prejudicial question arise in the civil case for nullity of
marriage.
RULING:
The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted
civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such
issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The
rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first before the filing
of the criminal action. Clearly, the civil case for annulment was filed
after the filing of the criminal case for frustrated parricide.
The relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in
the crime of parricide,[12] which punishes any person who shall kill his
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his
ascendants or descendants, or his spouse.[13] The relationship between
G.R. No. 125646] City of Pasig vs. COMELEC and Municipality of same are included in the boundary dispute case pending. The resolution
Cainta of the pending case has material bearing to the creation of Karangalan
[G.R. No. 128663] Municipality of Cainta vs. COMELEC and City of and Napico.
Pasig As to the second petition of Cainta which was dismissed for being moot,
the Court held otherwise because the issues raised therein are still
FACTS: pending determination before the RTC.
Both petitions question the propriety of the suspension of plebiscite Therefore, the plebiscite for the creation of Karangalan should be held in
proceedings pending the resolution of the issue of boundary disputes abeyance pending resolution of the boundary dispute. The March 15
between Cainta and Pasig. G.R. 125646 involves proposed Brgy. plebiscite ratifying the creation of Napico shall likewise be annulled and
Karangalan, while 128663 involves the proposed Brgy. Napico. Pasig set aside.
claims both areas as part of its territory/jurisdiction while Cainta claims
that the same encroached upon areas within its territory/jurisdiction.
On April 22, 1996, Pasig City Council passed Ordinance No. 21, Series of
2016 creating Brgy. Karangalan, after the petition of said village’s
residents. Plebiscite for its creation was set for June 22 the same year. It
also issued Ordinance No. 52 on September 9, 1996, creating Brgy.
Napico. Plebiscite was set for March 15, 1997.
Cainta, upon learning of the Ordinances, immediately moved to suspend
or cancel the scheduled on the ground that the proposed barangays
involve areas included in the boundary dispute subject of a pending case
before the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal. It filed Petitions with the COMELEC on
June 19, 1996 (UND No. 96-2016) and March 12, 1997 (UND No. 97-
002).
COMELEC approved the first petition but dismissed the second one for
being moot because during the March 15 plebiscite, the creation of Brgy.
Napico was already ratified and approved by the majority of the votes
cast therein. Hence, the filing of G.R. 128663 by Cainta.
ISSUE: W/N the plebiscites should be suspended/cancelled in view of
the pending boundary dispute.
HELD: YES. The pending civil case presents a prejudicial question which
must first be decided before plebiscites for the barangays’ creation may
be held.
Although the general rule is that prejudicial question does not come into
play where both cases are civil, as in the instant case, jurisprudence
states that in the interest of good order, the Court can suspend action on
one case pending the final outcome of another case closely interrelated
or linked to the first (Vidad v. RTC).
A requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction
to be properly identifies by metes and bounds or by more or less
permanent natural boundaries. While Pasig claims that the proposed
Barangays are within its territory, it cannot deny that portions of the
 RENATO S.D. DOMINGO on his own behalf and on behalf of his arising from the same facts are filed in court, the criminal case takes
coheirs of the late SPOUSES FELICIDAD DE DOMINGO and MACARIO precedence.
C. DOMINGO, Petitioners
vs. SPOUSES ENGRACIA D. SINGSON and MANUEL F. CA all the elements of a prejudicial question under sections 6 and 7 of
SINGSON, Respondents Rule 111 of the Rules of Court are present, no abuse on the part of RTC

Facts: Spouses Macario and Felicidad Domingo are the parents of Engracia moved that Rafael be substituted by his heirs since he had
respondent Engracia Singson and petitioners Renato Domingo and his already died.
co-heirs whom he represents herein, namely: Consolacion, Borja, and
Rafael, Ramon, and Rosario. Petitioners filed a motion, which sought to exclude Rafael as being
represented by Renato. They averred that they were unable to effect a
The Spouses Domingo owned a parcel of land in San Juan, Metro Manila, substitution of the heirs of Rafael as plaintiffs in the case since they
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3and the house built Macario could not locate them.
died on February 1981, while Felicidad died on September 1997.
When the case was called, the petitioners and their counsel failed to
2006, Engracia filed with the MTC a complaint for ejectment/unlawful appear, which thus prompted Engracia's counsel to move for the
detainer, Consolacion, Rosario, Rafael, and Ramon. Engracia claimed, she dismissal of the complaint and be given time to file the proper pleading.
is the absolute owner of the subject property, having bought the same The RTC gave Engracia's counsel 10 days within which to file a motion to
from the Spouses Domingo as evidenced by an Absolute Deed of Sale dismiss.
dated 2006 and the TCT was cancelled and TCT No. 12575 covering the
subject property was already issued under her name. The petitioners On July 29, 2011, the RTC issued an Orders' in Civil Case No. 70898,
only learned of the supposed sale of the subject property when they dismissing the petitioners' complaint due to their and their counsel's
received the summons and a copy of the complaint. repeated failure to appear during the scheduled pre-trial hearing dates.

Petitioners filed a complaint which sought the nullity of the sale. They petitioners: the RTC erred in dismissing their complaint on a mere
alleged that the Absolute Deed of Sale was a nullity since the signatures technicality. They also claimed that Engracia's motion to dismiss is but a
of their parents appearing thereon as the supposed vendors were mere scrap of paper since the same did not comply with Sections 4, 5
forged. and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. The CA, affirmed the RTC

Renato, Consolacion, and Ramon filed a Joint Affidavit Complaint, Issues: 1st: whether the proceedings were properly suspended on
claiming that Engracia falsified the signatures of their parents in the ground of prejudicial question; 2nd: whether the dismissal of the
charging her with the crimes of falsification of public document, estafa, petitioners' complaint in Civil Case No. 70898 due to failure to prosecute
and use of falsified documents. Spouses Engracia and Manuel Singson was proper – YES
were charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents. On July 11, 2008, the Spouses Held:
RTC granted the motion to suspend the proceedings filed by the Spouses YES. A prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which arises
Singson. in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another
APPEAL: RTC gravely abused its discretion when it directed the tribunal. The doctrine of prejudicial question comes into play generally
suspension of the proceedings in the Criminal Case on the ground of in a situation where civil and criminal actions are pending and the issues
prejudicial question. claimed that where both a civil and criminal case involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must
be pre-emptively resolved in the civil case before the criminal action can the resolution of the main issue in Civil Case No. 70898 would
proceed. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to necessarily be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the Spouses
avoid two conflict decisions. Singson.

For a civil action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to Accordingly, the RTC Branch 264 correctly suspended the proceedings in
cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final Criminal Case No. 137867 on the ground of prejudicial question since, at
resolution of the civil case, the following requisites must -be present: (1) the time the proceedings in the criminal case were suspended, Civil Case
the civil case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the No. 70898 was still pending.
criminal prosecution would be based; (2) in the resolution of the issue or
issues raised in the civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused
would necessarily be determined; and (3) jurisdiction to try said
question must be lodged in another tribunal.

Based on the issues there indeed appears to be a prejudicial question in

the case at bar. The defense of the Spouses Singson in the civil case for
annulment of sale is that Engracia bought the subject property from her
parents prior to their demise and that their signatures appearing on the
Absolute Deed of Sale are true and genuine. Their allegation in the civil
case is based on the very same facts, which would be necessarily
determinative of their guilt or innocence as accused in the criminal case.

If the signatures of the Spouses Domingo in the Absolute Deed of Sale are
genuine, then there would be no falsification and the Spouses Singson
would be innocent of the offense charged. Otherwise stated, a conviction
on the first criminal case, should it be allowed to proceed ahead, would
be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if it were finally
decided in the civil case that indeed the signatures of the Spouses
Domingo were authentic.

Section 3 provides that a civil action for damages in cases provided

under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, which may also
constitute criminal offenses, may proceed independently of the criminal
action. In instances where an independent civil action is permitted, the
result of the criminal action, whether of acquittal or conviction, is
entirely irrelevant to the civil action.

The concept of independent civil actions finds no application in this case.

To stress, the main issue raised in Civil Case No. 70898, i.e., the
genuineness of the signature of the Spouses Domingo appearing in the
Absolute Deed of Sale, is intimately related to the charge of estafa
through falsification of public document in Criminal Case No. 137867;
 PresumptiveCivilPersonality,Art.40.NCC moral damages for victims of seduction, abduction, rape or other
lascivious acts.
CARMEN QUIMIGUING vs. FELIX ICAO
FACTS:
Carmen Quimiguing sued Felix Icao in CFI Zamboanga . In her complaint
it was averred that the parties were neighbors in Dapitan City, and had
close and confidential relations; that defendant Icao, although married,
succeeded in having carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times by
force and intimidation, and without her consent; that as a result she
became pregnant, despite efforts and drugs supplied by defendant, and
plaintiff had to stop studying. Hence, she claimed support at P120.00 per
month, damages and attorney's fees.
Defendant Icao moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action since the
complaint did not allege that the child had been born; and after hearing
arguments, the trial judge sustained defendant's motion and dismissed
the complaint.
Thereafter, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to allege that as a
result of the intercourse, plaintiff had later given birth to a baby girl; but
the court, sustaining defendant's objection, ruled that no amendment
was allowable, since the original complaint averred no cause of action.
Wherefore, the plaintiff appealed directly to this Court.
ISSUE:
Can the plaintiff-appellants ask for support and damages from defendant
despite failure to allege fact of birth in complaint?
RULING:
YES. A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a
provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as
explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The
unborn child, therefore, has a right to support from its progenitors,
particularly of the defendant-appellee , even if the said child is only "en
ventre de sa mere;" just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn, may
receive donations as prescribed by Article 742 of the same Code, and its
being ignored by the parent in his testament may result in preterition of
a forced heir that annuls the institution of the testamentary heir, even if
such child should be born after the death of the testator Article 854, Civil
Code).
Additionally, “for a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to
his lust xxx constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that
entitles her to claim compensation for damage caused” per Article 21 of
the Civil Code, a provision supported by Article 2219, which provides
 Birth,Art.41,NCC the condition specified in the following article". In the present case, there
Geluz vs CA is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's
FACTS: womb.
Nita Villanueva, the wife of Oscar lazo, respondent, came to know This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to collect any damages
Antonio Geluz, the petitioner and physician, through her aunt Paula at all. But such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them, as
Yambot. Nita became pregnant some time in 1950 before she and Oscar distinguished from the injury or violation of the rights of the deceased,
were legally married. As advised by her aunt and to conceal it from her his right to life and physical integrity. Because the parents can not expect
parents, she decided to have it aborted by Geluz. She had her pregnancy either help, support or services from an unborn child, they would
aborted again on October 1953 since she found it inconvenient as she normally be limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal
was employed at COMELEC. After two years, on February 21, 1955, she development of the spes hominis that was the foetus, i.e., on account of
again became pregnant and was accompanied by her sister Purificacion distress and anguish attendant to its loss, and the disappointment of
and the latter’s daughter Lucida at Geluz’ clinic at Carriedo and P. Gomez their parental expectations (Civ. Code Art. 2217), as well as to exemplary
Street. Oscar at this time was in the province of Cagayan campaigning damages, if the circumstances should warrant them (Art. 2230)
for his election to the provincial board. He doesn’t have any idea nor Both trial court and CA wasn’t able to find any basis for an award of
given his consent on the abortion. It is the third and last abortion that moral damages evidently because Oscar’s indifference to the previous
constitutes plaintiff's basis in filing this action and award of damages. abortions of Nita clearly indicates he was unconcerned with the
Upon application of the defendant Geluz we granted certiorari frustration of his parental affections. Instead of filing an administrative
CA and RTC: Predicated the award of damages in the sum of P3,000.06 or criminal case against Geluz, he turned his wife’s indiscretion to
upon the provisions of the initial paragraph of Article 2206 of the Civil personal profit and filed a civil action for damages of which not only he
Code of the Philippines but, including his wife would be the beneficiaries. It shows that he’s
ISSUE: Can Oscar, who voluntarily procured her wife’s abortion, recover after obtaining a large money payment since he sued Geluz for P50,000
damages from the physician who caused the same? damages and P3,000 attorney’s fees that serves as indemnity claim,
which under the circumstances was clearly exaggerated.
HELD: No.
The Supreme Court believed that the minimum award fixed at P3,000 for
the death of a person does not cover cases of an unborn fetus that is not
endowed with personality which trial court and Court of Appeals
predicated.
Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or
death pertains primarily to the one injured, it is easy to see that if no
action for such damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child
on account of the injuries it received, no such right of action could
derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. In fact, even if a cause of
action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was
extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can
take place from on that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity
as distinguished from capacity to act). It is no answer to invoke the
provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur)
under Article 40 of the Civil Code, because that same article expressly
limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the
child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with
Restrictions or Modification on capacity to act, Art. 38-39, NCC presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be intelligent or
FELICIANO CATALAN, petitioners, vs. JESUS BASA, respondents with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it should be
G. R. No. 159567. July 31, 2007. free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. The parties’ intention must be
clear and the attendance of a vice of consent, like any contract, renders
FACTS: On October 20, 1948, Feliciano Catalan was discharged from the donation voidable. A person suffering from schizophrenia does not
active military service. The Board of Medical Officers of the Department necessarily lose his competence to intelligently dispose his property. By
of Veteran Affairs found that he was unfit to render military service due merely alleging the existing of schizophrenia, petitioners failed to show
to his mental disorder (schizophrenia). On September 28, 1949, substantial proof that at the date of the donation, June 16, 1951,
Feliciano married Corazon Cerezo. On June 16, 1951, Feliciano allegedly Feliciano Catalan had lost total control of his mental facilities. Thus, the
donated to his sister Mercedes one-half of the real property through the lower court correctly held that Feliciano was of sound mind at that time
execution of a document, titled, “Absolute deed of Donation”. On and this condition continued to exist until proof to the contrary was
December 11, adduced. Since the donation was valid. Mercedes has the right to sell the
property to whomever she chose. Not a shred of evidence has been
1953, People’s Bank and Trust Company filed Special Proceedings to presented to prove the claim that Mercedes’ sale of property to her
declare Feliciano incompetent. On December 22, 1953, the trial court children was tainted with fraud or falsehood. Thus, the property in
issued its Order of Adjudication of Incompetency for Appointing question belongs to Delia and Jesus Basa. The Supreme Court notes the
Guardian for the Estate and Fixing Allowance of Feliciano. Thus, Bank of issue of prescription and laches for the first time on appeal before the
the Philippine Islands (BPI), which is formerly the People’s Bank and court. It is sufficient for the Supreme Court to note that even if it
Trust Company, was appointed to be his guardian by the trial court. On prospered, the deed of donation was still a voidable, not a void, contract.
March 26, 1979, Mercedes sold the property donated by Feliciano to her As such, it remained binding as it was not annulled in a proper action in
in issue in her children Delia and Jesus Basa. On April 1, 1997, BPI, acting court within four years.
as Feliciano’s guardian filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of
Documents, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, as well as damages
against herein respondents. BPI alleged that the Deed of Absolute
Donation of Mercedes was void ab initio, as Feliciano never donated the
property to Mercedes. In addition, BPI averred that even if Feliciano had
truly intended to give the property to her, the donation would still be
void, as he was not of sound mind and was therefore incapable of giving
valid consent. On August 14, 1997, Feliciano passed away. Both the
lower court and Court of Appeals dismissed the case because of
insufficient evidence presented by the complainants to overcome the
presumption that Feliciano was sane and competent at the time he
executed the deed of donation in favor of Mercedes Catalan.

ISSUE: Whether or not Feliciano has the capacity to execute the donation

HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower court
and the Court of Appeals and denied the petition of the petitioners.
A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously
a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. Like any other
contract, an agreement of the parties is essential. Consent in contracts
DOMINGO vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS the subject parcels of land with a house and warehouse at a meager
FACTS: price of P850 only.
Paulina Rigonan owned three (3) parcels of land. She allegedly sold them In Rongavilla vs. CA, 294 SCRA 289 (1998), private respondents were in
to private respondents, the spouses Felipe and Concepcion Rigonan, who their advanced years, and were not in dire need of money, except for a
claim to be her relatives. In 1966, herein petitioners Eugenio Domingo, small amount of P2,000 which they said were loaned by petitioners for
Crispin Mangabat and Samuel Capalungan, who claim to be her closest the repair of their houses roof. We ruled against petitioners, and
surviving relatives, allegedly took possession of the properties by means declared that there was no valid sale because of lack of consideration.
of stealth, force and intimidation, and refused to vacate the In the present case, at the time of the execution of the alleged contract,
same. Consequently, on February 2, 1976, herein respondent Felipe Paulina Rigonan was already of advanced age and senile. She died an
Rigonan filed a complaint for reinvindicacion against petitioners in the octogenarian on March 20, 1966, barely over a year when the deed was
Regional Trial Court of Batac, Ilocos Norte. They alleged that they were allegedly executed on January 28, 1965, but before copies of the deed
the owners of the three parcels of land through the deed of sale executed were entered in the registry allegedly on May 16 and June 10, 1966. The
by Paulina Rigonan; that since then, they had been in continuous general rule is that a person is not incompetent to contract merely
possession of the subject properties and had introduced permanent because of advanced years or by reason of physical
improvements thereon; and that defendants (now petitioners) entered infirmities.[27]However, when such age or infirmities have impaired the
the properties illegally, and they refused to leave them when asked to do mental faculties so as to prevent the person from properly, intelligently,
so. and firmly protecting her property rights then she is undeniably
Herein petitioners, as defendants below, contested plaintiffs incapacitated. The unrebutted testimony of Zosima Domingo shows that
claims. According to defendants, the alleged deed of absolute sale was at the time of the alleged execution of the deed, Paulina was already
void for being spurious as well as lacking consideration. They said that incapacitated physically and mentally. She narrated that Paulina played
Paulina Rigonan did not sell her properties to anyone. As her nearest with her waste and urinated in bed. Given these circumstances, there is
surviving kin within the fifth degree of consanguinity, they inherited the in our view sufficient reason to seriously doubt that she consented to the
three lots and the permanent improvements thereon when Paulina died sale of and the price for her parcels of land. Moreover, there is no receipt
in 1966. They said they had been in possession of the contested to show that said price was paid to and received by her. Thus, we are in
properties for more than 10 years. Defendants asked for damages agreement with the trial courts finding and conclusion on the matter:
against plaintiffs. The whole evidence on record does not show clearly that the fictitious
The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the private respondents P850.00 consideration was ever delivered to the vendor. Undisputably,
by virtue of intestate succession and stating that the deed of absolute the P850.00 consideration for the nine (9) parcels of land including the
sale was fake and void. The CA reversed the decision. house and bodega is grossly and shockingly inadequate, and the sale is
null and void ab initio.
ISSUE:
Is the sale valid despite the lack of consideration?

HELD:
NO. The sale was null and void ab initio due to lack of consideration,
being grossly and shockingly inadequate. Consideration is the why of a
contract, the essential reason which moves the contracting parties to
enter into the contract. On record, there is unrebutted testimony that
Paulina as landowner was financially well off. She loaned money to
several people. We see no apparent and compelling reason for her to sell
G.R. No. 143370 February 6, 2002 Roberto J. Montalvan and Julio H. Ozamiz filed with the guardianship
MARIO J. MENDEZONA, et al. petitioners, court their "inventories and Accounts", listing therein Carmen Ozamiz’s
vs. properties, cash, shares of stock, vehicles and fixed assets, including a
JULIO H. OZAMIZ, et al., respondents. 10,396 square meter property known as the Lahug property. Said Lahug
property is the same property covered by the Deed of Absolute Sale
FACTS: The case is a suit for quieting of title. It was instituted on 1991 dated April 28, 1989 executed by Carmen Ozamiz in favor of the
by petitioner spouses Mario and Teresita Mendezona as initial plaintiffs petitioners. Respondents Roberto J. Montalvan and Julio H. Ozamiz
and spouses Luis, Maricar and Teresita Mendezona joined as co- caused the inscription on the titles of petitioners a notice of lis pendens,
plaintiffs. regarding Special Proceeding No. 1250, thus giving rise to the suit for
quieting of title.
In their complaint, the petitioners, alleged that the Mendezona spouses,
et al. own a parcel of land each in the Banilad Estate, Lahug, Cebu City Respondents opposed the petitioners’ claim of ownership of the Lahug
with almost similar areas, covered and described in TCTs of the Registry property and alleged that the titles issued in the petitioners names are
of Deeds of Cebu City. defective and illegal, and the ownership of the said property was
acquired in bad faith and without value inasmuch as the consideration
They ultimately traced their titles of ownership over their respective for the sale is grossly inadequate and unconscionable and at the time of
properties from a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 the sale Carmen Ozamiz was already ailing and not in full possession of
executed in their favor by Carmen Ozamiz for and in consideration of the her mental faculties; and that her properties having been placed in
sum (₱1,040,000.00) administration, she was in effect incapacitated to contract with
petitioners.
The petitioners initiated the suit to remove a cloud on their said
respective titles caused by the inscription thereon of a notice of lis Carmencita Cedeno and Martin Yungco, instrumental witnesses to the
pendens, which came about as a result of an incident in Special Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989, and, Atty. Asuncion
Proceeding No. 1250 of the RTC of Oroquieta City, a proceeding for Bernades, the notary public who notarized the said document, testified
guardianship over the person and properties of Carmen Ozamiz initiated that on the day of execution of the said contract that Carmen Ozamiz was
by the respondents Julio H. Ozamiz, et al. of sound mind and that she voluntarily and knowingly executed the said
deed of sale.
It appears that on January 1991, the respondents instituted the petition
for guardianship with the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, alleging For the defendants, the testimonies of respondent Paz O. Montalvan, a
that Carmen Ozamiz, then 86 years old, after an illness in July 1987, had sister of Carmen Ozamiz; Concepcion Agac-ac, an assistant of Carmen
become disoriented and could not recognize most of her friends; that she Ozamiz; respondent Julio Ozamiz; Carolina Lagura, a househelper of
could no longer take care of herself nor manage her properties by reason Carmen Ozamiz; Joselito Gunio, an appraiser of land; Nelfa Perdido, a
of her failing health, weak mind and absent-mindedness. Mario part-time bookkeeper of Carmen Ozamiz, and the deposition of Dr. Faith
Mendezona and Luis Mendezona, herein petitioners who are nephews of Go, physician of Carmen Ozamiz, were offered in evidence.
Carmen Ozamiz, and Pilar Mendezona, a sister of Carmen Ozamiz, filed
an opposition to the guardianship petition. The petitioners presented as rebuttal witnesses petitioners Mario
Paz O. Montalvan was designated as guardian over the person of Carmen Mendezona and Luis Mendezona, to rebut the testimony of respondent
Ozamiz while petitioner Mario J. Mendezona, respondents Roberto J. Julio H. Ozamiz; and, Dr. William Buot, a doctor of neurology to rebut
Montalvan and Julio H. Ozamiz were designated as joint guardians over aspects of the deposition of Dr. Faith Go on the mental capacity of
the properties of the said ward. Carmen Ozamiz at the time of the sale.
RTC: Neither can Judge Durias’ testimony in another case be considered as
1. The property described in the complaint was sold, with reservation of newly discovered evidence since the facts to be testified to by Judge
usufructuary rights by Carmen Ozamiz to the plaintiffs under a valid Durias which were existing before and during the trial, could have been
contract, voluntarily and deliberately entered into while she was of presented by the petitioners at the trial below.1The testimony of Judge
sound mind, for sufficient and good consideration, and without fraud, Durias has been in existence waiting only to be elicited from him by
force, undue influence or intimidation having been exercised upon her, questioning.
and consequently, the Court orders the defendants herein to It has been held that a lack of diligence is exhibited where the newly
acknowledge and recognize the plaintiffs’ title to the aforecited property discovered evidence was necessary or proper under the pleadings, and
and to refrain from further clouding the same its existence must have occurred to the party in the course of the
preparation of the case, but no effort was made to secure it; there is a
CA: reversed the factual findings of the trial court and ruled that the failure to make inquiry of persons who were likely to know the facts in
Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 was a simulated contract question, especially where information was not sought from co-parties;
since the petitioners failed to prove that the consideration was actually there is a failure to seek evidence available through public records; there
paid, and, furthermore, that at the time of the execution of the contract is a failure to discover evidence that is within the control of the
the mental faculties of Carmen Ozamiz were already seriously impaired. complaining party; there is a failure to follow leads contained in other
Thus, the appellate court declared that the Deed of Absolute Sale of April evidence; and, there is a failure to utilize available discovery procedures
28, 1989 is null and void. It ordered the cancellation of the certificates of Thus, the testimony of Judge Durias cannot be considered as newly
title issued in the petitioners’ names and directed the issuance of new discovered evidence to warrant a new trial.
certificates of title in favor of Carmen Ozamiz or her estate.
Petitioners alleged that Judge Durias’s testimony is a newly-discovered
evidence which could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the
court below by the exercise of due diligence.

Issue: whether to consider the testimony of Judge Durias as newly

discovered evidence.

Held: NO. A motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered
evidence is properly granted only where there is concurrence of the
following requisites, namely: (a) the evidence had been discovered after
trial; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced
during trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the
evidence is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative or
impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted, would probably alter
the result. All three (3) requisites must characterize the evidence sought
to be introduced at the new trial.
We find that the requirement of reasonable diligence has not been met
by the petitioners. As early as the pre-trial of the case at bar, the name of
Judge Durias has already cropped up as a possible witness for the
defendants, herein respondents. That the respondents chose not to
present him is not an indicia per se of suppression of evidence, since a
party in a civil case is free to choose who to present as his witness.