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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    G R - No - L-15315

    Uploaded by

    Ryw
    Abundio Merced filed a complaint to annul his second marriage to Elizabeth Ceasar, alleging that he was forced into the marriage against his will. Elizabeth denied this and filed a criminal complaint against Abundio for bigamy. Abundio filed a motion to suspend the criminal case until the civil annulment case was resolved. The court initially granted the motion but later denied it. The issue is whether the annulment case is a prejudicial question that needs to be resolved before the criminal bigamy case. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, the validity of the second marriage, which is the subject of the annulment case, must be determined first before prosecuting the bigamy case, as one of

    Copyright:

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

    G R - No - L-15315

    Uploaded by

    Ryw
    89 views1 page
    Abundio Merced filed a complaint to annul his second marriage to Elizabeth Ceasar, alleging that he was forced into the marriage against his will. Elizabeth denied this and filed a criminal complaint against Abundio for bigamy. Abundio filed a motion to suspend the criminal case until the civil annulment case was resolved. The court initially granted the motion but later denied it. The issue is whether the annulment case is a prejudicial question that needs to be resolved before the criminal bigamy case. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, the validity of the second marriage, which is the subject of the annulment case, must be determined first before prosecuting the bigamy case, as one of

    Original Description:

    G.R. No. L-15315

    Original Title

    G.R.-No.-L-15315.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Abundio Merced filed a complaint to annul his second marriage to Elizabeth Ceasar, alleging that he was forced into the marriage against his will. Elizabeth denied this and filed a criminal complaint against Abundio for bigamy. Abundio filed a motion to suspend the criminal case until the civil annulment case was resolved. The court initially granted the motion but later denied it. The issue is whether the annulment case is a prejudicial question that needs to be resolved before the criminal bigamy case. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, the validity of the second marriage, which is the subject of the annulment case, must be determined first before prosecuting the bigamy case, as one of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    89 views1 page

    G R - No - L-15315

    Uploaded by

    Ryw
    Abundio Merced filed a complaint to annul his second marriage to Elizabeth Ceasar, alleging that he was forced into the marriage against his will. Elizabeth denied this and filed a criminal complaint against Abundio for bigamy. Abundio filed a motion to suspend the criminal case until the civil annulment case was resolved. The court initially granted the motion but later denied it. The issue is whether the annulment case is a prejudicial question that needs to be resolved before the criminal bigamy case. The Supreme Court ruled that yes, the validity of the second marriage, which is the subject of the annulment case, must be determined first before prosecuting the bigamy case, as one of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    L-15315
    ABUNDIO MERCEDvs. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ETC. ET AL.,

    FACTS:

    On January 30, 1958, Abundio Merced filed a complaint for annulment of his second marriage with Elizabeth Ceasar.
    The complaint alleges that defendant Elizabeth Ceasar and her relatives forced, threatened and intimated him into
    signing an affidavit to the effect that he and defendant had been living together as husband and wife for over five
    years, which is not true; that this affidavit was used by defendant in securing their marriage of exceptional character,
    without the need for marriage license; that he was again forced, threatened and intimated by defendant and her
    relatives into entering the marriage with her.
    That immediately after the celebration of the marriage plaintiff left defendant and never lived with her; that the
    defendant wrote him on October 29, 1957, admitting that he was forced into the marriage and asking him to go to
    Cebu to have the marriage annulled, but he refused to go for fear he may be forced into living with the defendant.
    Merced prays for annulment of the marriage and for moral damages in the amount of P2,000. Elizabeth Ceasar filed
    her answer to the complaint. In her answer, she denies the material allegations of the complaint and avers as
    affirmative defenses that neither she nor her relatives know of plaintiff's previous marriage to Eufrocina Tan.
    That sometime in July, 1957, plaintiff asked her mother to intercede on their behalf to secure her father's consent to
    their marriage as plaintiff could not concentrate on his studies without marrying Elizabeth, but that her mother advised
    him to finish his studies first; defendant learned that plaintiff was engaged to marry Eufrocina Tan, but plaintiff, upon
    being confronted with such discovery, showed her a letter which he wrote breaking off his engagement with Tan.
    As a counterclaim defendant asks P50,000 as moral damages for the deceit, fraud and insidious machinations
    committed upon her by plaintiff. Defendant Elizabeth Ceasar filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against plaintiff
    Abundio Merced with the office of the City Fiscal of Cebu. Assistant City Fiscal filed Criminal, charging Merced with
    bigamy for the second marriage.
    Abundio Merced filed a motion to hold to trial of said criminal case in abeyance until final termination of Civil Case.
    Reason alleged for the motion is that the Civil Action involves facts which if proved will determine the innocence of
    the accused. After an opposition thereto was filed by the assistant provincial fiscal, the court granted the motion.
    However, upon motion for reconsideration filed by the fiscal, the order was set aside and another entered denying the
    motion of accused for suspension of the criminal proceedings, which last order is the one sough herein to be annulled.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not an action to annul the second marriage is a prejudicial question in a prosecution for bigamy.
    RULING:

    Yes. In order that a person may be held guilty of the crime of bigamy, the second and subsequent marriage must have
    all the essential elements of a valid marriage, were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. One of the essential
    elements of a valid marriage is that the consent thereto of the contracting parties must be freely and voluntarily given.
    Without the element of consent a marriage would be illegal and void. But the question of invalidity cannot ordinarily
    be decided in the criminal action for bigamy but in a civil action for annulment. Since the validity of the second
    marriage, subject of the action for bigamy, cannot be determined in the criminal case and since prosecution for bigamy
    does not lie unless the elements of the second marriage appear to exist, it is necessary that a decision in a civil action
    to the effect that the second marriage contains all the essentials of a marriage must first be secured.
    The issue of the validity of the second marriage, which must be determined beforehand in the civil action, before the
    criminal action can proceed. We have a situation where the issue of the validity of the second marriage can be
    determined or must be determined in the civil action before the criminal action for bigamy can be prosecuted. The
    question of the validity of the second marriage is, therefore, a prejudicial question, because determination of the
    validity of the second marriage is determinable in the civil action and must precede the criminal action for bigamy.

    You might also like