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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 124 views

    People vs. Bitdu

    Uploaded by

    Lucila Mangrobang
    Mora Bitdu was charged with bigamy for marrying a second husband before being validly divorced from her first under Philippine law. While she claimed to have been divorced under Mohammedan customs before a local leader, the Court found this was not a valid divorce as only the courts can grant divorces according to Act No. 2710, and it did not meet the legal grounds. The Court rejected her argument that she believed in good faith the divorce was valid, noting ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It held the decision on whether to recognize customary Mohammedan divorces on policy grounds of addressing widespread polygamy was for the legislature and governor-general.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Bitdu

    Uploaded by

    Lucila Mangrobang
    124 views1 page
    Mora Bitdu was charged with bigamy for marrying a second husband before being validly divorced from her first under Philippine law. While she claimed to have been divorced under Mohammedan customs before a local leader, the Court found this was not a valid divorce as only the courts can grant divorces according to Act No. 2710, and it did not meet the legal grounds. The Court rejected her argument that she believed in good faith the divorce was valid, noting ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It held the decision on whether to recognize customary Mohammedan divorces on policy grounds of addressing widespread polygamy was for the legislature and governor-general.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mora Bitdu was charged with bigamy for marrying a second husband before being validly divorced from her first under Philippine law. While she claimed to have been divorced under Mohammedan customs before a local leader, the Court found this was not a valid divorce as only the courts can grant divorces according to Act No. 2710, and it did not meet the legal grounds. The Court rejected her argument that she believed in good faith the divorce was valid, noting ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It held the decision on whether to recognize customary Mohammedan divorces on policy grounds of addressing widespread polygamy was for the legislature and governor-general.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Bitdu

    Uploaded by

    Lucila Mangrobang
    Mora Bitdu was charged with bigamy for marrying a second husband before being validly divorced from her first under Philippine law. While she claimed to have been divorced under Mohammedan customs before a local leader, the Court found this was not a valid divorce as only the courts can grant divorces according to Act No. 2710, and it did not meet the legal grounds. The Court rejected her argument that she believed in good faith the divorce was valid, noting ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It held the decision on whether to recognize customary Mohammedan divorces on policy grounds of addressing widespread polygamy was for the legislature and governor-general.

    Copyright:

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

    People v.

    Bitdu
    G.R. No. 38230. November 21, 1933
    Vickers, J:

    Facts:

    Mora Bitdu was married to Moro Halid before an Imam in Lamitan of this Province of
    Zamboanga in accordance with Mohammedan rites and was also married to Moro Hajirol before
    a Hadji in accordance with Mohammedan customs. Mora Bitdu contends that her second
    marriage took place after she had been divorced from her first husband, Halid, in accordance with
    Mohammedan customs, said divorce having taken place before Datu Gavino Cuevas, of Isabela
    de Basilan. Mora Bitdu was charged with bigamy. Mora Bitdu’s cousel contends that if it be true
    that said divorce is not in accordance with Act No. 2710 of the Philippine Legislature, Mora Bitdu
    is nevertheless not guilty of bigamy, because she believed that she had been validly divorced and
    had no criminal intent when she contracted the second marriage.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the divorce in this case was granted in accordance with the Mohammedan
    religious practices.

    Ruling:

    The Court noted that a valid divorce can granted only by the courts and for the reasons
    specified in Act No. 2710. It is not claimed that Mora Bitdu was divorced from her first husband in
    accordance with said Act.Under Article 2710, there are only 2 grounds for divorce: adultery on
    the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband. Section 25 of the Marriage Law
    (Act No. 3613) provides that marriages between Mohammedans may be performed in accordance
    with the rites or practices of their religion, but there is no provision of law which authorizes the
    granting of divorces in accordance with the rites or practices of their religion. With respect to the
    contention that the Mora Bitdu acted in good faith in contracting the second marriage, believing
    that she had been validly divorced from her first husband, it is sufficient to say that every one is
    presumed to know the law, and the fact that one does not know that his act constitutes a violation
    of the law does not exempt him from the consequences. As to the suggestion of the Solicitor-
    General that divorces among the Moros according to their religious practices should be
    recognized as valid as a matter of public policy, because in the contrary case "there would be no
    end of criminal prosecutions, for polygamy still abounds among them, and the remarriages of
    people divorced under the Koran are the order of the day," that is a matter for the consideration
    of the Legislature and the Governor-General.

    You might also like