Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 130 views

    Choa Vs Beldia

    Uploaded by

    Koko KwikKwak
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by Leni Choa. The petition sought to annul orders related to a concubinage case against her husband Alfonso Choa. While the concubinage case was ongoing in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Alfonso filed an annulment case in Regional Trial Court based on psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court issued a restraining order suspending the concubinage case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the Regional Trial Court did not abuse its discretion given the existence of a prejudicial question regarding the annulment case that could determine the outcome of the concubinage case.

    Copyright:

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

    Choa Vs Beldia

    Uploaded by

    Koko KwikKwak
    130 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by Leni Choa. The petition sought to annul orders related to a concubinage case against her husband Alfonso Choa. While the concubinage case was ongoing in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Alfonso filed an annulment case in Regional Trial Court based on psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court issued a restraining order suspending the concubinage case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the Regional Trial Court did not abuse its discretion given the existence of a prejudicial question regarding the annulment case that could determine the outcome of the concubinage case.

    Original Description:

    void marraiges

    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 Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by Leni Choa. The petition sought to annul orders related to a concubinage case against her husband Alfonso Choa. While the concubinage case was ongoing in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Alfonso filed an annulment case in Regional Trial Court based on psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court issued a restraining order suspending the concubinage case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the Regional Trial Court did not abuse its discretion given the existence of a prejudicial question regarding the annulment case that could determine the outcome of the concubinage case.

    Copyright:

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

    Choa Vs Beldia

    Uploaded by

    Koko KwikKwak
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition filed by Leni Choa. The petition sought to annul orders related to a concubinage case against her husband Alfonso Choa. While the concubinage case was ongoing in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Alfonso filed an annulment case in Regional Trial Court based on psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court issued a restraining order suspending the concubinage case. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the Regional Trial Court did not abuse its discretion given the existence of a prejudicial question regarding the annulment case that could determine the outcome of the concubinage case.

    Copyright:

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

    [G.R. No. 120582.

    May 17, 1999]


    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,
    (Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
    Clerk of Court

    You might also like