Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Tenebro v. CA, G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004

    Uploaded by

    RR F
    Veronico Tenebro was married to Leticia Ancajas in 1990. In 1991, he told Ancajas he was previously married in 1986 to Hilda Villareyes and showed her a marriage contract. Tenebro then left Ancajas to live with Villareyes. In 1993, Tenebro married Nilda Villegas. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she confirmed with Villareyes that Tenebro was married to her. Ancajas then filed a complaint against Tenebro for bigamy. The issue was whether Tenebro was guilty of bigamy. The court held that an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first

    Copyright:

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

    Tenebro v. CA, G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004

    Uploaded by

    RR F
    35 views2 pages
    Veronico Tenebro was married to Leticia Ancajas in 1990. In 1991, he told Ancajas he was previously married in 1986 to Hilda Villareyes and showed her a marriage contract. Tenebro then left Ancajas to live with Villareyes. In 1993, Tenebro married Nilda Villegas. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she confirmed with Villareyes that Tenebro was married to her. Ancajas then filed a complaint against Tenebro for bigamy. The issue was whether Tenebro was guilty of bigamy. The court held that an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first

    Original Description:

    wedwf

    Original Title

    case57

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Veronico Tenebro was married to Leticia Ancajas in 1990. In 1991, he told Ancajas he was previously married in 1986 to Hilda Villareyes and showed her a marriage contract. Tenebro then left Ancajas to live with Villareyes. In 1993, Tenebro married Nilda Villegas. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she confirmed with Villareyes that Tenebro was married to her. Ancajas then filed a complaint against Tenebro for bigamy. The issue was whether Tenebro was guilty of bigamy. The court held that an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first

    Copyright:

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

    Tenebro v. CA, G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004

    Uploaded by

    RR F
    Veronico Tenebro was married to Leticia Ancajas in 1990. In 1991, he told Ancajas he was previously married in 1986 to Hilda Villareyes and showed her a marriage contract. Tenebro then left Ancajas to live with Villareyes. In 1993, Tenebro married Nilda Villegas. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she confirmed with Villareyes that Tenebro was married to her. Ancajas then filed a complaint against Tenebro for bigamy. The issue was whether Tenebro was guilty of bigamy. The court held that an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first

    Copyright:

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

    Tenebrov.CA,G.R.No.150758.

    February
    18,2004
    FACTS: Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with private complainant
    Leticia Ancajas on April 10, 1990. Tenebro and Ancajas lived together
    continuously and without interruption until the latter part of 1991, when
    Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to a certain
    Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986. Tenebro showed Ancajas a
    photocopy of a marriage contract between him and Villareyes. Invoking this
    previous marriage, petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he
    shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes.
    On January 25, 1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage, this one
    with a certain Nilda Villegas. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage,
    she verified from Villareyes whether the latter was indeed married to
    petitioner. In a handwritten letter, Villareyes confirmed that petitioner,
    Veronico Tenebro, was indeed her husband. Ancajas thereafter filed a
    complaint for bigamy against petitioner. Villegas countered that his
    marriage with Villareyes cannot be proven as a fact there being no record
    of such. He further argued that his second marriage, with Ancajas, has
    been declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity. Hence he
    cannot be charged for bigamy.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Tenebro is guilty of bigamy.
    HELD: Individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during
    the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy
    notwithstanding the declaration of the second marriage as void ab initio on
    the ground of psychological incapacity.
    SEPARATE OPINION
    VITUG, J.
    Would the absolute nullity of either first or second marriage prior to its
    judicial declaration as being void, constitute a valid defense in a criminal
    action for bigamy? Yes. Except for a void marriage on account of
    psychological incapacityvoid marriages are inexistent from the very
    beginning, and no judicial decree is required to establish their nullity. The
    complete nullity of a previously contracted marriage being void ab initio
    and legally inexistent can outrightly be a defense in an indictment for
    bigamy. Strong reservation on the ruling that bigamy is still committed

    though marriage is ab initio null and void (if marriage is contracted before
    th judicial declaration of its nullity). Canon law-reconcile grounds for nullity
    of marriage. Reasons why except those due to psychological incapacity:
    a) Breaches neither the essential nor the formal requisites of marriage
    b) Other grounds are capable of relatively easy demonstration,
    psychological incapacity however, being a mental state may not be so
    readily evident
    c) It remains valid and binding until declared judicially as void

    You might also like