Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 578 views

    Bumatay Vs Bumatay

    Uploaded by

    Felix Gabriel Balani
    Lolita was married to Amado in 1968 but declared the marriage null in 2005. In 2003, she married Jona's foster father Jose. Jona filed a bigamy complaint against Lolita in 2004. The trial court dismissed the complaint in 2006 and the appellate court affirmed this in 2009. The Supreme Court denied Jona's petition, finding she had no legal standing to challenge the case as she was only Jose's foster daughter and not his legally adopted child. The state has sole authority to prosecute criminal cases.

    Copyright:

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

    Bumatay Vs Bumatay

    Uploaded by

    Felix Gabriel Balani
    578 views1 page
    Lolita was married to Amado in 1968 but declared the marriage null in 2005. In 2003, she married Jona's foster father Jose. Jona filed a bigamy complaint against Lolita in 2004. The trial court dismissed the complaint in 2006 and the appellate court affirmed this in 2009. The Supreme Court denied Jona's petition, finding she had no legal standing to challenge the case as she was only Jose's foster daughter and not his legally adopted child. The state has sole authority to prosecute criminal cases.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Bumatay vs Bumatay

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lolita was married to Amado in 1968 but declared the marriage null in 2005. In 2003, she married Jona's foster father Jose. Jona filed a bigamy complaint against Lolita in 2004. The trial court dismissed the complaint in 2006 and the appellate court affirmed this in 2009. The Supreme Court denied Jona's petition, finding she had no legal standing to challenge the case as she was only Jose's foster daughter and not his legally adopted child. The state has sole authority to prosecute criminal cases.

    Copyright:

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

    Bumatay Vs Bumatay

    Uploaded by

    Felix Gabriel Balani
    Lolita was married to Amado in 1968 but declared the marriage null in 2005. In 2003, she married Jona's foster father Jose. Jona filed a bigamy complaint against Lolita in 2004. The trial court dismissed the complaint in 2006 and the appellate court affirmed this in 2009. The Supreme Court denied Jona's petition, finding she had no legal standing to challenge the case as she was only Jose's foster daughter and not his legally adopted child. The state has sole authority to prosecute criminal cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    G.R. No.

    191320, April 25, 2017


    JONA BUMATAY, Petitioner, v. LOLITA BUMATAY, Respondents.
    The Facts: Lolita allegedly married a certain Amado Rosete (Amado) on January 30,
    1968, when she was 16 years old.3 The marriage was solemnized before Judge Delfin
    D. Rosario, in Malasiqui, Pangasinan.4 Prior to the declaration of nullity of her marriage
    with Amado on September 20, 2005,5 Lolita married Jona's foster father,6 Jose Bumatay
    (Jose), on November 6, 2003.7
    On August 17, 2004, Jona filed a Complaint-affidavit for Bigamy against Lolita.In
    her Counter-Affidavit, Lolita claims that she learned from her children (with Amado) that
    Amado had filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage. 10 Subsequently,
    sometime in 1990, she was informed by her children that Amado had died in Nueva
    Vizcaya.11
    On September 20, 2005, the RTC-Dagupan City issued a Decision17 declaring as null
    and void ab initio the marriage between Lolita and Amado.Subsequently, in
    its Order27 dated March 20, 2006, the RTC-San Carlos granted Lolita's Motion to
    Quash and dismissed the complaint for bigamy. In its Decision dated August 28,
    2009,32 the CA affirmed the RTC-San Carlos' Order dated March 20, 2006 granting
    the Motion toQuash and dismissed Jona's appeal.
    The Issue: The sole issue brought before this Court is whether the CA committed any
    reversible error in upholding the RTC-San Carlos' Order granting Lolita's motion to
    quash the Information for the crime of Bigamy.
    Ruling: The petition is denied.
    Based on the records, it appears undisputed that Petitioner has no legal personality to
    assail the dismissal of the criminal case. Rule 110, Section 544 of the Revised Rules of
    Criminal Procedure, dictates that all criminal actions commenced by complaint or by
    information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In
    appeals of criminal cases before the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the
    State is vested solely in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
    Furthermore, the record is replete with indications59 that Jona's natural parents are
    unknown and she was merely raised as the "foster daughter" of Jose Bumatay, without
    having undergone the process of legal adoption.60 It likewise does not escape the
    Court's attention that in the Petition for the Issuance of Letters of Administration filed by
    Rodelio Bumatay (Jose Bumatay's nephew), Jona was described as "claiming to be the
    adopted [child] of [Jose] but cannot present legal proof to this effect". 61 Finally, even in
    her own Reply62 (to the comment to the petition for review), Jona merely denotes herself
    as "the only child of the late Jose Bumatay,"63 without, however, presenting or even
    indicating any document or proof to support her claim of personality or legal standing.

    You might also like