Block Te V CA

TINIMBANG, KAREN BIANCA M.
TE v. CA
GR no. 126746 | Promulgated: 11/29/2000 | Ponente: Kapunan, J.
Petitioners: Arthur Te
Respondents: CA and Liliana Choa
TOPIC: Absencce of Impediment, Bigamy
Art. 35: Void Marriages
The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(4) Those Bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41.
FACTS:
1. Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married in civil rites on September 14, 1988 but did
not live together after the marriage although they met each other regularly.
2. Choa gave birth to a baby girl and Te stopped visiting her and while his marriage
with Choa was subsisting, Te contracted a second marriage with Julieta Santella.
3. When Choa learned about Te’s marriage to Santella, an information charging

petitioner with bigamy was filed with the RTC QC.
4. Te filed in the RTC QC an action for the annulment of his marriage to Choa on the
ground that he was forced to marry her.
- He alleged that private respondent concealed her pregnancy by another man at
the time of their marriage and that she was psychologically incapacitated to
perform her essential marital obligations.
5. Choa filed with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) an administrative

case against Te and Santella for the revocation of their respective engineering
licenses on the ground that they committed acts of immorality by living together and
subsequently marrying each other despite their knowledge that Te was married with
her.
6. Te filed with the Board of Civil Engineering of the PRC (PRC Board), where the
administrative case for the revocation of his engineering license was pending, a
motion to suspend the proceedings in view of the pendency of the civil case for
annulment of his marriage to Choa and criminal case for bigamy but the board denied
the motion.
7. CA ruled that the pendency of the civil case for annulment of marriage did not pose a
prejudicial question which would necessitate the suspension of the criminal case for
bigamy.
ISSUE (S): WoN Te had committed bigamy with his subsequent marriage to Santella.
HELD:
PETITION DENIED. 1st MARRIAGE WAS STILL SUBSISTING.
1. It is clear from the foregoing that the pendency of the civil case for annulment of
petitioner's marriage to respondent did not give rise to a prejudicial question which
warranted the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy since at
the time of the alleged commission of the crime, their marriage was, under the law,
still valid and subsisting.
2. In other words, the outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner's marriage to
respondent had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner's innocence or guilt in
the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy
to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second
marriage is contracted.
3. Petitioner's argument that the nullity of his marriage to respondent had to be resolved
first in the civil case before the criminal proceedings could continue, because a
declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would necessarily absolve him from
criminal liability, is untenable.
People vs. Mendoza and People vs. Aragon: [Cited by P]
No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a marriage which is void

ab initio has been overturned. The prevailing rule is found in Article 40 of the Family
Code, which was already in effect at the time of petitioner's marriage to private
respondent in September 1988.
Art. 40 [FC]:
States that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may not be invoked for
purposes of remarriage unless there is a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage void. Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall
be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
4. Landicho vs. Relova:

Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for
this must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity
of a marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such
declaration the presumption of marriage exists.
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only that said case
involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based
but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or
innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a

prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
The elements of the crime of bigamy are as follows:
(1) The offender has been legally married;
(2) The marriage has not been legally dissolved;

(3) The offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
(4) The second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

Block Te V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block Te V CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block Te V CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TINIMBANG, KAREN BIANCA M.

3. When Choa learned about Te’s marriage to Santella, an information charging

5. Choa filed with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) an administrative

People vs. Mendoza and People vs. Aragon: [Cited by P]

No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a marriage which is void

4. Landicho vs. Relova:

The rationale behind the principle of suspending a criminal case in view of a

The elements of the crime of bigamy are as follows:

(1) The offender has been legally married;

(2) The marriage has not been legally dissolved;

You might also like