Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    MERCADO vs. TAN

    Uploaded by

    sabetha
    Vincent Mercado was married to Ma. Thelma Oliva in 1976 but married Ma. Consuelo Tan in 1991. Tan filed a complaint for bigamy against Mercado. Mercado then filed for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Oliva, which was granted in 1993 after the bigamy case was already filed. The Supreme Court affirmed Mercado's conviction for bigamy, as Article 40 of the Family Code requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before remarriage, not after. A judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a second marriage, even if the first marriage is void from the beginning.

    Copyright:

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

    MERCADO vs. TAN

    Uploaded by

    sabetha
    48 views1 page
    Vincent Mercado was married to Ma. Thelma Oliva in 1976 but married Ma. Consuelo Tan in 1991. Tan filed a complaint for bigamy against Mercado. Mercado then filed for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Oliva, which was granted in 1993 after the bigamy case was already filed. The Supreme Court affirmed Mercado's conviction for bigamy, as Article 40 of the Family Code requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before remarriage, not after. A judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a second marriage, even if the first marriage is void from the beginning.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Vincent Mercado was married to Ma. Thelma Oliva in 1976 but married Ma. Consuelo Tan in 1991. Tan filed a complaint for bigamy against Mercado. Mercado then filed for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Oliva, which was granted in 1993 after the bigamy case was already filed. The Supreme Court affirmed Mercado's conviction for bigamy, as Article 40 of the Family Code requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before remarriage, not after. A judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a second marriage, even if the first marriage is void from the beginning.

    Copyright:

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

    MERCADO vs. TAN

    Uploaded by

    sabetha
    Vincent Mercado was married to Ma. Thelma Oliva in 1976 but married Ma. Consuelo Tan in 1991. Tan filed a complaint for bigamy against Mercado. Mercado then filed for a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Oliva, which was granted in 1993 after the bigamy case was already filed. The Supreme Court affirmed Mercado's conviction for bigamy, as Article 40 of the Family Code requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before remarriage, not after. A judicial declaration of nullity is required before contracting a second marriage, even if the first marriage is void from the beginning.

    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

    MERCADO vs.

    TAN
    G.R. No. 137110. August 1, 2000

    FACTS:
    ● The accused, Vincent Mercado was in lawful wedlock with Ma. Thelma Oliva in a marriage
    ceremony solemnized on April 10, 1976. Despite the prior marriage he got married to
    complainant Ma. Consuelo Tan on June 27, 1991. On October 5, 1992, a letter-complaint for
    bigamy was filed by complainant through counsel with the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City,
    which eventually resulted [in] the institution of the present case before this Court against said
    accused, Dr. Vincent G. Mercado, on March 1, 1993 in an Information dated January 22, 1993.

    ● On November 13, 1992, or more than a month after the bigamy case was lodged in the
    Prosecutor’s Office, accused filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Ma.
    Thelma V. Oliva in RTC-Br. 22, Cebu City, and in a Decision dated May 6, 1993 the marriage
    between Vincent G. Mercado and Ma. Thelma V. Oliva was declared null and void. Despite this,
    the Trial Court charged Vincent with bigamy since his prior marriage was still subsisting at the
    time he had contracted his second marriage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial
    court. The petitioner then filed a case to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:
    Is the judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage necessary for remarriage?

    RULING:
    The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. Under Article 40 of the
    Family Code, ‘the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on
    the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.’ But here, the final judgment
    declaring null and void accused’s previous marriage came not before the celebration of the second
    marriage, but after, when the case for bigamy against accused was already tried in court. And what
    constitutes the crime of bigamy is the act of any person who shall contract a second subsequent
    marriage ‘before’ the former marriage has been legally dissolved.

    It is now settled that the fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a
    bigamy charge. As with a voidable marriage, there must be a judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage
    before contracting the second marriage.

    You might also like