Mariategui vs CA

Mariategui vs. CAGR NO. 57062, January 24, 1992

FACTS:

Lupo Mariategui died without a will on June 26, 1953 and contracted 3 marriages during his lifetime.  He acquired the Muntinlupa Estate while he was still a bachelor.  He had 4 children with his first wife Eusebia Montellano, who died in 1904 namely Baldomera, Maria del Rosario, Urbano and Ireneo.  Baldomera had 7 children namely Antero, Rufina, Catalino, Maria, Gerardo, Virginia and Federico, all surnamed Espina.  Ireneo on the other hand had a son named Ruperto.  On the other hand, Lupo’s second wife is Flaviana Montellano where they had a daughter named Cresenciana.  Lupo got married for the third time in 1930 with Felipa Velasco and had 3 children namely Jacinto, Julian and Paulina.  Jacinto testified that his parents got married before a Justice of the Peace of Taguig Rizal. The spouses deported themselves as husband and wife, and were known in the community to be such.

Lupo’s descendants by his first and second marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated themselves Lot NO. 163 of the Muntinlupa Estate and was subjected to a voluntary registration proceedings and a decree ordering the registration of the lot was issued.  The siblings in the third marriage prayed for inclusion in the partition of the estate of their deceased father and annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition dated Dec. 1967.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Lupo with Felipa is valid in the absence of a marriage license.

HELD:

Although no marriage certificate was introduced to prove Lupo and Felipa’s marriage, no evidence was likewise offered to controvert these facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.

Under these circumstances, a marriage may be presumed to have taken place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume that a man and a woman, deporting themselves as husband and wife, have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or from bed and board is legitimate; and that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.

Hence, Felipa’s children are legitimate and therefore have successional rights.

 Mariategui vs CA

Mariategui vs. CAGR NO. 57062, January 24, 1992

FACTS:

Lupo Mariategui died without a will on June 26, 1953 and contracted 3 marriages during his lifetime.  He acquired the Muntinlupa Estate while he was still a bachelor.  He had 4 children with his first wife Eusebia Montellano, who died in 1904 namely Baldomera, Maria del Rosario, Urbano and Ireneo.  Baldomera had 7 children namely Antero, Rufina, Catalino, Maria, Gerardo, Virginia and Federico, all surnamed Espina.  Ireneo on the other hand had a son named Ruperto.  On the other hand, Lupo’s second wife is Flaviana Montellano where they had a daughter named Cresenciana.  Lupo got married for the third time in 1930 with Felipa Velasco and had 3 children namely Jacinto, Julian and Paulina.  Jacinto testified that his parents got married before a Justice of the Peace of Taguig Rizal. The spouses deported themselves as husband and wife, and were known in the community to be such.

Lupo’s descendants by his first and second marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated themselves Lot NO. 163 of the Muntinlupa Estate and was subjected to a voluntary registration proceedings and a decree ordering the registration of the lot was issued.  The siblings in the third marriage prayed for inclusion in the partition of the estate of their deceased father and annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition dated Dec. 1967.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Lupo with Felipa is valid in the absence of a marriage license.

HELD:

Although no marriage certificate was introduced to prove Lupo and Felipa’s marriage, no evidence was likewise offered to controvert these facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.

Under these circumstances, a marriage may be presumed to have taken place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume that a man and a woman, deporting themselves as husband and wife, have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or from bed and board is legitimate; and that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.

Hence, Felipa’s children are legitimate and therefore have successional rights.

   MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC., petitioner, vs. ELLEN JOHANNEHARPER, JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER HARPER, and RIGOBERTO GILLERA,respondents.[G.R. No. 189998. August 29, 2012.]N A T U R E :  Petitioner, Shangri-la Hotel, appeals the decision promulgated whereby the Court of  Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the judgment by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) inQuezon City holding petitioner liable for damages for the murder of their guest.F A C T S :  Christian Fredrik Harper - a Norwegian national; murder victimEllen Johanne Harper  –wife of Christian; widow; heir Jonathan Christopher Harper  –son of Christian; heir November 1999, Christian Harper came to Manila on a business trip as the BusinessDevelopment Manager for Asia of ALSTOM Power Norway AS, an engineering firm withworldwide operations. He checked in at the Shangri-La Hotel. He was due to check out onNovember 6, 1999. In the early morning of that date, however, he was murdered inside his hotelroom by still unidentified malefactors.Respondents commenced this suit in the RTC to recover various damages frompetitioner pertinently.RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. CA affirmed.C O N T E N T I O N :  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ARE THEHEIRS OF THE LATE CHRISTIAN HARPER, AS THERE IS NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE ONRECORD SUPPORTING SUCH RULING.I S S U E :  WON: THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES WERE ABLE TO PROVE WITH COMPETENTEVIDENCE THE AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THEY ARE THEWIDOW AND SON OF MR. CHRISTIAN HARPER.

A.C. No. 4431 June 19, 1997PRISCILLA CASTILLO VDA. DE MIJARES, complainant, vs.JUSTICE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ (Retired), respondent.

Facts;

Respondent a Justice of the Court of Appeals was charged with Bigamy by complainant and is being recommended for suspension from practice of law.

Priscilla Castillo vda de Mijares and Justice Onofre Villaluz married each other pending the court's decision on the former's marriage. However, their relationship was shortlived as right after the marriage, the complainant left their would-be-honeymoon place after some unbearable utterances made by the respondent. Several months after, the complainant learned that respondent a subsequently married a certain Lydia Geraldez, thus, the basis of this complaint.

Issue;

WON Ret. Justice Onofre A. Villaluz be suspended from his practice of law.

Ruling;

Citing Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court found the respondent engaging in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceiful conduct and recommends SUSPENSION with the specific WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed should he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter..

Garcia-Recio vs. Recio

TITLE: Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A. RecioCITATION: GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002 | 366 SCRA 437

FACTS:

Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987.  They lived as husband and wife in Australia.  However, an Australian family court issued purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989. 

On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia where it was solemnized at Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City.  Since October 22, 1995, the couple lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage.  As a matter of fact, while they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.

Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy on March 3, 1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997, Rederick’s marriage with Editha Samson.

ISSUE: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick Recio is admissible as evidence to prove his legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

HELD:

The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued was valid and recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized Australian.  However, there is absolutely no evidence that proves respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner though the former presented a divorce decree.  The said decree, being a foreign document was inadmissible to court as evidence primarily because it was not authenticated by the consul/ embassy of the country where it will be used.

Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either:

(1) an official publication or

(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:

(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and

(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City to receive or trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner and thus free him on the ground of bigamy.

   Te v. Choa (Te v. CA)G.R. 126746November 29, 2000Facts:1.Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married in civil rites on 1988 (Sept. 14).  They did not live together after marriage although they would meet eachother regularly.2.1989, Liliana gave birth to a girl. Thereafter, Arthur stopped visiting her.3.1990 (May 20) Arthur contracted a second marriage while marriage withLiliana was subsisting.4.Liliana filed bigamy case against Arthur and subsequently anadministrative case (revocation of engineering license for grossly immoralact) against Arthur and Julieta Santella (2ndwife of Arthur)5.Arthur petitioned for the nullity of his marriage with Liliana.6.RTC and Board rendered decision while the petition for annulment of firstmarriage was pending.Issue: Marriage annulment case had to be resolved first before criminal andadministrative case be rendered judgment?Held: NO.1.P. v. Mendoza and P. v. Aragon ruling (no judicial decree is necessary toestablish the invalidity of a marriage which is ab initio) was overturned.2.Family Code Art. 40 is the prevailing rule: the absolute nullity of a previousmarriage may not be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless there is afinal judgment declaring such previous marriage void.3.Under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable,shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicialproceeding.RD: Absence of Impediment.FC. Art. 5: any male or female of the age of 18yrs or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned under art. 37 & 38, may contract marriage.Case: Since it was deemed that the marriage of Arthur and Liliana was valid,bigamous marriage between Arthur and Julieta is void. (see. NCC Art. 80)

Nollora vs Republic Posted by kaye lee on 7:00 PM

G.R. No. 191425 September 7, 2011 [Article 349 Revised Penal Code - Bigamy; Article 35 - Marriage void ab initio]

FACTS:

While Jesusa Pinat Nollora was still in Saudi Arabia, she heard rumors that her husband of two years has another wife. She returned to the Philippines and learned that indeed, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., contracted second marriage with a certain Rowena Geraldino on December 8, 2001.

Jesusa filed an instant case against Atilano and Rowena for bigamy. When asked about the moral damages she suffered, she declared that money is not enough to assuage her sufferings. Instead, she just asked for return of her money in the amount of P 50,000.

Atilano admitted having contracted 2 marriages, however, he claimed that he was a Muslim convert way back to 1992. He presented Certificate of Conversion and Pledge of Conversion, proving that he allegedly converted as a Muslim in January 1992. And as a Muslim convert, he is allegedly entitled to marry wives as allowed under the Islam belief.

Accused Rowena alleged that she was a victim of bigamous marriage. She claimed that she does not know Jesusa and only came to know her when the case was filed. She insisted that she is the one lawfully married to Nollora because she believed him to be single and a Catholic, as he told her so prior to their marriage. After she learned of the first marriage of her husband, she learned that he is a Muslim convert. After learning that Nollora was a Muslim convert, she and he also got married in accordance with the Muslim rites.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the second marriage is bigamous.

RULING:

Yes, the marriage between the Nollora and Geraldino is bigamous under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and as such, the second marriage is considered null and void ab initio under Article 35 of the Family Code.

The elements of the crime of bigamy are all present in the case: that 1) Atilano is legally married to Jesusa; 2) that their marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to the date of the second marriage; 3)that Atilano admitted the existence of his second marriage to Rowena; and 4) the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity except for the lack of capacity of Atilano due to his prior marriage.

Before the trial and appellate courts, Atilano put up his Muslim religion as his sole defense. Granting arguendo that he is indeed of Muslim faith at the time of celebration of both marriages, he cannot deny that both marriage ceremonies were not conducted in accordance with Articles 14, 15, 17 up to 20 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws .

In Article 13 (2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws states that any marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim solemnized not in accordance with the Muslim law, hence the Family Code of the Philippines shall apply. Nollora's religious affiliation or his claim that his marriages were solemnized according to Muslim law. Thus, regardless of his professed religion, he cannot claim exemption from liability for the crime of bigamy.

His second marriage did not comply with the Article 27 of the Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines providing: "[N]o Muslim male can have more than one wife unless he can deal with them in equal companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic Law and only in exceptional cases." Only with the permission of the Shari'a Circuit Court can a Muslim be permitted to have a second, third or fourth wife. The clerk of court shall serve a copy to the wife or wives, and should any of them objects, an Agama Arbitration Council shall be constituted. If the said council fails to secure the wife's consent to the proposed marriage, the Court shall subject to Article 27, decide whether on not to sustain her objection (Art. 162, Muslim Personal Laws)

Atilano asserted in his marriage certificate with Rowena that his civil status is "single." Both of his marriage contracts do not state that he is a Muslim. Although the truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage is not an essential requirement for marriage, his omissions are sufficient proofs of his liability for bigamy. His false declaration about his civil status is thus further compounded by these omissions.

It is not for him to interpret the Shari'a law, and in apparent attempt to escape criminal liability, he recelebrated their marriage in accordance with the Muslim rites. However, this can no longer cure the criminal liability that has already been violated.