SAMPLE CASES RELATED TO ARTICLE 36


Zapanta v. Montesa,
G.R. No. L-14534, February 28, 1962

Facts: On May 20, 1958, Olimpia Y. Co filed a Bigamy case against Merardo L. Zapanta alleging that the latter having previously married to Estrella Guarin, and without having the said marriage dissolved contracted a second marriage with the complainant. On June 16, 1958, Zapanta filed a case against Yco for the annulment of their marriage on the ground of duress, force and intimidation. Yco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it stated no cause of action but was denied after a few days. On September 2, 1958, Zapanta filed a motion to suspend proceedings on the ground that the civil case was a prejudicial question. Respondent judge denied the motion as well as petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, and ordered his arraignment. After entering a plea of not guilty, petitioner filed the present action.

Issues: The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in another court.
Should the question for annulment of the second marriage prosper on the ground that Zapanta’s consent thereto was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation?

Held: Zapanta’s act was involuntary and can not be the basis of his conviction for bigamy. Thus, the issue involved in the action for the annulment of the second marriage is determinative of petitioner’s guilt or innocence of the crime of bigamy. The civil action for annulment must first be decided before the action for bigamy can proceed. Wherefore, the writ prayed for in the petition was hereby granted. Without any costs. 



Prepared by:
              IRISH V. DE RAMA.Ed. D.


Reference: Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano, et . al. FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2017 EDITION.Central bookstore supply INC.



Mga Komento

Mga sikat na post sa blog na ito

Gelano vs. Court of Appeals [GR L-39050, 24 February 1981Case digest article 88

marriage and cases