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
Mag-post ng isang Komento