Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 180 views

    Landicho v. Relova 22 SCRA 731

    Uploaded by

    Wren
    Rolando Landicho was charged with bigamy for entering into a second marriage while still legally married to his first wife, Elvira Makatangay. Fe Lourdes Pasia, Rolando's second wife, filed for annulment of their marriage citing force and intimidation. Rolando then filed a complaint against Elvira seeking to annul their first marriage also on grounds of force. Rolando argued the annulment cases were prejudicial questions that should suspend the criminal bigamy case. The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of annulment cases did not automatically raise prejudicial questions. For an annulment to be prejudicial, Rolando would need to show his first marriage consent was

    Copyright:

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

    Landicho v. Relova 22 SCRA 731

    Uploaded by

    Wren
    180 views2 pages
    Rolando Landicho was charged with bigamy for entering into a second marriage while still legally married to his first wife, Elvira Makatangay. Fe Lourdes Pasia, Rolando's second wife, filed for annulment of their marriage citing force and intimidation. Rolando then filed a complaint against Elvira seeking to annul their first marriage also on grounds of force. Rolando argued the annulment cases were prejudicial questions that should suspend the criminal bigamy case. The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of annulment cases did not automatically raise prejudicial questions. For an annulment to be prejudicial, Rolando would need to show his first marriage consent was

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rolando Landicho was charged with bigamy for entering into a second marriage while still legally married to his first wife, Elvira Makatangay. Fe Lourdes Pasia, Rolando's second wife, filed for annulment of their marriage citing force and intimidation. Rolando then filed a complaint against Elvira seeking to annul their first marriage also on grounds of force. Rolando argued the annulment cases were prejudicial questions that should suspend the criminal bigamy case. The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of annulment cases did not automatically raise prejudicial questions. For an annulment to be prejudicial, Rolando would need to show his first marriage consent was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    180 views2 pages

    Landicho v. Relova 22 SCRA 731

    Uploaded by

    Wren
    Rolando Landicho was charged with bigamy for entering into a second marriage while still legally married to his first wife, Elvira Makatangay. Fe Lourdes Pasia, Rolando's second wife, filed for annulment of their marriage citing force and intimidation. Rolando then filed a complaint against Elvira seeking to annul their first marriage also on grounds of force. Rolando argued the annulment cases were prejudicial questions that should suspend the criminal bigamy case. The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of annulment cases did not automatically raise prejudicial questions. For an annulment to be prejudicial, Rolando would need to show his first marriage consent was

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    2. Landicho v.

    Relova 22 SCRA 731

    FACTS: On February 27, 1963, Rolando Landicho was charged before the CFI of Batangaswith bigamy. It
    was alleged that Rolando being lawfully married to Elvira Makatangay, which marriage has not been
    legally dissolved, did contract a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia.

    On March 15, 1963, an action was filed before the CFI of Batangas by Judge Fe Lourdes Pasia, seeking to
    declare her marriage to Rolando as null and void ab initio because of the alleged use of force, threats
    and intimidation allegedly employed by Rolando and because of its allegedly bigamous character.

    Rolando filed a third-party complaint on June 15, 1963, against the 1 st spouse, Elvira Makatangay,
    praying that his marriage be declared null and void, on the ground that by means of threats, force and
    intimidation, she compelled him to appear and contract marriage with her before the Justice of the
    Peace of Makati, Rizal.

    Rolando moved to suspend the hearing of the criminal case pending the decision on the question of the
    validity of the two marriages involved in the pending civil suit. Motion was denied for lack of merit.
    Rolande then filed a motion for reconsideration but was likewise denied.

    Hence this petition.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the existence of a civil suit for the annulment of marriage constitutes a prejudicial
    question in a pending suit for bigamy

    HELD: No. The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages entered by the Rolando in a
    bigamy case does not mean that "prejudicial questions" are automatically raised in civil actions as to
    warrant the suspension of the criminal case. In order that the case of annulment of marriage be
    considered a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused, it must be shown that the
    petitioner's consent to such marriage must be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and
    intimidation to show that his action the second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of
    his conviction for the crime of bigamy.

    The situation in the present case is markedly different. At the time the petitioner was indicted for
    bigamy on Feb. 27, 1963, the fact that two marriage ceremonies had been contracted appeared to be
    indisputable. And it was the second spouse, not the petitioner who filed the action for nullity on the
    ground of force, threats and intimidation. And it was only on June 15, 1963, that Rolando, filed a third-
    party complaint against the first spouse alleging that his marriage with her should be declared null and
    void on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. Assuming that the first marriage was null and void
    on the ground alleged by Rolando, that fact would not be material to the outcome of the criminal case.
    Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be
    submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so
    declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the
    marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity
    of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

    The petition for certiorari is denied and the writ of preliminary injunction issued dissolved.

    You might also like