Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 918 views

    Nollora Jr. vs. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 191425 September 7, 2011

    Uploaded by

    CeCe Em
    Nollora Jr. vs. People of the Philippines examines whether Nollora was guilty of bigamy. The court found that Nollora satisfied all the elements of bigamy by being legally married to Jesusa, not having that marriage legally dissolved before marrying Rowena, and not following the proper procedures for a Muslim man taking multiple wives under Muslim law. Specifically, Nollora did not notify the appropriate Sharia court of his intention to marry Rowena, as required. Therefore, the court held that Nollora was guilty of bigamy.

    Copyright:

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

    Nollora Jr. vs. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 191425 September 7, 2011

    Uploaded by

    CeCe Em
    918 views3 pages
    Nollora Jr. vs. People of the Philippines examines whether Nollora was guilty of bigamy. The court found that Nollora satisfied all the elements of bigamy by being legally married to Jesusa, not having that marriage legally dissolved before marrying Rowena, and not following the proper procedures for a Muslim man taking multiple wives under Muslim law. Specifically, Nollora did not notify the appropriate Sharia court of his intention to marry Rowena, as required. Therefore, the court held that Nollora was guilty of bigamy.

    Original Description:

    bigamy case

    Original Title

    Nollora Jr vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Nollora Jr. vs. People of the Philippines examines whether Nollora was guilty of bigamy. The court found that Nollora satisfied all the elements of bigamy by being legally married to Jesusa, not having that marriage legally dissolved before marrying Rowena, and not following the proper procedures for a Muslim man taking multiple wives under Muslim law. Specifically, Nollora did not notify the appropriate Sharia court of his intention to marry Rowena, as required. Therefore, the court held that Nollora was guilty of bigamy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    918 views3 pages

    Nollora Jr. vs. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 191425 September 7, 2011

    Uploaded by

    CeCe Em
    Nollora Jr. vs. People of the Philippines examines whether Nollora was guilty of bigamy. The court found that Nollora satisfied all the elements of bigamy by being legally married to Jesusa, not having that marriage legally dissolved before marrying Rowena, and not following the proper procedures for a Muslim man taking multiple wives under Muslim law. Specifically, Nollora did not notify the appropriate Sharia court of his intention to marry Rowena, as required. Therefore, the court held that Nollora was guilty of bigamy.

    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 3

    Nollora Jr. vs.

    People of the Philippines


    G.R. No. 191425

    September 7, 2011

    Facts: Nollora contracted a subsequent marriage with Rowena on December 8, 2001.


    Nollora was still married to Jesusa (private complainant), and their marriage was
    solemnized on April 6, 1999 at the IEMELIF Church in Bulacan.
    Nollora contented that on January 10, 1992, he converted to Islam, so that he is allowed
    to marry 4 wives under the Islam belief. Being that Jesusa was not Muslim, her consent
    is not needed if he decided to marry another wife.
    Issue: Is Nollora guilty of bigamy?
    Held: Yes, he is guilty of bigamy. The elements of bigamy are
    1. That the offender has been legally married.
    2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
    absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code.
    3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
    4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
    The circumstances in the present case satisfy all the elements of bigamy.
    (1) Nollora is legally married to Jesusa;
    (2) Nollora and Jesusas marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to the date of the
    second marriage;
    (3) Nollora admitted the existence of his second marriage to Rowena; and
    (4) Nollora and Rowenas marriage has all the essential requisites for validity except for
    the lack of capacity of Nollora due to his prior marriage.
    Both marriages were not contracted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal
    Laws, or PD 1083. Under Muslim laws, any Muslim husband desiring to contract
    subsequent marriages, before so doing, shall notify the Sharia Circuit Court of the place
    where his family resides. The clerk of court shall serve a copy thereof to the wife or

    wives. Should any of them objects, an Agama Arbitration Council shall be constituted. If
    said council fails to secure the wifes consent to the proposed marriage, the Court shall,
    subject to Article 27, decide whether or not to sustain her objection
    To quote the trial court: Accused Atilano Nollora, Jr., in marrying his second wife, coaccused Rowena P. Geraldino, did not comply with the above-mentioned provision of
    the law. In fact, he did not even declare that he was a Muslim convert in both
    marriages, indicating his criminal intent. In his converting to the Muslim faith, said
    accused entertained the mistaken belief that he can just marry anybody again after
    marrying the private complainant. What is clear, therefore, is [that] a Muslim is not

    given an unbridled right to just marry anybody the second, third or fourth time. There are
    requirements that the Sharia law imposes, that is, he should have notified the Sharia
    Court where his family resides so that copy of said notice should be furnished to the first
    wife. The argument that notice to the first wife is not required since she is not a Muslim
    is of no moment. This obligation to notify the said court rests upon accused Atilano
    Nollora, Jr. It is not for him to interpret the Sharia law. It is the Sharia Court that has this
    authority.
    Indeed, Article 13(2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws states that [i]n case of a
    marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with
    Muslim law or this Code, the [Family Code of the Philippines, or Executive
    Order No. 209, in lieu of the Civil Code of the Philippines] shall apply. Nolloras
    religious affiliation is not an issue here. Neither is the claim that Nolloras marriages
    were solemnized according to Muslim law. Thus, regardless of his professed religion,
    Nollora cannot claim exemption from liability for the crime of bigamy.
    Nollora asserted in his marriage certificate with Geraldino that his civil status is single.
    Moreover, both of Nolloras marriage contracts do not state that he is a Muslim. Although
    the truth or falsehood of the declaration of ones religion in the marriage certificate is not
    an essential requirement for marriage, such omissions are sufficient proofs of Nolloras
    liability for bigamy.

    You might also like