Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Montanez v. Cipriano

    Uploaded by

    Gigi Lucille
    1) Lourdes was married to Socrates in 1976. In 1983, while still married to Socrates, Lourdes married Silverio. 2) In 2001, Lourdes filed to annul her marriage to Socrates, which was granted in 2003. 3) In 2004, Silverio's daughter filed bigamy charges against Lourdes, claiming Lourdes did not reveal she was still married to Socrates when she married Silverio. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the RTC correctly quashed the bigamy charges, as the crime was already consummated in 1983 when Lourdes married Silverio while still married to Socrates, regardless of

    Copyright:

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

    Montanez v. Cipriano

    Uploaded by

    Gigi Lucille
    81 views2 pages
    1) Lourdes was married to Socrates in 1976. In 1983, while still married to Socrates, Lourdes married Silverio. 2) In 2001, Lourdes filed to annul her marriage to Socrates, which was granted in 2003. 3) In 2004, Silverio's daughter filed bigamy charges against Lourdes, claiming Lourdes did not reveal she was still married to Socrates when she married Silverio. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the RTC correctly quashed the bigamy charges, as the crime was already consummated in 1983 when Lourdes married Silverio while still married to Socrates, regardless of

    Original Description:

    17. Montanez v. Cipriano

    Original Title

    17. Montanez v. Cipriano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Lourdes was married to Socrates in 1976. In 1983, while still married to Socrates, Lourdes married Silverio. 2) In 2001, Lourdes filed to annul her marriage to Socrates, which was granted in 2003. 3) In 2004, Silverio's daughter filed bigamy charges against Lourdes, claiming Lourdes did not reveal she was still married to Socrates when she married Silverio. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the RTC correctly quashed the bigamy charges, as the crime was already consummated in 1983 when Lourdes married Silverio while still married to Socrates, regardless of

    Copyright:

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

    Montanez v. Cipriano

    Uploaded by

    Gigi Lucille
    1) Lourdes was married to Socrates in 1976. In 1983, while still married to Socrates, Lourdes married Silverio. 2) In 2001, Lourdes filed to annul her marriage to Socrates, which was granted in 2003. 3) In 2004, Silverio's daughter filed bigamy charges against Lourdes, claiming Lourdes did not reveal she was still married to Socrates when she married Silverio. 4) The Supreme Court ruled the RTC correctly quashed the bigamy charges, as the crime was already consummated in 1983 when Lourdes married Silverio while still married to Socrates, regardless of

    Copyright:

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

    [PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS] Module 2 (#17)

    Topic: Void Marriages (Art. 35-44, Family Code)


    Title: Montanez v. Cipriano G.R. No. 181089
    Ponente: Date October 22, 2012
    DOCTRIN
    E
    /RIGHTS
    APPLIED
    FACTS On April 8, 1976, Lourdes Cipriano (Lourdes) married Socrates Flores
    (Socrates). On January 24, 1983, during the subsistence of the said
    marriage, Lourdes married Silverio V. Cipriano (Silverio). In 2001,
    Lourdes filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa a Petition for the Annulment
    of her marriage with Socrates on the ground of the latter’s
    psychological incapacity. The RTC rendered its decision declaring the
    marriage of Lourdes with Socrates null and void. Said decision became
    final and executory on October 13, 2003.

    On May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Montañez, Silverio’s daughter


    from the first marriage, filed a complaint for bigamy against Lourdes
    alleging that Lourdes failed to reveal to Silverio that she was still
    married to Socrates.

    Lourdes moved to quash the information alleging that her first


    marriage to Socrates had already been declared void ab initio in 2003,
    thus, there was no more marriage to speak of prior to her marriage to
    Silverio on January 24, 1983. She also averred that she had contracted
    her second marriage before the effectivity of the Family Code; hence,
    the existing law at that time did not require a judicial declaration of
    absolute nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a subsequent
    marriage. Hence, the RTC granted the motion to quash.
    ISSUE/S Whether or not the RTC is correct in quashing the information for
    bigamy?
    RULING The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally
    married; (b) 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; (c) that he contracts a second or subsequent
    marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential
    requisites for validity. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the
    second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the prosecution
    for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential
    requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first
    marriage.

    In this case, it appears that when respondent contracted a second marriage


    with Silverio in 1983, her first marriage with Socrates celebrated in 1976
    [PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS] Module 1 (#36)

    was still subsisting as the same had not yet been annulled or declared void
    by a competent authority. Clearly, the annulment of respondent's first
    marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity was declared only in
    2003.

    In Mercado v. Tan, we ruled that the subsequent judicial declaration of the


    nullity of the first marriage was immaterial, because prior to the
    declaration of nullity, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated.

    As far back as 1995, in Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr., the Court already made the
    declaration that Article 40, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied
    retroactively because Article 256 of the Family Code itself provides that
    said "Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or
    impair vested or acquired rights." The Court went on to explain, thus: “The
    fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may
    not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The
    retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a
    person who may feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is that as a
    general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural
    laws.” GRANTED.

    You might also like