Landicho vs. Relova

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-22579
February 23, 1968
ROLANDO LANDICHO, petitioner,

vs.
HON. LORENZO RELOVA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch I, and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Jose W. Diokno for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.
FERNANDO, J.:
In this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
lawfully married to Elvira Makatangay, which marriage has not been
injunction, the question before the Court is whether or not the existence
legally dissolved, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
of a civil suit for the annulment of marriage at the instance of the second
contract a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia." On March 15, 1963,
wife against petitioner, with the latter in turn filing a third party complaint
an action was filed before the Court of First Instance ofBatangas, likewise
against the first spouse for the annulment of the first marriage,
presided plaintiff respondent Judge Fe Lourdes Pasia, seeking to declare
constitutes a prejudicial question in a pending suit for bigamy against
her marriage to petitioner as null and void ab initio because of the alleged
him. Respondent, Judge Relova answered in the negative. We sustain
use of force, threats and intimidation allegedly employed by petitioner
him.
and because of its allegedly bigamous character. On June 15, 1963,

petitioner as defendant in said case, filed a third-party complaint, against
The pertinent facts as set forth in the petition follow. On February
the third-party defendant Elvira Makatangay, the first spouse, praying that
27, 1963, petitioner was charged before the Court of First Instance of
his marriage with the said third-party defendant be declared null and void,
Batangas, Branch I, presided over by respondent Judge, with the offense,
on the ground that by means of threats, force and intimidation, she
of bigamy. It was alleged in the information that petitioner "being then
compelled him to appear and contract marriage with her before the
Justice of the Peace of Makati, Rizal.
"parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves

its nullity, for this must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts
Thereafter, on October 7, 1963, petitioner moved to suspend the
and only when the nullity of a marriage is so declared can it be held as
hearing of the criminal case pending the decision on the question of the
void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that
validity of the two marriages involved in the pending civil suit.
the marriage exists. Therefore, according to Viada, he who contracts a
Respondent Judge on November 19, 1963 denied the motion for lack of
second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first
merit. Then came a motion for reconsideration to set aside the above
marriage incurs the penalty provided for in this Article. . . ."
order, which was likewise denied on March 2, 1964. Hence this petition,
filed on March 13, 1964.
This defense is in accordance with the principle implicit in

authoritative decisions of this Court. In Merced v. Diez, 3 what was in
In a resolution of this Court of March 17, 1964, respondent Judge
issue was the validity of the second marriage, "which must be determined
was required to answer within ten (10) days, with a preliminary injunction
before hand in the civil action before the criminal action can proceed."
being issued to restrain him from further proceeding with the prosecution
According to the opinion of Justice Labrador: "We have a situation where
of the bigamy case. In the meanwhile, before the answer was filed there
the issue of the validity of the second marriage can be determined or
was an amended petition for certiorari, the amendment consisting solely
must first be determined in the civil action before the criminal action for
in the inclusion of the People of the Philippines as another respondent.
bigamy can be prosecuted. The question of the validity of the second
This Court admitted such amended petition in a resolution of April 3,
marriage is, therefore, a prejudicial question because determination of
1964.
the validity of the second marriage is determinable in the civil action and
Then came the answer to the amended petition on May 14 of that
year where the statement of facts as above detailed was admitted, with
the qualifications that the bigamy charge was filed upon the complaint of
the first spouse Elvira Makatangay. It alleged as one of its special and
affirmative defenses that the mere fact that "there are actions to annul the
must precede the criminal action for bigamy." It was the conclusion of this
Court then that for petitioner Merced to be found guilty of bigamy, the
second marriage which he contracted "must first be declared valid." Its
validity having been questioned in the civil action, there must be a
decision in such a case "before the prosecution for bigamy can proceed."
marriages entered into by the accused in a bigamy case does not mean
To the same effect is the doctrine announced in Zapanta v.
that 'prejudicial questions are automatically raised in said civil actions as
Mendoza. 4 As explained in the opinion of Justice Dizon: "We have
to warrant the suspension of the criminal case for bigamy." 1 The answer
heretofore defined a prejudicial question as that which arises in a case,
stressed that even on the assumption that the first marriage was null and
the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
void on the ground alleged by petitioner, the fact would not be material to
therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. . . . The
the outcome of the criminal case. It continued, referring to Viada, that
prejudicial question we further said must be determinative of the
case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the same must be lodged in
marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only
another court. . . . These requisites are present in the case at bar. Should
competent courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of
the question for annulment of the second marriage pending in the Court
nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who
of First Instance of Pampanga prosper on the ground that, according to
contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted
the evidence, petitioner's consent thereto was obtained by means of
for bigamy.
duress, force and intimidation, it is obvious that his act was involuntary
and can not be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy with
Such was the situation of petitioner. There is no occasion to
which he was charged in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Thus the
indulge in the probability that the third-party complaint against the first
issue involved in the action for the annulment of the second marriage is
wife brought almost five months after the prosecution for bigamy was
determinative of petitioner's guilt or innocence of the crime of
started could have been inspired by the thought that he could thus give
bigamy. . . ."
color to a defense based on an alleged prejudicial question. The above

judicial decisions as well as the opinion of Viada preclude a finding that
The situation in this case is markedly different. At the time the

petitioner was indicted for bigamy on February 27, 1963, the fact that two
respondent Judge abused, much less gravely abused, his discretion in

failing to suspend the hearing as sought by petitioner.
marriage ceremonies had been contracted appeared to be indisputable.

Then on March 15, 1963, it was the second spouse, not petitioner who
filed an action for nullity on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. It
was sometime later, on June 15, 1963, to be precise, when petitioner, as
defendant in the civil action, 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. As was correctly
stressed in the answer of respondent Judge relying on Viada, parties to a
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is denied and the writ of

preliminary injunction issued dissolved. With costs.
1wph1.t
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P.,

Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Landicho vs. Relova

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landicho vs. Relova

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landicho vs. Relova

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

February 23, 1968

ROLANDO LANDICHO, petitioner,

lawfully married to Elvira Makatangay, which marriage has not been

contract a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia." On March 15, 1963,

presided plaintiff respondent Judge Fe Lourdes Pasia, seeking to declare

constitutes a prejudicial question in a pending suit for bigamy against

him. Respondent, Judge Relova answered in the negative. We sustain

use of force, threats and intimidation allegedly employed by petitioner

and because of its allegedly bigamous character. On June 15, 1963,

Batangas, Branch I, presided over by respondent Judge, with the offense,

on the ground that by means of threats, force and intimidation, she

of bigamy. It was alleged in the information that petitioner "being then

Justice of the Peace of Makati, Rizal.

"parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves

Thereafter, on October 7, 1963, petitioner moved to suspend the

and only when the nullity of a marriage is so declared can it be held as

void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that

validity of the two marriages involved in the pending civil suit.

the marriage exists. Therefore, according to Viada, he who contracts a

second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first

marriage incurs the penalty provided for in this Article. . . ."

This defense is in accordance with the principle implicit in

In a resolution of this Court of March 17, 1964, respondent Judge

According to the opinion of Justice Labrador: "We have a situation where

the issue of the validity of the second marriage can be determined or

was an amended petition for certiorari, the amendment consisting solely

in the inclusion of the People of the Philippines as another respondent.

bigamy can be prosecuted. The question of the validity of the second

This Court admitted such amended petition in a resolution of April 3,

marriage is, therefore, a prejudicial question because determination of

To the same effect is the doctrine announced in Zapanta v.

that 'prejudicial questions are automatically raised in said civil actions as

Mendoza. 4 As explained in the opinion of Justice Dizon: "We have

heretofore defined a prejudicial question as that which arises in a case,

the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved

therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. . . . The

the outcome of the criminal case. It continued, referring to Viada, that

prejudicial question we further said must be determinative of the

competent courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of

of First Instance of Pampanga prosper on the ground that, according to

contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted

the evidence, petitioner's consent thereto was obtained by means of

Such was the situation of petitioner. There is no occasion to

determinative of petitioner's guilt or innocence of the crime of

color to a defense based on an alleged prejudicial question. The above

The situation in this case is markedly different. At the time the

respondent Judge abused, much less gravely abused, his discretion in

marriage ceremonies had been contracted appeared to be indisputable.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is denied and the writ of

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P.,

You might also like