Jona Bumatay, V. Lolita Bumatay, G.R. No. 191320 April 25, 2017 Caguioa

JONA BUMATAY, Petitioner, v. LOLITA BUMATAY, Respondents.
G.R. No. 191320 April 25, 2017 Caguioa, J.
Settled is the rule that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest" who, in turn, is one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Within this context, "interest" means
material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved.
FACTS:
In 1968, Lolita allegedly married a certain Amado Rosete (Amado), when she was 16 years old.
The marriage was solemnized before Judge Rosario, in Malasiqui, Pangasinan. Prior to the
declaration of nullity of her marriage with Amado in 2005, Lolita married Jona's foster father,
Jose Bumatay (Jose), in 2003.
Again, in 2003, while her husband Amado Rosete was still alive and her marriage with him was
valid and subsisting, Ms. Lolita Ferrer contracted another marriage with Jose M. Bumatay in
Malasiqui, Pangasinan. When Lolita Ferrer contracted her second marriage with Jose Bumatay,
she knows fully well that her first marriage with her first husband Mr. Amado Rosete, who is still
living up to today, has not been legally dissolved but existing.
In her Counter-Affidavit, Lolita claims that she learned from her children (with Amado) that
Amado had filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage. Subsequently, sometime
in 1990, she was informed by her children that Amado had died in Nueva Vizcaya.
Subsequently, an Information for Bigamy was filed Contrary to Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code.
RTC-Dagupan City issued a Decision declaring as null and void the marriage between Lolita and
Amado, the RTC-Dagupan City found that no marriage ceremony took place between Lolita and
Amado as it was Lolita's sister who had married Amado and that, in fact, the signature
appearing on the marriage certificate was not Lolita's signature but that of her sister's. Thus, to
the RTC-Dagupan City, there being no marriage ceremony that actually took place between
Amado and Lolita, their marriage was void from the very beginning.
She filed a Motion to Quash the Information. Her motion was hinged on the argument that the
first element of the crime of bigamy - that is, that the offender has been previously legally
married - is not present. In support, Lolita attached a copy of the RTC-Dagupan City Decision
declaring the marriage between her and Amado void ab initio on the ground that there was no
marriage ceremony between them and what transpired was a marriage by proxy.
RTC-San Carlos granted Lolita's Motion to Quash due to the significant resemblance of this case
to the Morigo case. Since the first marriage has been declared void ab initio, there is no first
marriage to begin with in determining the foremost element of bigamy. The RTC-San Carlos
concluded that there were "glaring material similarities" between Morigo and the case against
Lolita. The CA affirmed the RTC-San Carlos' Order. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the RTC-San Carlos' Order granting
Lolita's motion to quash the Information for the crime of Bigamy.
RULING:
NO. The petition is denied. Petitioner has no legal personality to assail the dismissal of the
criminal case. It is the People is the real party-in-interest and only the OSG can represent the
People in criminal proceedings before this Court.
Settled is the rule that "every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest" who, in turn, is one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit." Within this context, "interest" means
material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the case, as
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved. To be clear, real interest refers to a
present substantial interest, and not a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or
consequential interest. Here, the record is replete with indications that Jona's natural parents
are unknown and she was merely raised as the "foster daughter" of Jose Bumatay, without
having undergone the process of legal adoption.
Petition for the Issuance of Letters of Administration filed by Rodelio Bumatay (Jose Bumatay's
nephew), Jona was described as "claiming to be the adopted [child] of [Jose] but cannot
present legal proof to this effect". Finally, even in her own Reply (to the comment to the
petition for review), Jona merely denotes herself as "the only child of the late Jose Bumatay,"
without, however, presenting or even indicating any document or proof to support her claim of
personality or legal standing.

Jona Bumatay, V. Lolita Bumatay, G.R. No. 191320 April 25, 2017 Caguioa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jona Bumatay, V. Lolita Bumatay, G.R. No. 191320 April 25, 2017 Caguioa

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

Jona Bumatay, V. Lolita Bumatay, G.R. No. 191320 April 25, 2017 Caguioa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JONA BUMATAY, Petitioner, v. LOLITA BUMATAY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191320 April 25, 2017 Caguioa, J.

You might also like