Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO v. CONSUELO TAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 183805 2013-07-03	JAMES WALTER P. CAPILI v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The elements of the crime of bigamy, therefore, are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) 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; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.[9]
	GR No. 188775 2011-08-24	CENON R. TEVES v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
Petitioner further contends that the ruling of the Court in Mercado v. Tan[15] is inapplicable in his case because in the Mercado case the prosecution for bigamy was initiated before the declaration of nullity of marriage was filed. In petitioner's case, the first marriage had already been legally dissolved at the time the bigamy case was filed in court.
	GR No. 183824 2010-12-08	MYRNA P. ANTONE v. LEO R. BERONILLA PEREZ, J.
The prosecution, through herein petitioner, moved for reconsideration of the said Order[18] on the ground, among others, that the facts and the attending circumstances in Morigo are not on all fours with the case at bar. It likewise pointed out that, in Mercado v. Tan,[19] this Court has already settled that "(a) declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense."[20]
	GR NO. 165842 2005-11-29	EDUARDO P. MANUEL v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
On June 18, 2004, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC with modification as to the penalty of the accused. It ruled that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of bigamy. Contrary to the contention of the appellant, Article 41 of the Family Code should apply. Before Manuel could lawfully marry the private complainant, there should have been a judicial declaration of Gaña's presumptive death as the absent spouse. The appellate court cited the rulings of this Court in Mercado v. Tan[15] and Domingo v. Court of Appeals[16] to support its ruling. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
	GR No. 159218 2004-03-30	SALVADOR S. ABUNADO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover, petitioner's assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We cannot allow that.[17]
	GR No. 145226 2004-02-06	LUCIO MORIGO Y CACHO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
The present case is analogous to, but must be distinguished from Mercado v. Tan.[25] In the latter case, the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was likewise obtained after the second marriage was already celebrated. We held therein that:A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statutes as "void."[26] It bears stressing though that in Mercado, the first marriage was actually solemnized not just once, but twice: first before a judge where a marriage certificate was duly issued and then again six months later before a priest in religious rites. Ostensibly, at least, the first marriage appeared to have transpired, although later declared void ab initio.
	GR No. 126746 2000-11-29	ARTHUR TE v. CA KAPUNAN, J.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner's marriage to private respondent had no bearing upon the determination of petitioner's innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.[23] Petitioner's argument that the nullity of his marriage to private respondent had to be resolved first in the civil case before the criminal proceedings could continue, because a declaration that their marriage was void ab initio would necessarily absolve him from criminal liability, is untenable. The ruling in People vs. Mendoza[24] and People vs. Aragon[25] cited by petitioner that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a marriage which is void ab initio has been overturned. The prevailing rule is found in Article 40 of the Family Code, which was already in effect at the time of petitioner's marriage to private respondent in September 1988. Said article states that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may not be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless there is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.[26] In Landicho vs. Relova,[27] we held that:Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for this must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts 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 of marriage exists.[28] It is clear from the foregoing that the pendency of the civil case for annulment of petitioner's marriage to private respondent did not give rise to a prejudicial question which warranted the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy since at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, their marriage was, under the law, still valid and subsisting.
	GR No. 127406 2000-11-27	OFELIA P. TY v. VS.CA QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, we must note that private respondent's first and second marriages contracted in 1977 and 1979, respectively, are governed by the provisions of the Civil Code. The present case differs significantly from the recent cases of Bobis v. Bobis[7] and Mercado v. Tan,[8] both involving a criminal case for bigamy where the bigamous marriage was contracted during the effectivity of the Family Code,[9] under which a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is clearly required.