Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 138509 July 31, 2000
IMELDA MARBELLABOBIS, petitioner,
vs.
ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent.
!NARESSANTIAGO, J."
On October 21, 1!", respondent contr#cted # first $#rri#%e &ith one '#ri# Dulce (.
)#vier. *ithout s#id $#rri#%e h#vin% been #nnulled, nullified or ter$in#ted, the s#$e
respondent contr#cted # second $#rri#%e &ith petitioner I$eld# '#rbell#+(obis on
)#nu#r, 2", 1- #nd #lle%edl, # third $#rri#%e &ith # cert#in )uli# S#ll, .ern#nde/.
(#sed on petitioner0s co$pl#int+#ffid#vit, #n infor$#tion for bi%#$, &#s filed #%#inst
respondent on Febru#r, 2", 1!, &hich &#s doc1eted #s 2ri$in#l 2#se No. 3!+
4"-11 of the Re%ion#l Tri#l 2ourt, (r#nch 22-, 3ue/on 2it,. So$eti$e there#fter,
respondent initi#ted # civil #ction for the 5udici#l decl#r#tion of #bsolute nullit, of his
first $#rri#%e on the %round th#t it &#s celebr#ted &ithout # $#rri#%e license.
Respondent then filed # $otion to suspend the proceedin%s in the cri$in#l c#se for
bi%#$, invo1in% the pendin% civil c#se for nullit, of the first $#rri#%e #s # pre5udici#l
6uestion to the cri$in#l c#se. The tri#l 5ud%e %r#nted the $otion to suspend the
cri$in#l c#se in #n Order d#ted Dece$ber 2, 1!.
1
Petitioner filed # $otion for
reconsider#tion, but the s#$e &#s denied.
.ence, this petition for revie& on certiorari. Petitioner #r%ues th#t respondent should
h#ve first obt#ined # 5udici#l decl#r#tion of nullit, of his first $#rri#%e before enterin%
into the second $#rri#%e, in#s$uch #s the #lle%ed pre5udici#l 6uestion 5ustif,in%
suspension of the bi%#$, c#se is no lon%er # le%#l truis$ pursu#nt to 7rticle 89 of
the F#$il, 2ode.
2

The issue to be resolved in this petition is &hether the subse6uent filin% of # civil
#ction for decl#r#tion of nullit, of # previous $#rri#%e constitutes # pre5udici#l
6uestion to # cri$in#l c#se for bi%#$,.
7 pre5udici#l 6uestion is one &hich #rises in # c#se the resolution of &hich is # lo%ic#l
#ntecedent of the issue involved therein.
:
It is # 6uestion b#sed on # f#ct distinct #nd
sep#r#te fro$ the cri$e but so inti$#tel, connected &ith it th#t it deter$ines the %uilt
or innocence of the #ccused.
8
It $ust #ppe#r not onl, th#t the civil c#se involves
f#cts upon &hich the cri$in#l #ction is b#sed, but #lso th#t the resolution of the
issues r#ised in the civil #ction &ould necess#ril, be deter$in#tive of the cri$in#l
c#se.
"
2onse6uentl,, the defense $ust involve #n issue si$il#r or inti$#tel, rel#ted
to the s#$e issue r#ised in the cri$in#l #ction #nd its resolution deter$in#tive of
&hether or not the l#tter #ction $#, proceed.
-
Its t&o essenti#l ele$ents #re;
4
<#= the civil #ction involves #n issue si$il#r or inti$#tel, rel#ted to the issue
r#ised in the cri$in#l #ction> #nd
<b= the resolution of such issue deter$ines &hether or not the cri$in#l
#ction $#, proceed.
7 pre5udici#l 6uestion does not conclusivel, resolve the %uilt or innocence of the
#ccused but si$pl, tests the sufficienc, of the #lle%#tions in the infor$#tion in order
to sust#in the further prosecution of the cri$in#l c#se. 7 p#rt, &ho r#ises #
pre5udici#l 6uestion is dee$ed to h#ve h,pothetic#ll, #d$itted th#t #ll the essenti#l
ele$ents of # cri$e h#ve been #de6u#tel, #lle%ed in the infor$#tion, considerin%
th#t the prosecution h#s not ,et presented # sin%le evidence on the indict$ent or
$#, not ,et h#ve rested its c#se. 7 ch#llen%e of the #lle%#tions in the infor$#tion on
the %round of pre5udici#l 6uestion is in effect # 6uestion on the $erits of the cri$in#l
ch#r%e throu%h # non+cri$in#l suit.
7rticle 89 of the F#$il, 2ode, &hich &#s effective #t the ti$e of celebr#tion of the
second $#rri#%e, re6uires # prior 5udici#l decl#r#tion of nullit, of # previous $#rri#%e
before # p#rt, $#, re$#rr,. The cle#r i$plic#tion of this is th#t it is not for the p#rties,
p#rticul#rl, the #ccused, to deter$ine the v#lidit, or inv#lidit, of the $#rri#%e.
!

*hether or not the first $#rri#%e &#s void for l#c1 of # license is # $#tter of defense
bec#use there is still no 5udici#l decl#r#tion of its nullit, #t the ti$e the second
$#rri#%e &#s contr#cted. It should be re$e$bered th#t bi%#$, c#n successfull, be
prosecuted provided #ll its ele$ents concur ? t&o of &hich #re # previous $#rri#%e
#nd # subse6uent $#rri#%e &hich &ould h#ve been v#lid h#d it not been for the
e@istence #t the $#teri#l ti$e of the first $#rri#%e.

In the c#se #t b#r, respondent0s cle#r intent is to obt#in # 5udici#l decl#r#tion of nullit,
of his first $#rri#%e #nd there#fter to invo1e th#t ver, s#$e 5ud%$ent to prevent his
prosecution for bi%#$,. .e c#nnot h#ve his c#1e #nd e#t it too. Other&ise, #ll th#t #n
#dventurous bi%#$ist h#s to do is to disre%#rd 7rticle 89 of the F#$il, 2ode, contr#ct
# subse6uent $#rri#%e #nd esc#pe # bi%#$, ch#r%e b, si$pl, cl#i$in% th#t the first
$#rri#%e is void #nd th#t the subse6uent $#rri#%e is e6u#ll, void for l#c1 of # prior
5udici#l decl#r#tion of nullit, of the first. 7 p#rt, $#, even enter into # $#rri#%e #&#re
of the #bsence of # re6uisite + usu#ll, the $#rri#%e license + #nd there#fter contr#ct #
subse6uent $#rri#%e &ithout obt#inin% # decl#r#tion of nullit, of the first on the
#ssu$ption th#t the first $#rri#%e is void. Such scen#rio &ould render nu%#tor, the
provisions on bi%#$,. 7s succinctl, held in Landicho v. Relova;
19
<P=#rties to # $#rri#%e should not be per$itted to 5ud%e for the$selves its
nullit,, onl, co$petent courts h#vin% such #uthorit,. Prior to such
decl#r#tion of nullit,, the v#lidit, of the first $#rri#%e is be,ond 6uestion. 7
1
p#rt, &ho contr#cts # second $#rri#%e then #ssu$es the ris1 of bein%
prosecuted for bi%#$,.
Respondent #lle%es th#t the first $#rri#%e in the c#se before us &#s void for l#c1 of
# $#rri#%e license. Petitioner, on the other h#nd, #r%ues th#t her $#rri#%e to
respondent &#s e@e$pt fro$ the re6uire$ent of # $#rri#%e license. 'ore
specific#ll,, petitioner cl#i$s th#t prior to their $#rri#%e, the, h#d #lre#d, #tt#ined
the #%e of $#5orit, #nd h#d been livin% to%ether #s husb#nd #nd &ife for #t le#st five
,e#rs.
11
The issue in this c#se is li$ited to the e@istence of # pre5udici#l 6uestion, #nd
&e #re not c#lled upon to resolve the v#lidit, of the first $#rri#%e. (e th#t #s it $#,,
suffice it to st#te th#t the 2ivil 2ode, under &hich the first $#rri#%e &#s celebr#ted,
provides th#t Aever, intend$ent of l#& or f#ct le#ns to&#rd the v#lidit, of $#rri#%e,
the indissolubilit, of the $#rri#%e bonds.A
12
BC .ence, p#rties should not be per$itted
to 5ud%e for the$selves the nullit, of their $#rri#%e, for the s#$e $ust be sub$itted
to the deter$in#tion of co$petent courts. Onl, &hen the nullit, of the $#rri#%e is so
decl#red c#n it be held #s void, #nd so lon% #s there is no such decl#r#tion the
presu$ption is th#t the $#rri#%e e@ists.
1:
No $#tter ho& obvious, $#nifest or p#tent
the #bsence of #n ele$ent is, the intervention of the courts $ust #l&#,s be resorted
to. Th#t is &h, 7rticle 89 of the F#$il, 2ode re6uires # Afin#l 5ud%$ent,A &hich onl,
the courts c#n render. Thus, #s ruled in Landicho v. Relova,
18
he &ho contr#cts #
second $#rri#%e before the 5udici#l decl#r#tion of nullit, of the first $#rri#%e
#ssu$es the ris1 of bein% prosecuted for bi%#$,, #nd in such # c#se the cri$in#l
c#se $#, not be suspended on the %round of the pendenc, of # civil c#se for
decl#r#tion of nullit,. In # recent c#se for concubin#%e, &e held th#t the pendenc, of
# civil c#se for decl#r#tion of nullit, of $#rri#%e is not # pre5udici#l 6uestion.
1"
This
rulin% #pplies here b, #n#lo%, since both cri$es presuppose the subsistence of #
$#rri#%e.
I%nor#nce of the e@istence of 7rticle 89 of the F#$il, 2ode c#nnot even be
successfull, invo1ed #s #n e@cuse.
1-
The contr#ctin% of # $#rri#%e 1no&in% th#t the
re6uire$ents of the l#& h#ve not been co$plied &ith or th#t the $#rri#%e is in
disre%#rd of # le%#l i$pedi$ent is #n #ct pen#li/ed b, the Revised Pen#l 2ode.
14

The le%#lit, of # $#rri#%e is # $#tter of l#& #nd ever, person is presu$ed to 1no&
the l#&. 7s respondent did not obt#in the 5udici#l decl#r#tion of nullit, &hen he
entered into the second $#rri#%e, &h, should he be #llo&ed to bel#tedl, obt#in th#t
5udici#l decl#r#tion in order to del#, his cri$in#l prosecution #nd subse6uentl, defe#t
it b, his o&n disobedience of the l#&D If he &#nts to r#ise the nullit, of the previous
$#rri#%e, he c#n do it #s # $#tter of defense &hen he presents his evidence durin%
the tri#l proper in the cri$in#l c#se.
The burden of proof to sho& the dissolution of the first $#rri#%e before the second
$#rri#%e &#s contr#cted rests upon the defense,
1!
but th#t is # $#tter th#t c#n be
r#ised in the tri#l of the bi%#$, c#se. In the $e#nti$e, it should be stressed th#t not
ever, defense r#ised in the civil #ction $#, be used #s # pre5udici#l 6uestion to
obt#in the suspension of the cri$in#l #ction. The lo&er court, therefore, erred in
suspendin% the cri$in#l c#se for bi%#$,. 'oreover, &hen respondent &#s indicted
for bi%#$,, the f#ct th#t he entered into t&o $#rri#%e cere$onies #ppe#red
indubit#ble. It &#s onl, #fter he &#s sued b, petitioner for bi%#$, th#t he thou%ht of
see1in% # 5udici#l decl#r#tion of nullit, of his first $#rri#%e. The obvious intent,
therefore, is th#t respondent $erel, resorted to the civil #ction #s # potenti#l
pre5udici#l 6uestion for the purpose of frustr#tin% or del#,in% his cri$in#l prosecution.
7s h#s been discussed #bove, this c#nnot be done.1awphi1
In the li%ht of 7rticle 89 of the F#$il, 2ode, respondent, &ithout first h#vin% obt#ined
the 5udici#l decl#r#tion of nullit, of the first $#rri#%e, c#n not be s#id to h#ve v#lidl,
entered into the second $#rri#%e. Per current 5urisprudence, # $#rri#%e thou%h void
still needs # 5udici#l decl#r#tion of such f#ct before #n, p#rt, c#n $#rr, #%#in>
other&ise the second $#rri#%e &ill #lso be void.
1
The re#son is th#t, &ithout #
5udici#l decl#r#tion of its nullit,, the first $#rri#%e is presu$ed to be subsistin%. In the
c#se #t b#r, respondent &#s for #ll le%#l intents #nd purposes re%#rded #s # $#rried
$#n #t the ti$e he contr#cted his second $#rri#%e &ith petitioner.
29
7%#inst this le%#l
b#c1drop, #n, decision in the civil #ction for nullit, &ould not er#se the f#ct th#t
respondent entered into # second $#rri#%e durin% the subsistence of # first
$#rri#%e. Thus, # decision in the civil c#se is not essenti#l to the deter$in#tion of the
cri$in#l ch#r%e. It is, therefore, not # pre5udici#l 6uestion. 7s st#ted #bove,
respondent c#nnot be per$itted to use his o&n $#lfe#s#nce to defe#t the cri$in#l
#ction #%#inst hi$.
21

#$ERE%ORE, the petition is ER7NTFD. The order d#ted Dece$ber 2, 1! of the
Re%ion#l Tri#l 2ourt, (r#nch 22- of 3ue/on 2it, is RFVFRSFD #nd SFT 7SIDF #nd
the tri#l court is ordered to I''FDI7TFGH proceed &ith 2ri$in#l 2#se No. 3!+
4"-11.
SO ORDFRFD.
2