CASE DIGEST

VITANGCOL vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016

FACTS:

On December 4, 1994, Norberto A. Vitangol contracted marriage with Alice G. Eduardo. Out of
their union, they were blessed with three children. Sometime in 2007, Norberto heard rumors from their
household workers that Alice was having an affair with a married man. The lawyer warned Alice of the
possible criminal liability she may incur if she continued seeing her paramour. In retaliation to the threat
of criminal action against her, Alice filed a complaint for bigamy against Norberto who was previously
married to Gina M. Caerlan on July 17, 1987. The RTC of Manila convicted Norberto of bigamy dated
September 1, 2010 and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six years and one day of prision
mayor as minimum imprisonment to twelve years of prision mayor as maximum imprisonment. On appeal
dated July 18, 2012, the CA sustained decision of RTC but modified the penalty in accordance with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. Norberto filed Motion for Reconsideration but CA denied. Hence this
petition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the essential requites of marriage were present in the first marriage?
2. Whether or not Norberto is guilty of bigamy?

HELD:

1. Yes. The SC emphasized that petitioner was still legally married to Gina when he contracted
marriage Alice. This is so because all the four requisites under Article 53 of the Civil Code are
present. These include: Legal capacity of the contracting parties; their consent, freely given;
authority of the person performing the marriage; and a marriage license, except in a
marriage of exceptional character. The Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar that
it has no record of the marriage license is unacceptable. Assuming that it is true, it does not
categorically prove that there was no marriage license. Moreover, petitioner admitted the
authenticity of his signature appearing on the marriage contract between him and his first
wife. The first marriage contract is a positive piece of evidence as to the existence of
petitioner’s first marriage.

2. Yes. The SC contained that Norberto’s first marriage was not judicially declared void. Nor
was his first wife Gina judicially declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code. Within the
span of seven years, Norberto did not procure a judicial declaration of the nullity of his first
marriage. Assuming without conceding that petitioner’s first marriage was solemnized
without a marriage license, petitioner remains liable for bigamy. Under Article 349 of the Civil
Code, any married person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the
former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared
presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings shall
criminally liable of bigamy. Hence, SC denied the petition for certiorari and affirmed CAs
decision with modification.
 CASE DIGEST

HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION vs. LA SAVOIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

G.R. No. 168616, January 28, 2015

FACTS: