You are on page 1of 4

MARRIAGE

RENE RONULO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.


G.R. No. 182438, 2 July 2014.
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on 29 March 2003 at the
Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on the day of the wedding, the
church's officiating priest refused to solemnize the marriage because of lack of a
marriage license.
With the couple and the guests already dressed for the wedding, they headed to an
Aglipayan Church. The Aglipayan priest, herein petitioner Ronulo, conducted a
ceremony on the same day where the couple took each other as husband and wife in
front of the guests. This was despite Petitioner's knowledge of the couple's lack of
marriage license. Petitioner was eventually charged of violating Article 352 of the RPC
for performing an illegal marriage ceremony. The MTC did not believe Petitioner's
defense that what he did was an act of blessing and was not tantamount to
solemnization of marriage and was found guilty. The decision was affirmed by both
the RTC and the CA.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioner committed an illegal marriage.
HELD:
Yes. Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall
perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime are:
1. authority of the solemnizing officer; and
2. his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
The first element is present since Petitioner himself admitted that he has authority to
solemnize a marriage. The second element is present since the alleged "blessing" by
Petitioner is tantamount to the performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. There is
no prescribed form or rite for the solemnization of a marriage. However, Article 6 of
the Family Code provides that it shall be necessary:
1. for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer;
and
2. declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they
take each other as husband and wife.
The first requirement is present since petitioner admitted to it. The second
requirement is likewise present since the prosecution, through the testimony of its
witnesses, proved that the contracting parties personally declared that they take
each other as husband and wife. The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is in
accordance with the provision of the Marriage Law, specifically Article 44, which
states that:
Section 44. General Penal Clause Any violation of any provision of this Act not
specifically penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper
authorities, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by
imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.

As such, Petitioner was held guilty of violating Article 352 and was fined P200 as
penalty.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
MANUEL VS. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005

J. Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
November 7, 2001, complaint was filed in the RTC of Baguio City. The following facts
were presented:
On April 22, 1996, Baguio City, Philippines, Eduardo P. Manuel, respondent,
contracted a second marriage with Tina Gandalera-Manuel, complainant, in RTC of
Baguio City. It so appeared in the marriage contract that Manuel was single.
Eduardo P. Manuel was previously legally married to Rubylus Gana without the said
marriage having been legally dissolved before the second marriage. Tina GandaleraManuel did not know the existence of the first marriage of the respondent to Rubylus
Gana. On July 28, 1975, Makati, Eduardo was married to Ruby. On January 1996,
Eduardo met Tina in Dagupan City. Afterwards, Eduardo went to Baguio to visit her
and he proposed assuring her that he was single. Starting 1999, Manuel started
making himself scarce and went to their house only twice or thrice a year. Sometime
in January 2001, Eduardo took all his clothes, left, and did not return. He stopped
giving financial support. Sometime in August 2001, Tina learned that Eduardo had
been previously married. Eduardo testified that he declared that he was single
because he believed in good faith that his marriage was invalid. He said he did not
know he had to go to the court to seek for nullification of his first marriage before
marrying Tina. Ruby was jailed and he had not heard from her for more than 20
years.
On July 2, 2002, RTC found Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy under
Article 349 of the RPC, and sentenced him an indeterminate penalty of from six (6)
years and ten (10) months, as minimum to ten (10) years, as maximum, and directed
to indemnify the private complainant, Tina Gandalera, the amount of P200,000 by
way of moral damages, plus costs of suit.
Manuel appealed the decision to the CA. He insisted that conformably to Article 3 of
the RPC, there must be malice for one to be criminally liable for a felony. He posited
that the RTC should have taken into account Article 390 of the New Civil Code.
On June 18, 2004, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC with
modification to indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
day of prision coreccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor as
maximum, and affirmation in all other respect, 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA committed reversible error of law when it ruled that
petitioners first wife cannot be legally presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil
Code as there was no judicial declaration of presumptive death as provided for under
Article 41 of the Family Code.

HELD:
No. The petitioners sole reliance on Article 390 of the Civil Code as basis for his
acquittal for bigamy is misplaced. The presumption of death of the spouse who had
been absent for seven years, is created by law and arises without necessity of judicial
declaration. However, Article 41, of the Family Code, which amended the foregoing
rules on presumptive death, provides that for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage (under its preceding paragraph), the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding as provided in the Court for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance
of the absent spouse.

You might also like