Lex Rex Ph

People vs. Mendoza Digest

Full text

Lesson: A bigamous marriage need no judicial decree of nullity.


Arturo Mendoza was sentenced by the CFI guilty of bigamy and sentencing him 6 months and 1 day to 6 years of imprisonment.

The facts are undisputed:

  1. On August 5, 1936, the Arturo married Jovita de Asis. 
  2. On May 14, 1941 (or after around 4.8 years), Arturo married Olga Lema under the subsistence of the first marriage (~5 years) (This is void/bigamous) 
  3. On February 2, 1943, Jovita (first wife) died.
  4. On August 19, 1949, the appellant married Carmencita Panlilio and gave rise to the prosecution for and conviction of the crime of bigamy. 

Arthuro’s defense: His marriage to Olga Lema was void because of subsistence to his first marriage to Jovita. Therefore, his marriage to Carmencita is legal.

Solicitor’s argument: Arturo is not exempt from criminal liability because when he married Olga, he did not secure a previous judicial annulment of the bigamous marriage with Olga. 

Issues and Ruling

Is a judicial decree necessary to invalidate the subsequent marriage? 

No. Judicial decree is NOT necessary to invalidate Arturo’s marriage with Olga (void/bigamous/second marriage). The second marriage was not founded on the belief that the first marriage/Jovita was absent or presumed dead, therefore it was not under voidable marriage, and no judicial decree is necessary.

Can a person who obtained a marriage after a void marriage be prosecuted for bigamy?

No. Arturo cannot be prosecuted of bigamy on his third marriage with Carmencita since the second marriage was void, and his first wife (Jovita) already died prior to third marriage. 

Note: Arturo’s appealed conviction here only pertains to his alleged bigamy with Carmencita, not with Olga (2nd marriage). If he was prosecuted for committing bigamy with Olga, the case could have prospered because it was indeed bigamous.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Notarial Prohibition

A document that commences the 10 years prescription of a negative easement; It is a notice that officially prohibits the owner of a servient estate from obstructing light and view.

Read More »

Navarro vs. Domagtoy

129 SCRA 259 A judge who solemnized a bigamous marriage Facts Complainant Mayor Navarro files a complaint against respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy, which, he contends, exhibits gross misconduct

Read More »

Marriage or Love

Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act ~xxx~ is to say “I could not have cared less.” This is so because

Read More »

Briones vs. CA

Remedial Law: Plaintiff not expected to comply with the stipulation of venue on the agreement if he sails the validity of the latter. Compliance therewith means implicit recognition of its validity. G.R.

Read More »

Positive vs. Negative Easement

Elements Positive Easement Negative Easement Act of servient estate’s owner Must allow the owner of dominant estate or the latter must do something Must refrain from doing something lawful Commencement of acquisitive

Read More »