SC: Legitimacy, filiation of children can’t be attacked through correction of birth certificate

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that the legitimacy and filiation of children could not be determined and collaterally attacked in proceedings for the correction of certificates of live birth.

In a recent 12-page decision, the SC 3rd Division nullified the declarations of the Masbate City Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) that Joan Miller was truly an illegitimate child of her alleged father John Miller.

The declarations in the RTC’s November 26, 2004 judgment and the CA’s June 30, 2011 decision arose from the petition for correction of entries filed by John’s legitimate child Glenn Miller.

Glenn wanted Joan’s birth certificate to use the mother’s surname Espenida. He claimed she was not acknowledged by his father.

The SC, however, said it was erroneous for the RTC and the CA to uphold Joan’s filiation in the said proceedings. It explained that only clerical changes could be made through the correction of certificates of live birth.

“It is not a simple matter of correcting a single letter in private respondent’s surname due to a misspelling. Rather, private respondent’s filiation will be gravely affected, as changing her surname from Miller to Espenida will also change her status,” read the decision penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

“This will affect not only her identity, but her successional rights as well. Certainly, this change is substantial,” it added.

To resolve the issue of whether Joan was an acknowledged illegitimate child, the SC said a direct action should have been filed.

“Legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack,” the decision read.

The decision would come “without prejudice” to the refiling of the appropriate action before the proper court.

Meanwhile, the SC also resolved to treat the memorandum of Glenn’s legal heirs as an administrative complaint against Masbate City RTC Branch 48 Judge Jacinta Tambago.

Tambago was accused of failing to inhibit from the case even as her brother-in-law Osias Tambago acted as Joan’s lawyer. #

https://abogado.com.ph/sc-legitimacy-filiation-of-children-cant-be-attacked-through-correction-of-birth-certificate/

Bigamy: second spouse was allowed to file a criminal complaint for Bigamy

Culpability Attaches, Liability Appends  

The factual antecedents are as follows:

On June 28, 2004, petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City in an Information which reads:

On or about December 8, 1999, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused being previously united in lawful marriage with Karla Y. Medina-Capili and without said marriage having been legally dissolved or annulled, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with Shirley G. Tismo, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings alleging that: (1) there is a pending civil case for declaration of nullity of the second marriage before the RTC of Antipolo City filed by Karla Y. Medina-Capili; (2) in the event that the marriage is declared null and void, it would exculpate him from the charge of bigamy; and (3) the pendency of the civil case for the declaration of nullity of the second marriage serves as a prejudicial question in the instant criminal case.

Consequently, the arraignment and pre-trial were reset by the RTC of Pasig City, in view of the filing of the Motion to Suspend Proceedings filed by petitioner.

In the interim, the RTC of Antipolo City rendered a decision declaring the voidness or incipient invalidity of the second marriage between petitioner and private respondent on the ground that a subsequent marriage contracted by the husband during the lifetime of the legal wife is void from the beginning.

Thereafter, the petitioner accused filed his Manifestation and Motion (to Dismiss) praying for the dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy filed against him on the ground that the second marriage between him and private respondent had already been declared void by the RTC.

CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s decision.

ISSSUE:

In essence, the issue is whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a ground for dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy.

RULING:

Wherefore, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.

It is undisputed that a second marriage between petitioner and private respondent was contracted on December 8, 1999 during the subsistence of a valid first marriage between petitioner and Karla Y. Medina-Capili contracted on September 3, 1999. Notably, the RTC of Antipolo City itself declared the bigamous nature of the second marriage between petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for being bigamous in nature does not bar the prosecution of petitioner for the crime of bigamy.

Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that the accused may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second marriage, so long as the first marriage was still subsisting when the second marriage was celebrated.

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.

Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.

In like manner, the Court recently upheld the ruling in the aforementioned case and ruled that what makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. xxx Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.¹²

Finally, it is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him until extinguished as provided by law.¹³ It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second marriage with private respondent. Thus, the finality of the judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner’s second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal charge for bigamy against him.

source:  Capili vs People, GR 183805 (2013, 3rd Division)

Bigamy: Liability of the Second Spouse

THE ISSUES

Before this Court, petitioner reiterates that she cannot be a co-accused in the instant case, because she was not aware of Santos's previous marriage. But in the main, she argues that for there to be a conviction for bigamy, a valid second marriage must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

In Montanez v. Cipriano, 15 this Court enumerated the elements of bigamy as follows:

The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved x x x; (c) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. (Emphasis supplied)

For the second spouse to be indicted as a co-accused in the crime, People v. Nepomuceno, Jr. 16 instructs that she should have had knowledge of the previous subsisting marriage. People v. Archilla 17 likewise states that the knowledge of the second wife of the fact of her spouse's existing prior marriage constitutes an indispensable cooperation in the commission of bigamy, which makes her responsible as an accomplice.

THE RULING OF THE COURT

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is DENIED. 

The penalty for bigamy and petitioner's knowledge of Santos's first marriage

The crime of bigamy does not necessary entail the joint liability of two persons who marry each other while the previous marriage of one of them is valid and subsisting. As explained in Nepomuceno: 18

In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without being aware of his previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in the information as a co-accused. (Emphasis supplied)

Given that petitioner knew of the first marriage, this Court concurs with the ruling that she was validly charged with bigamy. 

Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty for a principal in the crime of bigamy is prision mayor, which has a duration of six years and one day to twelve years. Since the criminal participation of petitioner is that of an accomplice, the sentence imposable on her is the penalty next lower in degree, 23 prision correctional, which has a duration of six months and one day to six years. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, this penalty shall be imposed in its medium period consisting of two years, four months and one day to four years and two months of imprisonment. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 24 petitioner shall be entitled to a minimum term, to be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, arresto mayor, which has a duration of one month and one day to six months imprisonment.

The criminal liability of petitioner resulting from her marriage to Santos

Jurisprudence clearly requires that for the accused to be convicted of bigamy, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity. 25 If the accused wants to raise the nullity of the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense during the presentation of evidence in the trial proper of the criminal case. 26 In this case, petitioner has consistently27 questioned below the validity of her marriage to Santos on the ground that marriages celebrated without the essential requisite of a marriage license are void ab initio. 28

After a perusal of the records, it is clear that the marriage between petitioner and Santos took place without a marriage license. The absence of this requirement is purportedly explained in their Certificate of Marriage, which reveals that their union was celebrated under Article 34 of the Family Code. 

All told, the evidence on record shows that petitioner and Santos had only known each other for only less than four years. Thus, it follows that the two of them could not have cohabited for at least five years prior to their marriage.

The applicability of People v. De Lara

Petitioner cites De Lara as the relevant jurisprudence involving an acquittal for bigamy on the ground that the second marriage lacked the requisite marriage license. In that case, the Court found that when Domingo de Lara married his second wife, Josefa Rosales, on 18 August 1951, the local Civil Registrar had yet to issue their marriage license on 19 August 1951. Thus, since the marriage was celebrated one day before the issuance of the marriage license, the Court acquitted him of bigamy.

Noticeably, Domingo de Lara did not cause the falsification of public documents in order to contract a second marriage. In contrast, petitioner and Santos fraudulently secured a Certificate of Marriage, and petitioner later used this blatantly illicit act as basis for seeking her exculpation. Therefore, unlike our treatment of the accused in De Lara, this Court cannot regard petitioner herein as innocent of the crime.

source:  Santiago vs People, GR 200233 (2015, First Division)

How do we divide assets fairly?

By: Queena N. Lee-Chua / @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer

A reader who does not want his name mentioned asks:  What would be a fair division of assets for a Filipino-Chinese family of four siblings, two males and two females?  Assets include a family business, where all four have been working for since graduation; and the primary residence of parents, with the male children and their families living with the parents.  The female children are married and living in their own homes.  The spouses of the male siblings are also working in the business, having married into the family.  What is a fair way to distribute assets since parents are near retirement?

My reply:  Fair is in the eye of the beholder, and fairness is more a perception rather than a strict mathematical division.  Fairness does not necessarily imply equality (see my column on March 21, 2014), though the easiest way to divide assets is to convert everything into current value and divide accordingly, liquidating assets if contentious issues arise.

However, the ancestral home may hold more value than what the market prices it to be.  For instance, how much is sentimental value worth, especially if you have lived all your life there and loved the house?  For many who have happy childhoods, their first home would be priceless.

Since fairness has various connotations, I am not surprised you get different answers from your friends.

Most parents prefer strict division—that is, dividing the entire assets (converted to current peso value) by four in your case. Parents declare that they love their children equally, and they believe that to show their love, they need to divide everything fair and square.

However, the second or third generation in many family businesses I know do not favor strict division, because some siblings believe they deserve a bigger share.  Perhaps they were the ones who built the business together with the parents, and so they deserve the lion’s share.

Sometimes, the males believe they deserve more just because they supposedly have the responsibility to continue the family bloodline, while the females are supposedly under the care of other families once they marry.

While I may find this antiquated, I respect tradition—as long as the female siblings do not resent this arrangement.

Some parents divide assets and give more (often, secretly) to their favorite children (parents try hard not to have favorites, but they are human and often do).

Some families decide to leave the decision to luck.  One family (whom I have written about) divided assets by drawing lots, with far better results than families with lawyers representing individual interests.

Sit down now with your parents and siblings, while the former are still alive, to counsel everyone. Ask everyone what they believe a fair division should be, and work from there.

If your family members are close and have the company’s best interests at heart, you will work things out.  But do this earlier than later, and if needed, get a professional who can be objective to guide you through the process.

The best division is the optimal compromise that everyone can live with.

Catholic Mass Media Awards

I’d like to thank the Catholic Mass Media Awards for the Special Citation for this column.  Thank you, too, to Raul Marcelo, Tina Arceo-Dumlao, and Princess Ominga of the Business Section, for ensuring that what you read comes out in the best way possible.

Thank you, readers, for your sustained support.  Rest assured I will continue to focus on best practices and feature family businesses from which we can all draw inspiration.

No reason to void Jodi, Pampi marriage – CA

The Court of Appeals (CA) threw out the decision of the Parañaque City regional trial court declaring null and void the marriage between actress Jodi Sta. Maria and Panfilo “Pampi” Lacson Jr., son of Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson.

In a 19-page decision, the CA’s Eighth Division junked the ruling of the Regional Trial Court Branch 194 of Paranaque City that Sta. Maria and Lacson’s marriage was void from the start. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar Dimaampao and Franchito Diamante.

Sta. Maria and Lacson met at the set of the television series “Tabing Ilog” in 2000. They became sweethearts after several month of courtship.

In March 2005, they were married in Nevada and in June of the same year, they also got married before a court in Parañaque. On December 23, 2005, their only son, Panfilo Sta. Maria Lacson 3rd, was born.

However, their union turned sour and Sta. Maria file an amended petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage before the court on grounds of psychological incapacity.

The court granted her petition but the Office of the Solicitor General elevated the case before the CA.

In its September 28, 2016 ruling, the appellate court thumbed down the verdict.

“While we do not dispute the finding of the RTC, we cannot subscribe to its conclusion that the acts and behavior of Sta. Maria indicate psychological incapacity which rendered her incapable of complying with the essential marital obligations,” the appeals court said.

The CA also held that Lacson’s psychological incapacity was not sufficiently proved.

“A psychological report prepared by [Clinical Psychologist Dr. Visitacion Revita), which found Lacson to be suffering from a dependent type personality disorder, was offered in evidence,” the CA said.

“We note, however, that Lacson was not subjected to an actual evaluation by Dr. Revita, and the conclusions of Dr. Revita were exclusively derived from the information given by Sta. Maria and Abigail del Mundo who claims to be a common friend of Sta. Maria and Lacson,” the court said.

source:  Manila Times

Concealment of homosexuality ground for annulment

Dear PAO,
My husband and I have been separated for three years now. We got married in 2012. It all began when I discovered that he was having an affair, not with another woman, but a man. I did not know that he was gay as I never noticed this when he was still my boyfriend and he never told me about this even before we got married. I knew it only when I learned about his same-sex affair from a common friend. When I confronted my husband, he admitted that indeed he is gay. I just want to know if I can have our marriage annulled. Had I known about his being gay then, I would not have married him. We have no kids, by the way.
Girlie

Dear Girlie,
Homosexuality per se is not a ground for annulment of marriage. It can only be considered as such, if there is concealment of this condition prior to the marriage, as it constitutes fraud, which makes the marriage voidable. According to the Family Code of the Philippines, a marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. (Article 45 (3), Ibid.)

The same Code likewise enumerates instances which establish fraud, to wit:

Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:

(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;

(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband;

(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or

(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.

Based on the foregoing, you may file a case to petition the court to have your marriage annulled on the ground of fraud. You have five years within which to do so, to be reckoned from the day you discovered the fraud. (Article 47 (3), Id.)

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Dissolve first marriage first before contracting second one

Dear PAO,
My mother relayed to me that she married my father when he was still below 18 years of age. This happened with the help of fixers in one of the cities here at the National Capital Region. My mother discovered after she obtained a certificate of no- marriage that my father contracted another marriage during the time of their marriage. She intends to file a case for bigamy against my father; however, our relative who is working in a law firm advised her that there is no need to file such case, because her marriage with my father is void from the very beginning. He even explained to her that the absence of essential requisites of marriage would render her marriage void. What shall we do?
Keir

Dear Keir,
Your relative is correct as to his statement that the absence of essential requisites of marriage would render the marriage void. If, however, the void marriage, for any reason, was already registered, you need to go to court for that marriage to be declared void. It is not for the parties to decide whether the marriage is void or not.

Article 40 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that “the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.”

The Supreme Court said in Montaṅez vs Cipriano (G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012), that:

“And in Jarillo v. People (G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009, 601 SCRA 236), applying the foregoing jurisprudence, we affirmed the accused’s conviction for bigamy, ruling that the moment the accused contracted a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage, the accused’s first marriage which had not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction was deemed valid and subsisting.

Here, at the time respondent contracted the second marriage, the first marriage was still subsisting as it had not yet been legally dissolved. As ruled in the above-mentioned jurisprudence, the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage would not change the fact that she contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. Thus, respondent was properly charged of the crime of bigamy, since the essential elements of the offense charged were sufficiently alleged.

Respondent claims that Tenebro v. CA (G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 272) is not applicable, since the declaration of nullity of the previous marriage came after the filing of the Information, unlike in this case where the declaration was rendered before the Information was filed. We do not agree. What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.”

Bigamy is committed by any 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 in the proper proceedings (Article 349, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines).

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net