24

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF LAWS MERLINDA CIPRIANO MONTANEZ vs. LOURDES TAJOLOSA CIPRIANO G.R. No. 181089 October 22, 2012 Facts: On April 8, 1976, Lourdes Tajolosa married Socrates Flores. On January 4, 1983 Lourdes re-married Silverio V. Cipriano. In 2001, respondent filed a Petition for the Annulment in the Regional Trial Court in the ground of psychological incapacity as defined in Article 36 of the Family Code. On July 8, 2003, the marriage was declared null and void. On May 14, 2004, Silverio’s daughter filed a complaint of bigamy against Lourdes under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Lourdes then contended that sine her two marriages were contracted prior to the Family Code, Article 40 cannot be retroactive effect because it will impair her right to remarry without need of securing a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. The RTC dismissed the complaint ruling that the existing law at the time of the second marriage do not require a judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage. The complainant then filed a motion for reconsideration but the decision rendered was again in favor of the respondent. Hence, this petition was filed. Issue: Whether the judicial nullity of a first marriage prior to the enactment of the Family Code is a valid defense for the crime of bigamy. Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated. The Supreme Court ruled further that what is required for a crime of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. Even the accused eventually secured a declaration that his first marriage is a void ab initio, the first and second marriage was subsisting before the first marriage was annulled. Also, Art. 40 should be applied retroactively because it does not prejudice or impair the right of anyone. The petition is thereby granted.

Upload
jhenjhen-ganda
Category

Documents
view
213
download
1

Embed Size (px):

description

Transcript of 24

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF LAWS

MERLINDA CIPRIANO MONTANEZ vs. LOURDES TAJOLOSA CIPRIANOG.R. No. 181089October 22, 2012

Facts:On April 8, 1976, Lourdes Tajolosa married Socrates Flores. On January 4, 1983 Lourdes re-married Silverio V. Cipriano. In 2001, respondent filed a Petition for the Annulment in the Regional Trial Court in the ground of psychological incapacity as defined in Article 36 of the Family Code. On July 8, 2003, the marriage was declared null and void. On May 14, 2004, Silverios daughter filed a complaint of bigamy against Lourdes under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Lourdes then contended that sine her two marriages were contracted prior to the Family Code, Article 40 cannot be retroactive effect because it will impair her right to remarry without need of securing a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. The RTC dismissed the complaint ruling that the existing law at the time of the second marriage do not require a judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage. The complainant then filed a motion for reconsideration but the decision rendered was again in favor of the respondent. Hence, this petition was filed.

Issue:Whether the judicial nullity of a first marriage prior to the enactment of the Family Code is a valid defense for the crime of bigamy.

Ruling:The Supreme Court held that the subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated. The Supreme Court ruled further that what is required for a crime of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. Even the accused eventually secured a declaration that his first marriage is a void ab initio, the first and second marriage was subsisting before the first marriage was annulled. Also, Art. 40 should be applied retroactively because it does not prejudice or impair the right of anyone. The petition is thereby granted.