Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Zapanta VS Montesa

    Uploaded by

    Kyla Ellen Calelao
    200 views1 page
    Zapanta was charged with bigamy for entering into a second marriage with Yco while still married to his first wife, Estrella Guarin. Zapanta filed a separate civil case to annul his marriage to Yco on the ground of duress, force and intimidation. Zapanta argued that the determination of the annulment case was a prejudicial question that needed to be resolved before the bigamy case. The court agreed, finding that the resolution of whether Zapanta's consent to the second marriage was involuntary would determine his guilt or innocence in the bigamy case, and jurisdiction over the annulment issue belonged to a different court. Therefore, the annulment case was a prejud

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ZAPANTA VS MONTESA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Zapanta was charged with bigamy for entering into a second marriage with Yco while still married to his first wife, Estrella Guarin. Zapanta filed a separate civil case to annul his marriage to Yco on the ground of duress, force and intimidation. Zapanta argued that the determination of the annulment case was a prejudicial question that needed to be resolved before the bigamy case. The court agreed, finding that the resolution of whether Zapanta's consent to the second marriage was involuntary would determine his guilt or innocence in the bigamy case, and jurisdiction over the annulment issue belonged to a different court. Therefore, the annulment case was a prejud

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    200 views1 page

    Zapanta VS Montesa

    Uploaded by

    Kyla Ellen Calelao
    Zapanta was charged with bigamy for entering into a second marriage with Yco while still married to his first wife, Estrella Guarin. Zapanta filed a separate civil case to annul his marriage to Yco on the ground of duress, force and intimidation. Zapanta argued that the determination of the annulment case was a prejudicial question that needed to be resolved before the bigamy case. The court agreed, finding that the resolution of whether Zapanta's consent to the second marriage was involuntary would determine his guilt or innocence in the bigamy case, and jurisdiction over the annulment issue belonged to a different court. Therefore, the annulment case was a prejud

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ZAPANTA VS MONTESA

    FACTS:
    Upon complaint filed by Olimpia Yco (Yco) on May 20, 1958, an information for Bigamy was
    filed by respondent Fiscal against petitioner Zapanta in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan
    (Criminal Case No. 3405), alleging that the latter, having previously married Estrella Guarin, and
    without said marriage having been dissolved, contracted a second marriage with Yco.

    On June 16, 1958, Zapanta filed a civil case against Yco for the annulment of their marriage on
    the ground of duress, force and intimidation. Yco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon
    the ground that it stated no cause of action but was denied.

    On September 2, 1958, Zapanta filed a motion in Criminal Case No. 3405 to suspend the
    proceedings therein, on the ground that the determination of the civil case was a prejudicial
    question. Respondent judge denied the motion as well as petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
    and ordered his arraignment.

    ISSUE: WON the determination of the annulment issue involved in the civil case was a
    prejudicial question
    HELD: YES

    RULING:
    A prejudical question is that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical
    antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
    tribunal. It must be determinative of the case before the court, and jurisdiction to try the same
    must be lodged in another court.

    In the case at bar, these requisites are present. Should the question for annulment of the
    second marriage pending in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga prosper on the groun that
    petitioner’s consent thereto was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation? It is
    obvious that his act was involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of
    bigamy with which he was charged in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. Thus, the issue
    involved in the action for the annulment of the second marriage is determinative of petitioner’s
    guilt or innocence of the crime of bigamy. On the other hand, there can be no question that the
    annulment of petitioner’s marriage with Yco on the grounds relied upon in the complaint filed in
    the Court of First Instance of Pampanga is within the jurisdication of said court.

    In the Aragon case already mentioned (supra) we held that if the defendant in a case for
    bigamy claims that the first marriage is void and the right to decide such validity is vested in
    another court, the civil action for annulment must first be decided before the action for bigamy
    can proceed. There is no reason not to apply the same rule when the contention of the accused is
    that the second marriage is void on the ground that he entered into it because of duress, force and
    intimidation.

    You might also like