Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zapanta VS Montesa
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.