Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sermonia v. CA (CRIM) PDF
Sermonia v. CA (CRIM) PDF
*
G.R. No. 109454. June 14, 1994.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
156
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Same; Same; Same; The criminal cases cited by the petitioner wherein
constructive notice was applied, involved therein were land or property
disputes and certainly, marriage is not property.—In the case of real
property, the registration of any transaction involving any right or interest
therein is made in the Register of Deeds of the place where the said property
is located. Verification in the office of the Register of Deeds concerned of
the transactions involving the said property can easily be made by any
interested party. In the case of a bigamous marriage, verification by the
offended person or the authorities of the same would indeed be quite
difficult as such a marriage may be entered into in a place where the
offender is not known to be still a married person. Be it noted that in the
criminal cases cited by the petitioner wherein constructive notice was
applied, involved therein were land or property disputes and certainly,
marriage is not property.
157
Same; Same; Same; Same; The rule on constructive notice will make
de rigueur the routinary inspection or verification of the marriages listed in
the National Census Office and in various local civil registries.—To this we
may also add that the rule on constructive notice will make de rigueur the
routinary inspection or verification of the marriages listed in the National
Census Office and in various local civil registries all over the country to
make certain that no second or even third marriage has been contracted
without the knowledge of the legitimate spouse. This is too formidable a
task to even contemplate.
158
BELLOSILLO, J.:
159
5
marriage to Virginia C. Nievera remained valid and subsisting.
Petitioner moved to quash the information on the ground that his
criminal liability for bigamy has been extinguished by prescription.
In the order of 1 October 1992, respondent judge denied the
motion to quash. On 27 October 1992, he likewise denied the
motion to reconsider his order of denial.
Petitioner challenged the above orders before the Court of
Appeals through a petition for certiorari and prohibition. In the
assailed decision
6
of 21 January 1993, his petition was dismissed for
lack of merit.
In this recourse, petitioner contends that his criminal liability for
bigamy has been obliterated by prescription. He avers that since the
second marriage contract7 was duly registered with the Office of the
Civil Registrar in 1975, such fact of registration makes it a matter
of public record and thus constitutes notice to the whole world. The
offended party therefore is considered to have had constructive
notice of the subsequent marriage as of 1975; hence, prescription
commenced to run on the day the marriage contract was registered.
For this reason, the corresponding information for bigamy should
have been filed on or before 1990 and not only in 1992.
Petitioner likewise takes issue with the “alleged concealment of
the bigamous marriage” as declared by the appellate court, insisting
that the second marriage was publicly held at Our Lady of Nativity
Church in Marikina on 15 February 1975, and adding for good
measure that from the moment of registration the marriage contract
was open to inspection by any interested person.
On the other hand, the prosecution maintains that the prescriptive
period does not begin from the commission of the crime but from
the time of discovery by complainant which was in July 1991.
_______________
160
_______________
8 People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 74226-27, 27 July 1989, 175 SCRA 597.
161
To this we may also add that the rule on constructive notice will
make de rigueur the routinary inspection or verification of the
marriages listed in the National Census Office and in various local
civil registries all over the country to make certain that no second or
even third marriage has been contracted without the knowledge of
the legitimate spouse. This is too formidable a task to even
contemplate.
More importantly, while Sec. 52 of P.D. 1529 (Property
Registration Decree) provides for constructive notice to all persons
of every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order,
judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land filed or
entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city
where the land to which it relates lies from the time of such
registering, filing or entering, there is no counterpart provision either
in Act No. 3753 (Act to Establish a Civil Register) or in Arts. 407 to
413 of the Civil Code, which leads us to the conclusion that there is
no legal basis for applying the constructive notice rule to the
documents registered in the Civil Register.
Finally, petitioner would want us to believe that there was no
concealment at all because his marriage contract with Ms. Unson
was recorded in the Civil Registry which is open to all and sundry
_______________
162
Decision affirmed.
_______________
163
——o0o——