Scribd
Upload
322 views2 pages

Bangayan vs. Bangayan, G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013

The case involved Benjamin and Sally who cohabitated without being married. They signed a purported marriage contract but it was not registered and the marriage did not meet the formal requisites to be valid. Benjamin was already married to Azucena. The court ruled that bigamy was not committed as the marriage between Benjamin and Sally did not legally exist since it lacked essential requisites like a marriage license and registration. As they were not married, their joint properties would be governed by Article 148 and owned in common in proportion to their contributions.

Uploaded by

Lorenz Baguio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
322 views2 pages

Bangayan vs. Bangayan, G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013

The case involved Benjamin and Sally who cohabitated without being married. They signed a purported marriage contract but it was not registered and the marriage did not meet the formal requisites to be valid. Benjamin was already married to Azucena. The court ruled that bigamy was not committed as the marriage between Benjamin and Sally did not legally exist since it lacked essential requisites like a marriage license and registration. As they were not married, their joint properties would be governed by Article 148 and owned in common in proportion to their contributions.

Uploaded by

Lorenz Baguio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SALLY GO-BANGAYAN vs.

BENJAMIN
BANGAYAN, JR. CASE DIGEST [G.R. No.
201061, July 3, 2013, CARPIO, J.]
TOPIC: Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage (Article 148)

DOCTRINE: Benjamin and Sally cohabitated without the benefit of


marriage. Thus, only the properties acquired by them through their actual
joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in
common in proportion to their respective contributions, in accord with Article
148.

FACTS: Benjamin and Sally developed a romantic relationship in 1979.


Sally’s father was against the relationship. Sally brought Benjamin to an office
in Santolan, Pasig City where they signed a purported marriage contract. Sally,
knowing Benjamin’s marital status, assured him that the marriage contract
would not be registered. Sally filed criminal actions for bigamy and
falsification of public documents against Benjamin, using their simulated
marriage contract as evidence. Benjamin, in turn, filed a petition for
declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or declaration of nullity of
marriage before the trial court on the ground that his marriage to Sally was
bigamous and that it lacked the formal requisites to a valid marriage.
Benjamin also asked the trial court for the partition of the properties he
acquired with Sally in accordance with Article 148 of the Family Code, for his
appointment as administrator of the properties during the pendency of the
case, and for the declaration of Bernice and Bentley as illegitimate children. A
total of 44 registered properties became the subject of the partition before the
trial court. Aside from the seven properties enumerated by Benjamin in his
petition, Sally named 37 properties in her answer.

The trial court ruled that the marriage was not recorded with the local civil
registrar and the National Statistics Office because it could not be registered
due to Benjamin’s subsisting marriage with Azucena. The trial court ruled that
the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was not bigamous.

ISSUES:

1. Whether bigamy was committed by the petitioner

HELD:

3. NO.

On whether or not the parties’ marriage is bigamous under the concept of


Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the marriage is not bigamous. It is
required that the first or former marriage shall not be null and void. The
marriage of the petitioner to Azucena shall be assumed as the one that is valid,
there being no evidence to the contrary and there is no trace of invalidity or
irregularity on the face of their marriage contract. However, if the second
marriage was void not because of the existence of the first marriage but for
other causes such as lack of license, the crime of bigamy was not committed.
For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the
essential requisites for validity except for the existence of a prior marriage.In
this case, there was really no subsequent marriage.Benjamin and Sally just
signed a purported marriage contract without a marriage license. The
supposed marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the
National Statistics Office. In short, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally
did not exist. They lived together and represented themselves as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriag

You might also like