G r no 137567 beltran vs people

This petition for review, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to review and set aside the Order dated January 28, issued by Judge Florentino A. People of the Philippines and Hon. The antecedent facts of the case are undisputed: Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E.

G r no 137567 beltran vs people

This petition for review, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to review and set aside the Order dated January 28, issued by Judge Florentino A. People of the Philippines and Hon.

The antecedent facts of the case are undisputed: Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. The case, docketed as Criminal Case No.

Petitioner argued that the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of his marriage posed a prejudicial question to the determination of the criminal case.

In view of the denial of his motion to defer the proceedings in the concubinage case, petitioner went to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch on certiorari, questioning the Orders dated August 31, and December 9, issued by Judge Cervantes and praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

Said Court subsequently issued another Order 10 dated February 23,denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his petition. Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition for review. Petitioner contends that the pendency of the petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is a prejudicial question that should merit the suspension of the criminal case for concubinage filed against him by his wife.

Petitioner also contends that there is a possibility that two conflicting decisions might result from the civil case for annulment of marriage and the criminal case for concubinage. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question G r no 137567 beltran vs people to avoid two conflicting decisions.

It has two essential elements: For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.

The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Court of Appeals, 12 this Court ruled that the import of said provision is that for purposes of remarriage, the only legally acceptable basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute nullity is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void, whereas, for purposes of other than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable.

The pertinent portions of said Decision read: In such cases, evidence needs must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity.

These needs not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void. So that in a case for concubinage, the accused, like the herein petitioner need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage void for he can adduce evidence in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other than proof of a final judgment declaring his marriage void.

Analogous to this case is that of Landicho vs. Relova 1 cited in Donato vs. Luna 14 where this Court held that: Assuming that the first marriage was null and void on the ground alleged by petitioner, that fact would not be material to the outcome of the criminal case.

The musings and ramblings of a lawyer in progress

Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists.

Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. Thus, in the case at bar it must also be held that parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists for all intents and purposes.

Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage. The lower court therefore, has not erred in affirming the Orders of the judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court ruling that pendency of a civil action for nullity of marriage does not pose a prejudicial question in a criminal case for concubinage.G.R.

No. September 4, 23 Beltran v. People, G.R. No. , June 20, , SCRA , 24 Section Issuance of Title. – The owner or developer shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit.

No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the. G.R. No.        June 20, MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, petitioner, vs.

G r no 137567 beltran vs people

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HON. JUDGE FLORENTINO TUAZON,.

BELTRAN vs PEOPLE | Uber Digests

READ CASE DIGEST HERE. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila. SECOND DIVISION. G.R. No. June 20, MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE. SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. June 20, ] MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and feelthefish.com FLORENTINO TUAZON, JR., being the Judge.

[17] Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga, G.R. No.

G.R. No. June 20, MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HON. JUDGE FLORENTINO TUAZON, JR., being the Judge of the RTC, Brach , Makati City, respondents. BUENA, J.: This petition for review, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to review and set aside the Order dated January 28, issued by Judge . SECOND DIVISION. G.R. No. June 20, MEYNARDO L. BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HON. JUDGE FLORENTINO TUAZON, JR., being the Judge of the RTC, Brach , Makati City, Respondents. BUENA, J.: This petition for review, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to review and set aside the Order dated January 28, . [17] Algura v. The Local Government Unit of the City of Naga, G.R. No. , October 30, , SCRA 81, 98; Valencia feelthefish.com of Appeals, G.R. No. , April.

, October 30, , SCRA 81, 98; Valencia feelthefish.com of Appeals, G.R. No. , April. Nov 19,  · BELTRAN v PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES (DIGEST) G.R.

No. ; 20 June TOPICS: Prejudicial Question, Bigamy, Concubinage, and Nullity of Marriage FACTS: Meynardo and Charmaine were married in After 24 years of marriage, Meynardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with Charmaine on the ground of psychological incapacity.

BELTRAN v PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES (DIGEST) – The Lowly Law Student