Double fault

This is the case of Ric and Tess who hastily got married after a whirlwind romance in a secret rite that had all the earmarks of imprudence and recklessness. In fact, shortly after their wedding, Tess already went to the United States to work as a nurse and 2rties as investment for their future life together.

About five years after getting married however, Tess learned that even before their wedding, Ric was already married to another woman. She also discovered that their marriage license was not validly issued.

So Tess filed a complaint against Ric in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of her province for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground that it is bigamous and for having been solemnized without a valid marriage license. Tess also sought to recover from Ric the sum of $32,000.00 she allegedly sent him while working on the States to buy properties as investment for their future life together. She further asked for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.

Instead of immediately answering the complaint, Ric himself also filed a complaint against Tess in the RTC of his province seeking likewise the annulment of the same marriage on the ground that he was forced to marry her at gunpoint and that they had no valid license. He also prayed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

Subsequently he also answered Tess’ complaint in the court of Tess’ province reiterating the allegations in his own complaint by way of counterclaim for moral damages, and prayed that their marriage be declared void from the beginning for having been performed illegally and under force, violence, intimidation, threats and strategy.

For her part, in response to Ric’s complaint Tess filed a motion to dismiss said case invoking “litis pendencia” (pending litigation), citing the civil case she earlier filed. According to Tess, Ric’s complaint should be dismissed because it involves (1) the same parties or at least such as representing the same interest; (2) the rights asserted and relief prayed for are the same and the (3) identity in the two cases is such that the judgment that may be rendered in her pending complaint would, regardless of which party is successful, bar any other judgment in Ric’s complaint.

Ric on the other hand contended that the possible judgment in Tess complaint regarding the issues of whether there is a valid marriage license and/or whether he deceitfully failed to disclose a prior marriage would not constitute a ruling on whether he himself had been forced, threatened and intimidated into the marrying Tess which is one of the issues he raised against Tess in his complaint. Was he correct?

No. Ric has resorted to nit-picking and in the process has lost track of the real issue besetting the two actions which is simply the nullification of marriage contracted by the parties. Interestingly in his answer with counterclaim against Tess, Ric has also raised the issue of force, violence, intimidation, threats and strategy, the very same issue in his complaint. Hence, he cannot now deny that the issues as well as the arguments raised before the two trial courts are identical. Any decision or ruling promulgated on Tess’ complaint will necessarily be a bar to another judgment in his complaint and vice versa.

Moreover, in his answer to Tess complaint, he also presented a counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fee. A counterclaim partakes of the nature of a complaint and or a cause of action against a plaintiff in the case.  To interpose a cause of action in a counterclaim and again invoke it in a subsequent complaint against the same person or party would be splitting a cause of action not sanctioned by the Rules.

Ric’s complaint was thus dismissed because of the pending complaint filed by Tess. And eventually, Tess won the case she filed in her province where her marriage to Ric was nullified on the ground that it was bigamous. Tess was likewise awarded moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees totaling P200,000.00 (Mariscal vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. 123926, July 22, 1999)

E-mail: [email protected]