Scribd
Upload
31 views2 pages

JULIANO

The document discusses a case involving the marriage of Tamano and Estrellita under Muslim law as well as Tamano's prior marriage under civil law. It outlines the facts of the case, which involve multiple marriages and divorce. It then discusses the issues presented, which center around whether the judgment was premature. It holds that the judgment was not premature as Estrellita failed to properly file an answer or present evidence despite delays, and certiorari is an independent action from trial.

Uploaded by

tantum ergum
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
31 views2 pages

JULIANO

The document discusses a case involving the marriage of Tamano and Estrellita under Muslim law as well as Tamano's prior marriage under civil law. It outlines the facts of the case, which involve multiple marriages and divorce. It then discusses the issues presented, which center around whether the judgment was premature. It holds that the judgment was not premature as Estrellita failed to properly file an answer or present evidence despite delays, and certiorari is an independent action from trial.

Uploaded by

tantum ergum
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

ESTRELLITA JULIANO-LLAVE, vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,


G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 637

FACTS:
May 31, 1958, Tamano married Zorayda under civil rites. February 4, 1977, the Muslim
Code, P.D. 1083 took effect. May 27, 1993, Tamano married Estrellita under the Muslim
Code. June 2, 1993, Tamano married Estrellita under a civil ceremony officiated by an
RTC Judge. Tamano’s civil status indicated as ‘divorced’.
May 1994, Tamano died. November 23, 1994 Zorayda and Adib filed for the declaration
of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano as under civil rites, their
marriage remained subsisting when Tamano married Estrellita in 1993.
Upon being summoned by the RCT on December 19, 1994, Estrellita asked for an
extension of 30 days to file her answer. Instead of filing her answer, she filed a Motion
to Dismiss on February 20, 1995 asserting that under the Muslim Code, jurisdiction on
Muslim marriages fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of Shari’s courts. Certiorari
petition questioning the denial of her Motion to Dismiss was filed by Estrellita.
RTC continued to try the case while certiorari petition was in CA. CA denied her petition
and Estrellita was ordered by RTC to present her evidence on June 26, 1997. At the
same time, Estrellita has escalated her petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme
Court. After multiple delays in appearing in court with her evidence, on ground that she
was waiting for the outcome of her certiorari petition, the RTC proceeded with trial and
rendered Estrellita’s marriage with Tamano as void ab initio on August 18, 1998.
Estrellita appealed to the CA arguing that she was denied here right to be heard as the
RTC rendered judgment without waiting for finality on her certiorari petition. CA upheld
that ruling of the RTC stating that she was given ample opportunity to be heard and that
her marriage with Tamano was bigamous, as the marriage of Zorayda and Tamano is
governed by the Civil Code, which does not provide for an absolute divorce.

ISSUE:
1.) WoN the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment, which the petitioner
supposes to be premature for the following reasons:
a. Judgment was rendered without the SC’s final resolution of her certiorari
petition (G.R. No. 126603)
b. she has not yet filed her answer and thus denied due process
c. public prosecutor did not conduct investigation on whether there was collusion

HELD:
1.) No. The trial court’s judgment was not premature.
a. Certiorari is an independent action which is not part of a continuation of the
trial which resulted in the rendition of the judgment complained of. Hence, it
cannot be a reason to put trial on hold.
b. Estrellita failed to file an answer and refused to present her evidence even
after her multiple requests for delay were already granted
c. The lack of participation of a public prosecutor does not invalidate the
proceedings in the trial. (Tuason v Court of Appeals)

You might also like