Legal Memorandum Sample Legal Writing

8/19/2019 Legal Memorandum Sample Legal Writing

1/11

Jayford O. Powao LLB-1

Legal Writing

To: Ana Quinn, Associate Attorney

ro!: Pal Patin, "u#er$ising Attorney

%ate: &arc' (, )*1+

e: Beru $. Owen Biga!y ase/ %efenses in Biga!y

0ou 'a$e tased !e to #re#are a legal !e!orandu!

concerning t'e case of our client &iss Beru w'o is c'arged

wit' Biga!y. 2 'a$e #resented 'ere t'e ey facts, issues, our

#ossi3le defense, a##lica3le 4uris#rudence and laws t'at can

3e our 3asis to defend our client, including #ossi3lecounterargu!ents fro! t'e o##osing and our answer to t'at

counter argu!ents.

KEY FACTS

Our client, Beru got !arried in )**) wit' 'er 'us3and

Owen. Owen 5led a co!#laint for 3iga!y against Beru in

)*1). Owen clai!ed t'at Beru 'ad contracted a #rior

!arriage in 166) wit' a !an na!ed Lando. Beru denied 'er

'us3and7s allegations. "'e ad!itted, 'owe$er, t'at s'e was

a #arty in a si!ulated !arriage t'at too #lace in 166( wit'

'er 5rst 3oyfriend Lando. T'e reason was t'at Lando at t'at

ti!e i!#regnated anot'er wo!an na!ed orde, and in

order to discourage orde fro! #ursuing 'i!, Lando

con$inced Beru to sign a si!ulated !arriage contract for t'e

#ur#ose of only s'owing orde t'at 'e was !arried already.

Beru said t'at s'e and Lando did not e$en li$e toget'er as

1


2/11

'us3and and wife after t'e si!ulated !arriage. 2t was only

after t'e 3iga!y co!#laint was 5led in court w'en Beru

disco$ered t'at Lando in fact registered t'e si!ulated

!arriage contract wit'out 'er nowledge !uc' less consent.

ISSUES

1.8 W'et'er t'e 9uestion of t'e $alidity of t'e !arriage

3etween Beru and Lando s'ould 3e resol$ed 5rst 3efore t'e

cri!inal #roceeding can #roceed

).8 W'et'er Beru and Lando7s act of signing a si!ulated

!arriage contract consisted of a $alid !arriage

8. W'et'er Beru can 3e 'eld lia3le for Biga!y for

conducting a su3se9uent !arriage wit' Owen w'en s'e 'ad

a #re$ious su3sisting !arriage wit' Lando

BRIEF ANSWERS

18. 0es, t'e $alidity of Beru7s !arriage wit' Lando s'all 3e

resol$ed 5rst as it constitutes a #re4udicial 9uestion to t'e

cri!inal case of 3iga!y 5led against 'er 3y 'er 'us3and

Owen since it is deter!inati$e w'et'er or not t'e cri!inal

case s'all #ros#er.

).8 ;o, 3ecause t'e essential and for!al re9uisites for a

$alid !arriage was not co!#lied. Alt'oug' t'ere is a

!arriage contract, 3ut a !arriage contract is not an

essential nor a for!al re9uisite for a $alid !arriage.

.8 ;o, Beru cannot 3e 'eld guilty for t'e cri!e of Biga!y

3ecause 'er 5rst !arriage wit' Lando was not $alid, 'enceone of t'e essential re9uisites for t'e cri!e of Biga!y to 3e

co!!itted is not #resent.

DISCUSSIONS/ANALYSIS

)


3/11

T'e 5rst issue to 3e resol$ed in t'is case is w'et'er or

not t'e issue of t'e $alidity of t'e !arriage 3etween Beru

and Lando s'ould 3e resol$ed 5rst 3efore t'e #rosecution for

t'e cri!e of Biga!y can #roceed. 2n s'ort, t'e issue on t'e

$alidity ser$es as a #re4udicial 9uestion to t'e cri!e of

Biga!y indicted against Beru. As enunciated in Article 36 of

the Civil Code:

“Prejudicial questions, which must be decided before any

criminal prosecution may be instituted, or may proceed, shall be

overned by our rules of court which the !upreme Court shall promulate and which shall not be in con"ict with the provisions of this

Code#$

2n t'e sa!e !anner, t'e "u#re!e ourt 'eld in a case

w'erein t'e accused clai!ed t'at 'is 5rst !arriage was null

and $oid and t'e rig't to decide t'at 9uestion is $ested in

anot'er tri3unal, t'e ci$il action for nullity !ust 3e decided

5rst 3efore t'e action for 3iga!y can #roceed. As t'e 'ig'

court said in t'e case of People v Adelo Araon:

“Prejudicial question has been de%ned to be that which arises in

a case, the resolution of which &question' is a loical antecedent of the

issue involved in said case, and the coni(ance of which pertains to

another tribunal# )he prejudicial question must be determinative of

the case before the court* this is its %rst element# +urisdiction to try

said question must be loded in another tribunal* this is the second

element#

n an action for biamy, for e-ample, if the accused claims that the

%rst marriae is null .and void and the riht to decide such validity is

vested in another tribunal, the civil action for nullity must %rst be

decided before the action for biamy can proceed* hence, the validity

of the %rst marriae is a prejudicial question#<

As su##le!ented 3y !ection / of 0ule .. of the 0ules of

Court , t'e ele!ents of a #re4udicial 9uestion are:

1 2=2L O%>, AT. +PP =". A%>LO AA?O;, ? ;O. @6*L>" O OT, ">T2O;


4/11

CDa8 t'e #re$iously instituted ci$il action in$ol$es an issue si!ilar

or inti!ately related to t'e issue said in t'e su3se9uent cri!inal

action, and

D38t'e resolution of suc' issue deter!ines w'et'er or not t'ecri!inal action !ay #roceed.<

T'us, Beru s'all institute a ci$il case to resol$e t'e

$alidity of 'er 5rst !arriage wit' 'er for!er 3oyfriend

Lando. As suc', t'is action s'all 3ar t'e cri!inal action fro!

#roceeding as it constitutes a #re4udicial 9uestion to t'e

cri!e of Biga!y c'arged against Beru.

T'e second issue to 3e resol$ed in t'is case is w'et'er

t'e si!ulation of a !arriage contract 3etween Lando and

Beru resulted to t'e cele3ration of a $alid !arriage. 2t is of

#ri!ary i!#ortance to re$isit t'e essential and for!al

re9uisites of a $alid !arriage. As stated in Article 1 and 3 of

the 2amily Code:

“o marriae shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are

present:

&.'4eal capacity of the contractin parties who must be a male

and a female* and&1'Consent freely iven in the presence of the solemni(in o5cer#

)he formal requisites of marriae are:

&.' Authority of the solemni(in o5cer*&1' A valid marriae license e-cept in cases provided for Chapter

1 of this )itle* and&3' A marriae ceremony which taes place with the appearance

of the contractin parties before the solemni(in o5cer and

their personal declaration that they tae each other as

husband and wife in the presence of not less than two

witnesses of leal ae#

urt'er!ore, t'e a3sence of any of t'e essential or

for!al re9uisites s'all render t'e !arriage in$alid. 2t is

eE#ressedly laid down in Article 7 of the 2amily Code, w'ic'#ro$ides:

F


5/11

“)he absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall

render the marriae void ab initio, e-cept as stated in Article 38&1'1

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the

marriae voidable as provided in Article 78#$

2n t'e case at 3ar, it is undenia3le t'at Lando and Beru

agreed to sign a si!ulated !arriage contract for t'e #ur#ose

of s'owing orde w'o! Lando i!#regnated t'a Lando is

already !arried. But t'is does #ro$e t'at t'e !arriage was

$alid, as s'own a3o$e, !arriage contract is not an essential

nor a for!al re9uisite for a $alid !arriage. Assu!ing inargu!ent t'at t'e act of signing t'e !arriage contract was

an act #ur#orting t'at t'ey declare eac' ot'er as 'us3and

and wife and t'at t'ey 3ot' consent, 3ut t'is was not done

during a !arriage cere!ony in front of a sole!niGing oHcer.

T'e signing was done #ri$ately a!ong t'e #arties.

T'e a3sence of suc' negates t'e eEistence of t'e

essential and for!al re9uisites na!ely: t'e consent freely

gi$en in t'e #resence of a sole!niGing oHcer, aut'ority of

t'e sole!niGing oHcer, a !arriage cere!ony w'ere t'e

#arties a##ear 3efore t'e sole!niGing oHcer #ersonally

declaring t'at t'ey tae eac' ot'er as 'us3and and wife in

t'e #resence of two witnesses.

urt'er!ore, it 'as not 3een s'own t'at t'ey #rocured

a !arriage, and o3$iously t'eir situation does not fall u#on

t'e eEe!#tions #ro$ided 3y law w'ere a !arriage license is

not re9uired.

) A&2L0 O%>, AT. )A&2L0 O%>, AT. A&2L0 O%>, AT. FA2;O =". A2;O, ? ;O. 1)@)6

@


6/11

T'us, t'e !arriage 3etween Lando and Beru is void ab

initio in accordance wit' Article F, since t'ey failed to o3tain

t'e essential and for!al re9uisites #ro$ided 3y law.

As 'eld 3y t'e "u#re!e ourt in t'e case of Cari9o v#

Cari9o t'e court declared t'at t'e !arriage 3etween t'e

#arties was void ab initio for t'e failure of t'e #arties to

secure a $alid !arriage license e$en if t'ere was a !arriagecontract. T'e court ruled t'at:

Cnder t'e i$il ode, w'ic' was t'e law in force w'en t'e !arriage of

#etitioner "usan ;icdao and t'e deceased was sole!niGed in 16+6, a

$alid !arriage license is a re9uisite of !arriage, and t'e a3sence

t'ereof, su34ect to certain eEce#tions, renders t'e !arriage $oid ab

initio.

2n t'e case at 3ar, t'ere is no 9uestion t'at t'e !arriage of #etitioner

and t'e deceased does not fall wit'in t'e !arriages eEe!#t fro! t'e

license re9uire!ent. A !arriage license, t'erefore, was indis#ensa3le

to t'e $alidity of t'eir !arriage. T'is notwit'standing, t'e records

re$eal t'at t'e !arriage contract of #etitioner and t'e deceased 3ears

no !arriage license nu!3er and, as certi5ed 3y t'e Local i$ilegistrar of "an Juan, &etro &anila, t'eir oHce 'as no record of suc'

!arriage license.<

urt'er!ore, !arriage is a contract go$erned 3y law

and t'e law states t'at contracts w'ic' are si!ulated are

$oid or ineEistent, #articularly Article .7; of t'e i$il ode

enu!erates contracts w'ic' are $oid or ineEistent, t'e said

article states t'at:

“Art# .7;# )he followin contracts are ine-istent and voidfrom the beinnin:

- - - - - - - - -

&1' )hose which are absolutely simulated or %ctitious* - - -

- - - - - -

2n t'e case of


7/11

court sustained t'at t'e lower court7s ruling t'at t'e

!arriage 3etween t'e #etitioner and res#ondent of t'is

case was null and void ab initio and non-eEistent for lac

of !arriage license and for si!ulation of t'e !arriage

contract.

T'us, it can 3e concluded in lig't of t'e a3o$e

!entioned rules and 4uris#rudence, t'at t'e !arriage

3etween Lando and Beru is void ab initio for t'ey were not

a3le to co!#ly wit' t'e essential and for!al re9uisites for a$alid !arriage. We can also consider t'at t'e !arriage was

$oid or ineEistent for t'e si!ulation of t'e !arriage contract

in accordance wit' Article 1F*6 of t'e a!ily ode.

T'e t'ird issue t'at s'all 3e discussed is w'et'er Beru

can 3e 'eld lia3le for Biga!y. Article 37; of the 0evised

Penal Code de5nes and #enaliGes Biga!y w'ic' states t'att'e #enalty of prision mayor s'all 3e i!#osed u#on any

#erson w'o s'all contract a second or su3se9uent !arriage

3efore t'e for!er !arriage 'as 3een legally dissol$ed, or

3efore t'e a3sent s#ouse 'as 3een declared #resu!#ti$ely

dead 3y !eans of a 4udge!ent rendered in t'e #ro#er

#roceedings.

urt'er!ore, t'e case of =ercado v )an #ro$ides t'e

ele!ents for Biga!y to 3e co!!itted w'ic' are:

“.# )hat the o>ender has been leally married#

1# )hat the marriae has not been leally dissolved or in case his

or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed

dead accordin to the Civil Code#

3# )hat he contracts a second or subsequent marriae#

A2;O =". A2;O, ? ;O. 1)@)62=2L O%>, AT. 1F*6BA;?A0A; =" BA;?A0A; J. ? ;O. )*1*+1>=2">% P>;AL O%>, AT. F6&>A%O =" TA; 111*


8/11

7# )hat the second or subsequent marriae has all the essential

requisites for validity#$

ro! t'e a3o$e-cited article and 4uris#rudence, Beru

cannot 3e 'eld lia3le for Biga!y 3ecause t'e 5rst essential

re9uisite is a3sent in t'is case w'ic' #ro$ides t'at t'e

oIender !ust 'a$e 3een legally !arried. Beru is not legally

!arried, as argued a3o$e, 'er #re$ious !arriage wit' Lando

'as no legal eIect 3ecause t'ey 'a$e failed to co!#ly wit'

t'e essential and for!al re9uisites of a $alid !arriage.

T'us, in t'e eyes of t'e law, Beru is not legally !arried

#rior to 'er !arriage wit' Owen, as suc' s'e 'ad not legal

i!#edi!ent and was acting wit'in 'er rig'ts and under t'e

3ounds of law w'en s'e conducted a su3se9uent !arriage

wit' Owen. encefort', Beru cannot 3e 'eld lia3le for

Biga!y.

COUNTERARGUMENTS

Beru s'all 3e 'eld lia3le for 3iga!y 3ecause it is not u#

to t'e #arty to decide w'et'er or not t'e !arriage is $alid.

Judicial declaration of nullity is needed 3efore a !arried

#erson can re!arry. As Article 7 of the 2amily Code

#ro$ides:

C)he absolute nullity of a previous marriae may be invoed for

purposes of remarriae on the basis solely of a %nal judement

declarin such previous marriae void#<

urt'er!ore, t'e law #ro'i3its t'e #arties fro!

assu!ing t'at t'eir !arriage is $oid, e$en if it is true and

undis#uta3le, t'ey !ust 5rst see 4udicial aid and a##ly for

a declaration of t'e nullity of t'eir !arriage 3efore t'ey can3e allowed to re!arry. ailure of t'e o3ser$ance of suc' s'all

!ae t'e! lia3le for Biga!y. As ruled in ?omino vs CA:

(


9/11

“Came the 2amily Code which settled once and for all thecon"ictin jurisprudence on the matter# A declaration of

the

absolute nullity

of

a marriae is now e-plicitly required either as a

cause of

action or a round for defense# @here the absolute

nullity

of

a previous marriae is souht to be invoed for

purposes of

contractin a second marriae, the sole basis

acceptable in law for said projected marriae to be free from leal

in%rmity is a %nal judment declarin the previous marriae void#

)he 2amily 4aw 0evision Committee and the Civil Code Committee

which drafted what is now the 2amily Code of the Philippines too

the position that parties to a marriae should not be allowed that

their marriae is void even if be the fact but must %rst secure a

judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriae before they can

be allowed to marry aain#$ 7

or t'e failure of Beru to 5le a court action for t'e

4udicial declaration of nullity of 'er !arriage, s'e is guilty

for Biga!y w'en s'e conducted a su3se9uent !arriage

wit' Owen e$en if s'e 'ad a su3sisting !arriage wit'

Lando. er disregard of t'e rule stated in Article 7 of the

2amily Code cannot eEcuse 'er for lia3ility, as t'e latin!aEi! says inorantia leis non e-cusat#

Lastly, Beru can 3e 'eld lia3le for !oral da!ages w'ic'

Owen suIered as a result of t'e !ental distress, anguis'

and #ain 'e suIered as a result of t'eir failed !arriage.

As Article 1 and 1. of the 2amily Code #ro$ides:

C Article 1 Bvery person who, contrary to law, wilfully or neliently causes damae to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same#

Article 1. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to

another in a manner that is contrary to morals, ood customs or public

policy shall compensate the latter for the damaes#$

RESPONSE TO THE COUNTER ARGUMENTS

F %O&2;?O =" A ? ;O. 1*F(1(2=2L O%>, AT. )*2=22L O%>, AT. )1A&2L0 O%>, AT. F*

6


10/11

Beru cannot 3e 'eld lia3le for Biga!y e$en if s'e failed

to in$oe 4udicial aid to declare t'e nullity of 'er !arriage

wit' Lando. Beru was not cogniGant of t'e fact t'at Lando

registered t'e si!ulated !arriage contract, s'e only new

a3out after t'e co!#laint of 3iga!y was 5led.

Penal laws are li3erally construed in fa$our of t'e

accused, as suc' intent is necessary. T'erefore, acts done in

good fait' !ay free any one fro! lia3ility. 2n t'e case at 3ar,

Beru7s act of conducting a su3se9uent !arriage was !ade in

good fait'. Beru 'ad no cri!inal intent to co!!it Biga!y.

er act of conni$ance and failure of seeing 4udicial aid is an

error of 4udge!ent cou#led wit' !istae of fact. T'us, s'e

s'ould not 3e 'eld cri!inally lia3le for Biga!y.

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Our defense 'olds water, as #ro$ided 3y law and

4uris#rudence, Beru cannot 3e 'eld lia3le for Biga!y

3ecause 'er !arriage wit' Lando was si!ulated and failed

to co!#ly wit' t'e re9uisites #ro$ided 3y law. urt'er!ore,

it is 'ig'ly reco!!ended t'at we #resent t'e local ci$il

registrar as our witness to testify t'at t'e !arriage contract

is in fact in $alid and 'as no !arriage license nu!3er.

We also reco!!end to #resent Lando as our witness so

t'at 'e will attest to t'e facts t'at t'ey si!ulated t'eir

!arriage contract and t'at t'eir !arriage is not $alid. is

state!ent will 3e 'ig'ly rele$ant to t'is case.

1*


11/11

11

Documents

Legal Memorandum Sample Legal Writing