Unknown date Unknown author

Villasanta vs. Peralta Case Digest

Home / Unlabelled / Villasanta vs. Peralta Case Digest

Villasanta vs. Peralta Case Digest

Facts:

Respondent Hilarion, who was already married to Rizalina, courted Lilian who fell in love with
him. To have carnal knowledge of Lilian, Hilarion procured the preparation of a fake marriage
contract which was then a blank document and made Lilian sign it. A week after, Hilarion brought
the document back to Lilian with the signatures of the judge, the civil registrar and two witnesses.
Since they lived together as husband and wife. Sometime later, Lilian insisted on a religious
ratification of their marriage. The two went to a priest who, relying on the falsified marriage
contract, solemnized the marriage. Lilian later discovered that Hilarion was previously married;
whereupon, she filed the criminal action for a violation of Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code
and a complaint for immorality before the Supreme Court, seeking to disqualify Hilarion, a 1954
successful bar candidate, from being admitted to the bar.

Held:

Respondent is immoral. He made mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding

respect and dignity. His conviction in the criminal case involves moral turpitude. The act of
respondent in contracting the second marriage (even his act in making love to another woman while
his first wife is still alive and their marriage still valid and existing) is contrary to honesty, justice,
decency, and morality. Thus lacking the good moral character required by the Rules of Court, the
respondent is hereby declared disqualified from being admitted to the bar. (Villasanta v. Peralta,
101 Phil. 313)

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )