University of the Philippines College of Law

UPD Eve 2 Batch 2027

OVERVIEW

Subject Law 100 - PRF

Topic Void Marriages (Arts. 35-44) - Art. 38

Case Name Carungcong v. People

Docket No. G.R. No. 181409, Feb. 11, 2010

Ponente Corona, Velasco Jr., Nachura, Mendoza, Peralta

Provision Family Code Article 38

The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public
policy:

(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to

the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that
other person's spouse, or his or her own spouse

Summary Son in law of deceased Carungcong misrepresented information to which

convinced Carungcong to sign an SPA that was for the sale of land.
Carungcong’s Administratrix now files a case of estafa against the Son-in-law.
Son-in-law William states that due to RPC Art. 332(1), he will not be held
criminally liable. Hence, this petition.

Doctrine Void Marriages

RELEVANT FACTS

 William was married to Zenaida. They have two daughters, Karen and Wendy. Zenaida
died ahead of her mother Manolita, William's mother-in-law. In 1992, William made
Manolita sign special powers of attorney appointing Wendy, then only 20 years old, as
Manolita’s attorney-in-fact to sell and dispose four valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay
City. William told Manolita (who was already completely blind) that the documents she
was signing was merely for paying taxes. Believing William's misrepresentation, Manolita
signed the documents. The parcels of land were sold and William misappropriated the
proceeds thereof amounting to P22,034,000.
 After the death of Manolita, Mediatrix, one of the surviving daughters, filed a petition for
the settlement of Manolita’s intestate estate before the RTC praying the she be appointed
administratrix thereof. After her appointment as such, Mediatrix learned from her niece

Ang, Jazmine LAW121-Crim 1 | 1

 University of the Philippines College of Law
UPD Eve 2 Batch 2027
Wendy about the fraudulent sale of the parcels of land and the misappropriation
committed by William. Thus, as the duly appointed administrator of the estate of her
deceased mother, she filed a case for estafa against her brother-in-law, William.
 William moved to quash the Information claiming that under Article 332 (1) of the RPC,
his relationship to Manolita, his mother-in-law exempts him from criminal liability. The
RTC sustained William’s motion and dismissed the information. The court said that the
death of Zenaida did not extinguish the relationship by affinity of her husband William and
her mother Manolita, and therefore Article 332(1) exempting him from criminal liability was
still applicable. The CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE and RATIO DECIDENDI

W/N the death of Zenaida dissolve the relationship by affinity of her surviving spouse
William and her mother Manolita.

No.

For purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the relationship by affinity created
between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of
either party to the marriage which created the affinity. (The same principle applies to the justifying
circumstance of defense of one’s relatives under Article 11[2] of the Revised Penal Code, the
mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of grave offense committed against ones relatives
under Article 13[5] of the same Code and the absolutory cause of relationship in favor of
accessories under Article 20 also of the same Code.)

W/N William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his relationship to
Manolita?

No.

The coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious
mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with
another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.

The Information against William charges him with estafa. However, the real nature of the offense is
determined by the facts alleged in the Information, not by the designation of the offense. What
controls is not the title of the Information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts
recited in the Information. In other words, it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense,
not the nomenclature of the offense, that determines the crime being charged in the Information.

DISPOSITION

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 9, 2007 and the
resolution dated January 23, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 95260 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the trial court which is directed to try the
accused with dispatch for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

Ang, Jazmine LAW121-Crim 1 | 2