Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

MEMORANDUM

Question Presented

Whether or not the simulated marriage contract of Beru and Lando is


valid?
Whether or not Beru will be charged of Bigamy?

Statement of Facts

Beru got married in 2002 with her husband Owen. Owen filed a
complaint for bigamy against Beru in 2012. Owen claimed that Beru
had contracted a prior marriage in 1998 with a man named Lando..
Beru denied her husband's allegations. She admitted, however, that
she was a party in a simulated earlier marriage that took place in
1998 with her first boyfriend Lando. The reason was that Lando at
that time impregnated another woman named Corde, and in order to
discourage Corde from pursuing him, Lando convinced Beru to sign a
simulated marriage contract for the purpose of only showing Corde
that he was married already. Beru said that she and Lando did not
even live together as husband and wife after the simulated marriage.
It was only after the bigamy complaint was filed in court when Beru
discovered that Lando in fact registered the simulated marriage
contract without her knowledge, much less consent.

Short Answer

The simulated Marriage entered by Beru and Lando is


considered as void because consent of Beru was not obtained before
the registration of the matter in question ensued.
Discussion

1). Simulated Marriage contract considered as void

In the petitioner- appelant's contentions that the simulated


marriage which was contracted in 1998 with her first boyfriend
named Lando was considered a fictitious marriage and non-existent
because first, both parties had knowledge with the true intention of
Lando before the execution of simulated marriage contract ensued.

Secondly, petitioner appellant averred that she did not


live with Lando after she signified the simulated marriage. However,
the latter registered the simulated marriage without the consent of the
petitioner-appellant.

The fact that petitioner appellant did not give her consent to the
registration of the simulated marriage made by Lando, we see no
inconsistency in finding that the latter acted in bad faith and implies
conscious deception to make the fake marriage into a valid one.

Since both parties agreed on the cause or consideration


raised upon before the simulated marriage was executed ,thus in any
contract entered into, the true intentions of both party agreed upon
must prevail and nothing else.

As a simulated marriage, they would be deemed to lack


substantial marital intent. Under the Journal Of Korean Law in which
stated that regarding the definition of the marriage agreement , there
are generally two different positions which are as follows:

Substantial Marital Intent

One argues that the marital intent , as a condition of valid


marriage, is to form a functioning marriage ( i.e.,a both
spiritual and corporal community life, which typically includes
living in the same residence, sharing earnings and living cost ,
having sexual intercourses, maintaining relationships with each
other's relatives.

Formal Marital Intent

One argues that a shared agreement to register as a married


couple is enough to establish a valid marriage, and the intent to
make a functioning marriage should be neither required nor
examined.

To justify the interpretation of law from that Korean journal


to be applicable in this case, the marital consent which is true
and valid, the parties must be prepared to accept children, and
intend to bind themselves conjugally to each other, exclusively
and until death, in a union ordered to their "good" as spouses. If
either or both excludes one or all of these elements, the marital
consent is null.

In the case at bar, the allegations of Petitioner-appellants


husband was of moment negated the fact that she contracted a
valid marriage prior to their marriage. From that allegations,
Aside from the fact that the simulated marriage entered into by
Beru and Lando was registered, no such evidence was
presented to show the existence of marriage. Rather, petitioner-
appellant showed by overwhelming evidence and facts that no
marriage was entered into and that she was not even aware of
such registration of simulated marriage.

Under the Canadian Canon law , The second paragraph


of canon 1101 shows however that this presumption, like most
human presumptions, can be overturned: "but if either or both
parties through a positive act of the will should exclude
marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or an
essential property, such party contracts invalidly". In other
words if, despite what a person externally expresses, he or she
internally and positively intends something in fundamental
contradiction with that external expression, no valid consent is
given. The canon speaks of the exclusion of "marriage itself",
i.e. "total simulation", and the exclusion of an essential element
or essential property, which is the more common case of
"partial" simulation. Both types invalidate consent and render
the apparent marriage ceremony null.

In the case thereof, the petitioner appellants can contest


the allegations made by her husband because her consent was
vitiated by unilateral decision of Landos intentions to registered
it to make the fake marriage make it to a valid one.

2.) Bigamy was not committed in this case

Definition of Bigamy under Revised Penal Code

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code states that bigamy is committed
when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before
the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent
spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment
rendered in the proper proceedings.

The penalty for bigamy is prision mayor (minimum of six


years and one day to a maximum of twelve years). Bigamy is a
public crime which means that anyone who knows of the
bigamous marriage can file the criminal complaint.

The petitioner-appellant cannot be charge of bigamy due to the


fact that the allegations made by her husband wherein she contracted a
prior marriage is no question that it was held void ab initio. Simulated
marriage defined as fictitious marriage which has no legal effect and
not binding to the parties who contracted into.
However, in the case thereof there is a conflict as to its validity
because it was registered as a valid one without the knowledge and
consent of the petitioner appellant.
In the case at bar,