FIRST DIVISION[G.R. No. 138509. July 31, 2000]IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs. ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent.D E C I S I O NNARES-SAN!IAGO, J."On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage it! one "aria D#$ce %& 'a(ier& )it!o#t said marriage !a(ing been ann#$$ed, n#$$ified or terminated, t!e same respondent contracted a second marriage it! petitionerIme$da "arbe$$a*%obis on 'an#ar+ 25, 199, and a$$eged$+ a t!ird marriage it! a certain '#$ia Sa$$+ -ernande.& %ased on petitioner/s comp$aint*affida(it, an information for bigam+ as fi$ed against respondent on Febr#ar+ 25, 1998, !ic! as doc0eted as 1rimina$ 1ase No& 298*35,11 of t!e Regiona$ Tria$ 1o#rt, %ranc! 22,, 2#e.on 1it+& Sometime t!ereafter, respondent initiated a ci(i$ action for t!e 4#dicia$ dec$aration of abso$#te n#$$it+ of !is first marriage ont!e gro#nd t!at it as ce$ebrated it!o#t a marriage $icense& Respondent t!enfi$ed a motion to s#spend t!e proceedings in t!e crimina$ case for bigam+ in(o0ing t!e pending ci(i$ case for n#$$it+ of t!e first marriage as a pre4#dicia$ 5#estion to t!e crimina$ case& T!e tria$ 4#dge granted t!e motion to s#spend t!e crimina$ case in an Order dated December 29, 1998&617 8etitioner fi$ed a motion for reconsideration, b#t t!e same as denied&-ence, t!is petition for re(ie on certiorari& 8etitioner arg#es t!at respondent s!o#$d !a(e first obtained a 4#dicia$ dec$aration of n#$$it+ of !is first marriage before entering into t!e second marriage, inasm#c! as t!e a$$eged pre4#dicia$ 5#estion 4#stif+ing s#spension of t!e bigam+ case is no $onger a $ega$ tr#ism p#rs#ant to 9rtic$e :; of t!e Fami$+ 1ode&627T!e iss#e to be reso$(ed in t!is petition is !et!er t!e s#bse5#ent fi$ing of a ci(i$ action for dec$aration of n#$$it+ of a pre(io#s marriage constit#tes a pre4#dicia$ 5#estion to a crimina$ case for bigam+&9 pre4#dicia$ 5#estion is one !ic! arises in a case t!e reso$#tion of !ic! is a$ogica$ antecedent of t!e iss#e in(o$(ed t!erein&6a? t!e ci(i$ action in(o$(es an iss#e simi$ar or intimate$+ re$ated to t!e iss#e raised in t!e crimina$ action@ and>b? t!e reso$#tion of s#c! iss#e determines !et!er or not t!e crimina$ action ma+ proceed&9 pre4#dicia$ 5#estion does not conc$#si(e$+ reso$(e t!e g#i$t or innocence of t!e acc#sed b#t simp$+ tests t!e s#fficienc+ of t!e a$$egations in t!e information in order to s#stain t!e f#rt!er prosec#tion of t!e crimina$ case& 9 part+ !o raises a pre4#dicia$ 5#estion is deemed to !a(e !+pot!etica$$+ admitted t!at a$$ t!e essentia$ e$ements of a crime !a(e been ade5#ate$+ a$$eged in t!e information, considering t!at t!e prosec#tion !as not +et presented a sing$e e(idence on t!e indictment or ma+ not +et !a(e rested its case& 9 c!a$$enge of t!e a$$egations in t!e information on t!e gro#nd of pre4#dicia$ 5#estion is in effect a 5#estion on t!e merits of t!e crimina$ c!arge t!ro#g! a non*crimina$ s#it&9rtic$e :; of t!e Fami$+ 1ode, !ic! as effecti(e at t!e time of ce$ebration of t!e second marriage, re5#ires a prior 4#dicia$ dec$aration of n#$$it+ of a pre(io#s marriage before a part+ ma+ remarr+& T!e c$ear imp$ication of t!is is t!at it is not for t!e parties, partic#$ar$+ t!e acc#sed, to determine t!e (a$idit+ or in(a$idit+ of t!e marriage&687 )!et!er or not t!e first marriage as (oid for $ac0 of a $icense is a matter of defense beca#se t!ere is sti$$ no 4#dicia$ dec$aration of its n#$$it+ at t!e time t!e second marriage as contracted& It s!o#$d be remembered t!at bigam+ can s#ccessf#$$+ be prosec#ted pro(ided a$$ its e$ements conc#r A to of !ic! are a pre(io#s marriage and a s#bse5#ent marriage !ic! o#$d !a(e been (a$id !ad it not been for t!e eBistence at t!e materia$ time of t!e first marriage&697In t!e case at bar, respondent/s c$ear intent is to obtain a 4#dicia$ dec$aration of n#$$it+ of !is first marriage and t!ereafter to in(o0e t!at (er+ same 4#dgmentto pre(ent !is prosec#tion for bigam+& -e cannot !a(e !is ca0e and eat it too& Ot!erise, a$$ t!at an ad(ent#ro#s bigamist !as to do is to disregard 9rtic$e :;of t!e Fami$+ 1ode, contract a s#bse5#ent marriage and escape a bigam+ c!arge b+ simp$+ c$aiming t!at t!e first marriage is (oid and t!at t!e s#bse5#ent marriage is e5#a$$+ (oid for $ac0 of a prior 4#dicia$ dec$aration of n#$$it+ of t!e first& 9 part+ ma+ e(en enter into a marriage aare of t!e absence of a re5#isite * #s#a$$+ t!e marriage $icense * and t!ereafter contract a s#bse5#ent marriage it!o#t obtaining a dec$aration of n#$$it+ of t!e first on t!e ass#mption t!at t!e first marriage is (oid& S#c! scenario o#$d render n#gator+ t!e pro(isions on bigam+& 9s s#ccinct$+ !e$d in Landicho v. Relova=61;7>8?arties to a marriage s!o#$d not be permitted to 4#dge for t!emse$(es its n#$$it+, on$+ competent co#rts !a(ing s#c! a#t!orit+& 8rior to s#c! dec$aration of n#$$it+, t!e (a$idit+ of t!e first marriage is be+ond 5#estion& 9 part+ !o contracts a second marriage t!en ass#mes t!e ris0 of being prosec#ted for bigam+&Respondent a$$eges t!at t!e first marriage in t!e case before #s as (oid for $ac0 of a marriage $icense& 8etitioner, on t!e ot!er !and, arg#es t!at !er marriage to respondent as eBempt from t!e re5#irement of a marriage $icense& "ore specifica$$+, petitioner c$aims t!at prior to t!eir marriage, t!e+ !ad a$read+ attained t!e age of ma4orit+ and !ad been $i(ing toget!er as !#sband and ife for at $east fi(e +ears&6117 T!e iss#e in t!is case is $imited to t!e eBistence of a pre4#dicia$ 5#estion, and e are not ca$$ed #pon to reso$(e t!e (a$idit+ of t!e first marriage& %e t!at as it ma+, s#ffice it to state t!at t!e 1i(i$ 1ode, #nder !ic! t!e first marriage as ce$ebrated, pro(ides t!at Ce(er+intendment of $a or fact $eans toard t!e (a$idit+ of marriage, t!e indisso$#bi$it+ of t!e marriage bonds&C6127 -ence, parties s!o#$d not be permittedto 4#dge for t!emse$(es t!e n#$$it+ of t!eir marriage, for t!e same m#st be s#bmitted to t!e determination of competent co#rts& On$+ !en t!e n#$$it+ of t!e marriage is so dec$ared can it be !e$d as (oid, and so $ong as t!ere is no s#c! dec$aration t!e pres#mption is t!at t!e marriage eBists&61