Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROBERTO DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM NO. P-02-1651 2006-06-22	ESTRADA v. ESCRITOR PUNO, J.
Examples of accommodations in American jurisprudence also abound, including, but not limited to the U.S. Court declaring the following acts as constitutional: a state hiring a Presbyterian minister to lead the legislature in daily prayers,[45] or requiring employers to pay workers compensation when the resulting inconsistency between work and Sabbath leads to discharge;[46] for government to give money to religiously-affiliated organizations to teach adolescents about proper sexual behavior;[47] or to provide religious school pupils with books;[48] or bus rides to religious schools;[49] or with cash to pay for state-mandated standardized tests.[50]
	GR NO. 165842 2005-11-29	EDUARDO P. MANUEL v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
On June 18, 2004, the CA rendered judgment affirming the decision of the RTC with modification as to the penalty of the accused. It ruled that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of bigamy. Contrary to the contention of the appellant, Article 41 of the Family Code should apply. Before Manuel could lawfully marry the private complainant, there should have been a judicial declaration of Gaña's presumptive death as the absent spouse. The appellate court cited the rulings of this Court in Mercado v. Tan[15] and Domingo v. Court of Appeals[16] to support its ruling. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
	GR No. 159218 2004-03-30	SALVADOR S. ABUNADO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
On January 19, 1995, an annulment case was filed by Salvador against Narcisa.[4] On May 18, 1995, a case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida.[5]
	GR No. 145226 2004-02-06	LUCIO MORIGO Y CACHO v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
SO ORDERED.[7] In convicting herein petitioner, the trial court discounted petitioner's claim that his first marriage to Lucia was null and void ab initio. Following Domingo v. Court of Appeals,[8] the trial court ruled that want of a valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of bigamy. The parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.