Scribd
Upload
152 views2 pages

The Case:: G.R. No. 236629, July 23, 2018 Republic of The Philippines, Petitioner, V. Liberato P. Mola CRUZ, Respondent

The Republic of the Philippines appealed a decision declaring the marriage of Liberato Cruz and Liezl Conag void. The couple married in 2002 and lived together in the Philippines and Japan, where Liezl worked as an entertainer. Liezl had an affair with a Japanese man and continued the relationship despite reconciling with Cruz. She moved her lover into their home and continued partying. Cruz filed for annulment citing Article 36 of the Family Code. Both the RTC and CA affirmed the void marriage. The Supreme Court will review the case.

Uploaded by

Elah De Leon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
152 views2 pages

The Case:: G.R. No. 236629, July 23, 2018 Republic of The Philippines, Petitioner, V. Liberato P. Mola CRUZ, Respondent

The Republic of the Philippines appealed a decision declaring the marriage of Liberato Cruz and Liezl Conag void. The couple married in 2002 and lived together in the Philippines and Japan, where Liezl worked as an entertainer. Liezl had an affair with a Japanese man and continued the relationship despite reconciling with Cruz. She moved her lover into their home and continued partying. Cruz filed for annulment citing Article 36 of the Family Code. Both the RTC and CA affirmed the void marriage. The Supreme Court will review the case.

Uploaded by

Elah De Leon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

236629, July 23, 2018

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LIBERATO P. MOLA


CRUZ, Respondent.

The Case:

This is an appeal by certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner)


asking the Court to reverse and set aside the April 25, 2017 Decision and January 11,
2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 105873, which affirmed
the May 8, 2015 Decision and September 16, 2015 Order of the Regional Trial Court of
Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 34 (RTC) declaring the marriage of Liberato P. Mola
Cruz (respondent) and Liezl S. Conag (Liezl) void ab initio.

Fact:

 Respondent and Liezl were married on August 30, 2002 in Bacolod City. Their
dating relationship began when Liezl's sister gave Liezl's mobile phone number to
respondent so they could become textmates. In the course of their relationship,
Liezl left for Japan to work as an entertainer for six (6) months. The couple got
married after Liezl returned home. They lived for some time in Manila where
respondent worked, but later moved to Japan where Liezl again secured a
contract as an entertainer and respondent found work as a construction worker.
It was while living in Japan when respondent noticed changes in Liezl. She began
going out of the house without respondent's permission and started giving
respondent the cold treatment. Liezl also started getting angry at respondent for
no reason. The couple later returned to the Philippines after Liezl was released
from detention due to overstaying in Japan. It was then that Liezl confessed to
respondent her romantic affair with a Japanese man. Despite the confession,
Liezl did not end the illicit relationship, which caused respondent such stress that
he was hospitalized. Respondent expressed her willingness to forgive Liezl but
she chose to walk away from their marriage.

 The couple reconciled after respondent made efforts to woo Liezl back. One day,
however, respondent found Liezl's Japanese lover in their house. To respondent's
surprise, Liezl introduced him to her lover as her elder brother. Respondent went
along with the charade, and allowed Liezl to share her bed with her lover as she
threatened to leave their home. Liezl went on with her partying ways, and
continued working in a Manila nightclub despite respondent's offer for her to
start a business.

 Despite the concessions given her, Liezl left respondent a second time.
Respondent tried to move on and left for Singapore to work in 2008. Though
abroad, he continued to woo his wife back, but found out that Liezl already
cohabited with her lover.
 Respondent decided to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code. The public prosecutor assigned to the case
reported, submitted a written report to the RTC, stating, among others, that the
filing of the petition was not a result of collusion between the
spouses. Thereafter, pre-trial was held and trial on the merits ensured.

You might also like