Legal Memorandum Sample Legal Writing

 Jayford O. O. Powao LLB-1 Legal Writing

 To:  To: Ana Quinn, Associate Attorney ro!: Pal Patin, "u#er$ising Attorney %ate: &arc' (, )*1+ e: Beru $. $. Owen  Biga!y ase/ %efenses in Biga!y

 0ou  0ou 'a$e tased !e to #re#are a legal !e!orandu! concerning t'e case of our client &iss Beru w'o is c'arged wit' Biga!y. 2 'a$e #resented 'ere t'e ey facts, issues, our #ossi3le defense, a##lica3le 4uris#rudence and laws t'at can 3e our 3asis to defe efend our client, incl ncludi uding #ossi3le counterargu!ents fro! t'e o##osing and our answer to t'at counter argu!ents. KEY FACTS

Our client, Beru got !arried in )**) wit' 'er 'us3and Owen. Owen 5led a co!#laint for 3iga!y against Beru in )*1) )* 1).. Owen Owen clai clai! !ed t'at t'at Beru Beru 'ad 'ad cont contra ract cted ed a #rio rior !arriage in 166) wit' a !an na!ed Lando. Beru denied 'er 'us3and7s 'us3and7s allegations. allegations. "'e ad!itted, ad!itted, 'owe$er, t'at s'e was a #arty in a si!ulated si!ulated !arriage !arriage t'at too #lace in 166( wit' 'er 5rst 3oyfriend Lando. T'e reason was t'at Lando at t'at ti!e ti!e i!#r i!#reg egnat nated ed anot' anot'er er wo!an wo!an na!e na!ed d ord orde, e, and and in ord order to di dis scour courag age e or orde fro! fro! #ursu ursuin ing g 'i 'i! !, Land Lando o con$inced Beru to sign a si!ulated !arriage contract for t'e #ur#ose of only s'owing orde t'at 'e was !arried already. Beru said t'at s'e and Lando did not e$en li$e toget'er as 1

'us3and and wife after t'e si!ulated !arriage. 2t was only after t'e 3iga!y co!#laint was 5led in court w'en Beru disc di sco$ o$er ered ed t'at t'at Land Lando o in fact fact regis egiste terred t'e t'e si!u si!ula late ted d !arriage contract wit'out 'er nowledge !uc' less consent. ISSUES

1.88 W'et' 1. W'et'er er t'e 9ues 9uesti tion on of t'e $ali $alidi dity ty of t'e t'e !arr !arria iage ge 3etween Beru and Lando s'ould 3e resol$ed 5rst 3efore t'e cri!inal #roceeding can #roceed ).88 W'et'e ). W'et'err Beru Beru and and Land Lando7 o7s s act act of sign signin ing g a si!u si!ula late ted d !arriage contract consisted of a $alid !arriage 8. W'et'er Beru can 3e 'eld lia3le for Biga!y for conducting a su3se9uent !arriage wit' Owen w'en s'e 'ad a #re$ious su3sisting !arriage wit' Lando BRIEF ANSWERS

18. 0es, t'e $alidity of Beru7s !arriage wit' Lando s'all 3e resol$ed 5rst as it constitutes a #re4udicial 9uestion to t'e cri!inal case of 3iga!y 5led against 'er 3y 'er 'us3and Owen since it is deter!inati$e w'et'er or not t'e cri!inal case s'all #ros#er. ).88 ;o, ). ;o, 3eca 3ecause use t'e t'e esse essenti ntial al and and for! for!al al re9u re9uis isit ites es for for a $ali $alid d !arri arriag age e was was not not co!# o!#lied lied.. Alt'o lt'oug ug' ' t'er t'ere e is a !arri arriag age e cont contra ract ct,, 3ut 3ut a !arri arriag age e cont contra ract ct is not not an essential nor a for!al re9uisite for a $alid !arriage. .8 ;o, Beru cannot 3e 'eld guilty for t'e cri!e of Biga!y 3ecause 'er 5rst !arriage wit' Lando was not $alid, 'ence one of t'e essential re9uisites for t'e cri!e of Biga!y to 3e co!!itted is not #resent. DISCUSSIONS/ANALYSIS )

 T'e 5rst issue to 3e resol$ed in t'is case is w'et'er or not t'e issue of t'e $alidity of t'e !arriage 3etween Beru and Lando s'ould 3e resol$ed 5rst 3efore t'e #rosecution for t'e cri!e of Biga!y can #roceed. 2n s'ort, t'e issue on t'e $ali $alidi dity ty ser$ ser$es es as a #re4 #re4ud udic icia iall 9ues 9uesti tion on to t'e t'e cri! cri!e e of  Biga!y Biga!y indicted against Beru. As enunciated enunciated in  Article 36 of 

the Civil Code: “Pre “Preju judi dici cial al ques questi tion ons, s, whic which h must must be deci decide ded d befo before re any  any  crimin criminal al prose prosecut cutio ion n ma may y be insti institut tuted ed,, or may proc proceed eed,, shall shall be ove overn rned ed by our our rule rules s of cour courtt whic which h the the !upr !uprem eme e Co Cour urtt shal shalll  promulate  promulate and which which shall not be in in con"ict with with the provisions provisions of this Code#$ 

2n t'e sa!e !anner, t'e "u#re!e ourt 'eld in a case w'erein w'erein t'e accused clai!ed t'at 'is 5rst !arriage !arriage was null and $oid and t'e rig't to decide t'at 9uestion is $ested in anot'er tri3unal, t'e ci$il action for nullity !ust 3e decided 5rst 3efore 3efore t'e action action for 3iga!y 3iga!y can #roceed. #roceed. As t'e 'ig' 'ig' court said in t'e case of People v Adelo Araon : “Prejudicial question has been de%ned to be that which arises in a case, the resolution of which &question' is a loical antecedent antecedent of the issue involved in said case, and the coni(ance of which pertains to another tribunal# )he prejudicial prejudicial question question must must be determinati determinative ve of  the case before the court* this is its %rst element# +urisdiction to try  said question must be loded in another tribunal* this is the second element# n an action for biamy, for e-ample, if the accused claims that the %rst marriae is null .and void and the riht to decide such validity is vested vested in anoth another er tribun tribunal, al, the the civil civil actio action n for nulli nullity ty must must %rst %rst be decided before the action for biamy can proceed* hence, the validity  of the %rst marriae is a prejudicial question# <

As su##l su##le! e!ent ented ed 3y !ection / of 0ule .. of the 0ules of 

Court , t'e ele!ents of a #re4udicial 9uestion are:

1 2=2L O%>, AT. +PP =". A%>LO AA?O;, ? ;O. @6* L>" O OT, ">T2O; 



CDa8 t'e #re$iously instituted ci$il action in$ol$es an issue si!ilar or inti!a inti!atel tely y relat related ed to t'e iss issue ue said said in t'e su3se9 su3se9uen uentt cri!i cri!inal nal action, and D38t'e resolution of suc' issue deter!ines w'et'er or not t'e cri!inal action !ay #roceed.<

 T'us, Beru s'all institute a ci$il case to resol$e t'e $ali $alidi dity ty of 'er 'er 5rst 5rst !ar !arriag riage e wit' wit' 'er 'er for for!er !er 3oyf 3oyfri rien end d Lando. As suc', t'is action s'all 3ar t'e cri!inal action fro! #roc #roceed eedin ing g as it const constit itute utes s a #re4 #re4ud udic icia iall 9ues 9uesti tion on to t'e cri!e of Biga!y c'arged against Beru.  T'e second issue to 3e resol$ed in t'is case is w'et'er w' et'er t'e si!ulation of a !arriage contract 3etween Lando and Beru resulted to t'e cele3ration of a $alid !arriage. 2t is of  #ri! #ri!ar ary y i!#o i!#ort rtan ance ce to re$i re$isi sitt t'e t'e esse essent ntia iall and and for for!al !al re9uisites re9uisites of a $alid !arriage. !arriage. As stated in  Article 1 and 3 of  the 2amily Code: “o marriae shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are  present: &.'4eal capacity of the contractin parties who must be a male and a female* and &1'Consent freely iven in the presence of the solemni(in o5cer# )he formal requisites of marriae are: &.' Authority of the solemni(in o5cer* o5cer* &1' A valid marriae license e-cept in cases provided for Chapter  1 of this )itle* and &3' A marriae ceremony which taes place with the appearance of the contractin parties before the solemni(in o5cer and thei theirr pers person onal al decl declar arat atio ion n that that they they tae tae ea each ch othe otherr as husb husban and d and and wi wife fe in the the pres presen ence ce of not not less less than than two two witnesses of leal ae#

urt'er!ore, t'e a3sence of any of t'e essential or for!al re9uisites s'all render t'e !arriage in$alid. 2t is eE#ressedly laid down in  Article 7 of the the 2amily Code, w'ic' #ro$ides:

F

“)he absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriae void ab initio, e-cept as stated in Article 38&1' 1  A defect in any any of the essential essential requisites requisites shall render render the marriae voidable as provided in Article 78#$ 

2n t'e case at 3ar, it is undenia3le t'at Lando and Beru agreed to sign a si!ulated !arriage contract for t'e #ur#ose of s'owing orde w'o! Lando i!#regnated t'a Lando is already !arried. But t'is does #ro$e t'at t'e !arriage was $alid, as s'own a3o$e, !arriage contract is not an essential nor nor a for! for!al al re9ui e9uisi site te for for a $ali $alid d !arr !arria iage ge.. As Assu su!i !ing ng in argu!ent t'at t'e act of signing t'e !arriage contract was an act #ur#orting t'at t'ey declare eac' ot'er as 'us3and and wife and t'at t'ey 3ot' consent, 3ut t'is was not done during a !arriage cere!ony in front of a sole!niGing oHcer.  T'e signing was done #ri$ately a!ong t'e #arties.  T'e a3sence of suc' negates t'e eEistence of t'e essential and for!al re9uisites na!ely: t'e consent freely gi$en in t'e #resence of a sole!niGing oHcer, aut'ority of  t'e sole sole!n !niG iGing ing oHce oHcer, r, a !arr !arria iage ge cere cere!o !ony ny w'ere w'ere t'e #art #artie ies s a##e a##ear ar 3efo 3efore re t'e t'e sole! sole!ni niGi Ging ng oHce oHcerr #ers #erson onal ally ly declaring t'at t'ey tae eac' ot'er as 'us3and and wife in t'e #resence of two witnesses. urt'er!ore, it 'as not 3een s'own t'at t'ey #rocured a !arriage, and o3$iously t'eir situation does not fall u#on t'e eEe!#ti eEe!#tions ons #ro$ided 3y law w'ere a !arriage !arriage license is not re9uired.

) A&2L0 O%>, AT. )A&2L0 O%>, AT.  A&2L A&2 L0 O%>,  O%>, AT. AT. F A2;O =". A2;O, ? ;O. 1)@)6

@

 T'us, t'e !arriage 3etween 3etwe en Lando and Beru is void ab

initio  in accordance wit' Article F, since t'ey failed to o3tain t'e essential and for!al re9uisites #ro$ided 3y law. As 'eld 3y t'e "u#re!e ourt in t'e case of Cari9o v# t'e court court decl declar ared ed t'at t'at t'e !arr !arria iage ge 3etw 3etween een t'e Cari9o t'e #art #artie ies s was was void ab initio   for t'e failure of t'e #arties to secure a $alid !arriage license e$en if t'ere was a !arriage contract. T'e court ruled t'at: Cnder t'e i$il ode, w'ic' was t'e law in force w'en t'e !arriage of  #etitioner "usan ;icdao and t'e deceased was sole!niGed in 16+6, a $alid $alid !arria !arriage ge licens license e is a re9uisit e9uisite e of !arri !arriage age,, and t'e a3senc a3sence e t'ereof, t'ereof, su34ect su34ect to certain certain eEce#ti eEce#tions, ons, renders renders t'e !arriage !arriage $oid ab initio . 2n t'e case at 3ar, t'ere is no 9uestion t'at t'e !arriage of #etitioner and t'e deceased does not fall wit'in t'e !arriages eEe!#t fro! t'e license re9uire!ent. A !arriage license, t'erefore, was indis#ensa3le to t'e $alidi $alidity ty of t'eir t'eir !arria !arriage. ge. T'is T'is notwit notwit'st 'stand anding ing,, t'e recor records ds re$eal t'at t'e !arriage contract of #etitioner and t'e deceased 3ears no !ar !arriag riage e lice licens nse e nu!3 nu!3er er and, and, as cert certi5 i5ed ed 3y t'e t'e Local ocal i$i i$ill egistrar of "an Juan, &etro &anila, t'eir oHce 'as no record of suc' !arriage license.<

urt'er!ore, !arriage is a contract go$erned 3y law and t'e law states t'at contracts w'ic' are si!ulated are $oid or ineEistent, #articularly  Article .7; of t'e i$il ode enu!erates contracts w'ic' are $oid or ineEistent, t'e said article states t'at: “Art# .7;# )he followin contracts are ine-istent and void from the beinnin:  - - -

---

- - - 

&1' )hose which are absolutely simulated or %ctitious* - - -   - - - - - - 

2n t'e case of