In Re Charges of Lilian F. Villasanta for Immorality vs. Hilarion M. Peralta

In Re Charges of Lilian F. Villasanta for Immorality vs. Hilarion M. Peralta

April 30, 1957.

Facts:

            On April 16, 1939, Hilarion M. Peralta, the respondent, was married to Rizalina E. Valdez in Rizal, Nueva Ecija. On or before March 8, 1951, he courted Lilian F. Villasanta, the complainant, who fell in love with him. To have carnal knowledge of her, the respondent procured the preparation of a fake marriage contract which was then a blank document. He made her sign it on March 8, 1951. A week after, the document was brought back by the respondent to the complainant, signed by the Justice of the Peace and the Civil Registrar of San Manuel, Tarlac, and by two witnesses. Since then the complainant and the respondent lived together as husband and wife. Sometime later, the complainant insisted on a religious ratification of their marriage and on July 7, 1951, the corresponding ceremony was performed in Aparri by the parish priest of said municipality. The priest no longer required the production of a marriage license because of the civil marriage contract shown to him. After the ceremony in Aparri, the couple returned to Manila as husband and wife and lived with some friends. The complainant then discovered that the respondent was previously married to someone else; whereupon, she filed the criminal action for a violation of Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan and the present complaint for immorality in this court.

Issue:

            Whether or not the respondent’s grossly immoral conduct makes him disqualified to take the bar examination.

Held:

            Yes. The Supreme Court held that committed a grossly immoral conduct, thus, he is disqualified to take the bar examinations. Hilarion M. Peralta, the respondent, made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity and his conviction of violation of Art. 350 of the Revised Penal Code involves moral turpitude. His act in contracting the second marriage even his act in making love to another woman while his first wife is still alive and their marriage still valid and existing is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Thus lacking the good moral character required by the Rules of Court, the respondent is disqualified from being admitted to the bar.