Snippets and Doctrines of Cases on Bigamous Marriages

Lucio Morigo vs People – (2004)

- When the marriage is void because a formal requirement is missing [in this case, marriage ceremony] there is no need for a judicial declaration of nullity. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Morigo is acquitted of bigamy because his first marriage was void ab initio.

Victoria Jarillo vs People – (2009)

- A marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.  In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled. The action for and the judicial declaration of nullity [based on psychological incapacity] came after the charge of bigamy.

Veronico Tenebro vs CA – (2004)

- The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the Philippines’ penal laws are concerned. As such, an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.

- A marriage contract, by itself, is sufficient to establish the existence of a marriage. It should be given greater credence than documents testifying merely as to absence of any record of the marriage. Thus, it is also sufficient to establish the 1^st and 2^nd elements of bigamy [offender is legally married; marriage has not been legally dissolved].

Myrna Antone vs Leo Beronilla [accused] – (2010)

- Citing Tenebro vs CA: Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is concerned, said marriage is not without legal effects. Among these effects is that children conceived or born before the judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be considered legitimate. There is therefore a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences. Among these legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy.

- Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion when it quashed the Information for Bigamy. The issue on the declaration of nullity of the marriage between petitioner and respondent only after the latter contracted the subsequent marriage is immaterial for the purpose of establishing that the facts alleged in the information for Bigamy does not constitute an offense.

Cenon Teves vs PP, and Danilo Bongalan [complainant, uncle of Cenon’s first wife] – (2011)

- Complaint for bigamy was filed with the Office of the Public Prosecutor. Action for declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage was then filed by petitioner, and judgment was rendered therein declaring the marriage void. It was then the Information for Bigamy was formally filed in court. Following petitioner’s argument, even assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such as in this case, the offender can still escape liability provided that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage precedes the filing of the Information in court. Such cannot be allowed. To do so would make the crime of bigamy dependent upon the ability or inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to immediately act on complaints and eventually file Informations in court

- A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. In this case, finality of the decision declaring the first marriage void was only reached 5 years after the celebration of the 2^nd marriage. Thus, respondent is guilty of bigamy.

Atilano Nollora, Jr. [Muslim convert] vs People – (2011)

- Code of Muslim Personal Laws states that "in case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this Code, the Family Code in lieu of the Civil Code shall apply.” That both marriages of Nollora were not solemnized according to Muslim law, and hence the Family Code applies; that he asserted in his marriage certificate to the 2^nd marriage that he was ‘single’; that both of his marriage contracts do not state that he is a Muslim are indicative of his criminal intent and liability for the crime of bigamy.

- The Code of Muslim Personal laws also substantially provides that any Muslim husband desiring to contract subsequent marriages, before so doing, shall notify the Shari’a Circuit Court of the place where his family resides. The clerk of court shall serve a copy thereof to the wife or wives. Should any of them object; an Agama Arbitration Council shall be constituted. If said council fails to secure the wife’s consent to the proposed marriage, the Court shall, subject to Article 27 [Muslim Code], decide whether or not to sustain her objection.

Miguel Villatuya vs Atty. Bede Tabalingcos – (2012)

- This is a disbarment case against Tabalingcos; one of the grounds for which is gross immorality for marrying two other women while his first marriage was still subsisting. Villatuya presented as evidence a certification from the NSO that Tabalingcos contracted marriage thrice and the dates of the celebrations, and names of the women were also indicated. He also submitted copies of the 3 Marriage Certificates. Tabalingcos did not present any evidence to rebut abovementioned documents. He contends that after his discovery of the 2^nd and 3^rd marriages, he filed civil actions for their annul the Marriage Contracts, treating the latter as ordinary agreements rather than as special contracts contemplated under the then Civil Code provisions on marriage, considering that he did not invoke any grounds in the Civil Code provisions on marriage, prior to its amendment by the Family Code.

- The documents, certified by the NSO, which is the official repository of civil registry records pertaining to the birth, marriage and death of a person, is accorded much evidentiary weight and carries with it a presumption of regularity. In this case, respondent has not presented any competent evidence to rebut those documents.

- Respondent’s regard for marriage contracts as ordinary agreements indicates either his wanton disregard of the sanctity of marriage or his gross ignorance of the law on what course of action to take to annul a marriage under the old Civil Code provisions.

Merlinda Cipriano Montañes [daughter from 1^st marriage of 2nd husband of Lourdes] vs Lourdes Cipriano [accused] – (2012)

- 1^st marriage was held in 1976, while the 2^nd was in 1983. Decision declaring the 1^st marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity became final and executory on October 2003. Montañes filed bigamy case against Cipriano on 2004; Respondent contends that since her 1st marriage was celebrated in 1976, Art. 40 of the FC should not be given retroactive effect in her case because it will impair her right to remarry without need of a judicial declaration of nullity of a completely void prior marriage.

- What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Atienza vs Brillantes: Article 40, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively because Article 256 of the Family Code itself provides that said "Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights."

- Citing Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, the Court pointed out that the danger of not enforcing the provisions of Article 40 of the Family Code is that it would render nugatory the provision on bigamy.