Void Marriages: Bigamous

Polygamous Marriages

and

-Prior FC 40; the operating theory is

that no judicial declaration is
required for marriages that were void
from its performance (essential and
formal requisites)
-Bigamy is reckoned from the date
when the information was filed.
-Elements of bigamy:
(1) the offender has been legally
married;
(2) the first marriage has not been
legally dissolved, or in case his or her
spouse is absent, the absent spouse
has not been judicially declared
presumptively dead;
(3) he contracts
marriage; and

subsequent

(4) the subsequent marriage would

have been valid had it not been for the
existence of the first.

1) Mercado vs. Tan, 337 SCRA 122

judicial declaration obtained after the
complaint was filed; SC held that
crime was already consummated.
Even if marriage is void ab initio for
whatever reason, it is still considered
valid and subsequent marriages are
bigamous unless (exception) a
judicial
declaration
is
obtained
declaring a person to be legally
capable to contract a subsequent
marriage.
2) Bobis vs. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509
(July 2000) 3 marriages contracted;
stipulated that marriage 1 and 2 were
void as it was celebrated without
marriage licenses, was not aware that

judicial declaration was necessary; 1)

Ignorance of FC 40 is not an excuse. 2)
Contracting
subsequent
marriage
without
obtaining
a
judicial
declaration assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for bigamy. 3) Knowingly
contracting a defective marriage
or one with legal impediment is
punishable by RPC 350
3) Ty vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 127406
(November
2000)

Marriage
contracted prior the FC, Civil Code to
effect.
Marriages
void
of
its
performance
(non-compliant
with
essential and formal requisites) do
not need judicial declaration for
contracting subsequent marriages. FC
cannot be retroactively applied as
it would impair vested rights of
spouse and children
4) Morigo vs. People, G.R. 145226
(February 2004) Judicial declaration
retroacts to the date of the marriage
being declared as null and void. No
marriage ever happened because the
formal requisites were not complied
with. In the instant case, no bigamy to
speak of as petitioner was never
married to begin with.
Above is different from Mercado vs. Ty,
the marriage of case was considered
VALID
later
on
declared
void.
Marriage of Morigo did not require
a decree of absolute nullity as the
marriage was never valid mere
signing
of
contract
between
parties absent formal requisites.
5) Tenebro vs. CA, G.R. No. 150758
(February
2004)

Bigamy
is
committed when a spouse contracts a
subsequent marriage without legally
dissolving
the
first
marriage.
Psychological incapacity does not
affect the essential and formal
requisites of subsequent marriage

which makes compliance therewith,

bigamous in nature.
Concurring Opinion: Psychological
incapacity nullifies the effect of
marriage, it does not affect the fact
that
bigamous
marriage
was
perfected. Marriage was valid until
declared void by judicial declaration.
Hence,
bigamy
could
still
be
committed as marriage was still valid
until declared void.
Dissenting Opinion: Contracting a
second marriage while first marriage is
subsisting is bigamous. A marriage
declared void not arising from the
illegality of the first marriage is
not bigamous as defined in the RPC.
Statutory construction should favor
the accused.
6) Teves vs. CA, G.R. 188775, August
24, 2011 Judicial declaration was
obtained 5 years after subsequent
marriage. SC held that judicial
declaration
cannot
be
made
retroactive from the time when
bigamy was committed. Dates of filing
a complaint in relation to the judicial
declaration is only material for
purposes of prescription which is 15
years. Bigamy can still be filed
even after judicial declaration is
obtained.
7) Nollora vs. People, G.R. No. 191425,
September 7, 2011 Muslim convert
solemnized first and second bigamous
marriage under civil rites. Bigamy is
applicable even to Muslims provided
that they have not complied with the
rules and regulations as provided for
in the FC (if marriage is celebrated in
civil rites) and in the Muslim
Personal Laws (if celebrated in
Muslim rites.)
8) Montanes vs. Cipriano, G.R. No.
181089, October 22, 2012 FC 40

may be applied retroactively as

expressly stated in FC 256. FC 40 is
procedural in nature. As a general
rule, no right may attach to procedure
UNLESS retroactivity impairs vested
right. Opinion in digest.
9) Capili vs. People, G.R. No. 183805,
July 3, 2013 Even if subsequent
marriage is deemed to be void ab
initio by way of declaration of nullity,
the crime of bigamy may still
persist for it is based on the premise
that a subsequent marriage is
contracted
while
previous
marriage is subsisting that alone
is enough. A marriage, even if later
on declared as annulled or void, is
considered valid until judicially
declared
otherwise.
Hence,
contraction
of
a
subsequent
marriage while previous marriage
is (STILL) VALID is considered
bigamous.
10) People vs. Odtuhan, G.R. No.
191566, July 17, 2013 Doctrine
applied in Morigo vs. People has long
been
supplanted
by subsequent
jurisprudence and FC requirement that
for
purposes
of
remarriage,
judicial declaration is necessary
pursuant to FC 40. Even if one of
the marriages is void ab initio for lack
of essential or formal requisites,
JUDICIAL
DECLARATION
IS
STILL
REQUIRED
for
purposes
of
REMARRIAGE.
11) Iwasawa vs. Gangan, G.R. No.
204169, September 11, 2013 Public
documents and certifications issued by
custodians of public documents enjoy
probative
value
pursuant
to
Article 413 of the NCC. Such public
documents may serve as prima facie
evidence supporting the allegation of
a bigamous marriage.