Do you need a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage in order to successfully

defend yourself against a charge of bigamy?

In Mercado v. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that one
who enters a subsequent marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity is guilty
of bigamy even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as “void”. In this case the Court
agreed with the respondent’s argument which points out that the judicial declaration came only
after the letter-complaint was filed against the petitioner. Thus, by then, the crime had already
been consummated. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the decision in Mendoza and Aragon
– that there is no need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage – has been cast aside
by Article 40 of the family Code. Such declaration is now necessary before one can contract a
second marriage. The state held that one may be charged with and convicted of bigamy, if such
declaration is absent.

In the case of Morigo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004, the
supreme court ruled that in bigamy cases, all the elements of bigamy should be present. The
Court laid down the elements of bigamy, in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, to wit: 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 a subsequent marriage; and 4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it
not been for the existence of the first. In this case, the court found that the first element of
bigamy is absent. There was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia
by a solemnizing officer and what transpired was a mere signing of marriage contract by the two.
In Civil Case No. 6020, the RTC of Bohol declared the marriage of Lucio and Lucia void ab initio
since no marriage ceremony actually took place. Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage
being declared void ab initio, the two were never married “from the beginning”. Since there is no
first marriage to speak of, one doesn’t need a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first
marriage.

In Manuel v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005, the Supreme
Court ruled that, under Article 41 of the civil code, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of
the absent spouse is required before contracting a second marriage. The above-mentioned
article clearly provides that for the purpose of the present spouse contracting a second marriage,
he or she must file a summary proceeding as provided in the code for the declaration of the
presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudicing to the latter’s reappearance.

In Antone v. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that
in a catena of case, the Court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required
before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted. The absence of such declaration classifies
the subsequent marriage as bigamous one, reprehensible and immoral. To add to that, judicial
declaration of nullity is now required before contracting a subsequent marriage as provided in
Article 40 of the Family code.
 In the case People of the Philippines v. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013, the
Supreme Court ruled that a declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly
required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense as provided in the Family code. The
court added that he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of
the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

In the case of Santiago v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015, the
Supreme Court ruled that it is absurd if it will allow the accused’s illegal acts to be a defense
against her criminal conviction. The anomalous situation wherein petitioner seeks to be acquitted
of bigamy based on her illegal actions, which is lying before the solemnizing officer by
misrepresenting that they had cohabitated for at least five years, is not a valid defense for her to
escape criminal charges. Going back to the lower court’s decision, RTC ruled that the best support
to the accused’s argument would have been the submission of a judicial decree of annulment of
the said marriage.

In Vitangcol v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 207406, January 13 2016, the Supreme
Court ruled that the petitioner is guilty of bigamy if he proceed with his second marriage without
judicial declaration of nullity of his first, regardless of evidence. The evidence, in this case, is a
Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite, which states that the office has
no record of the marriage license allegedly issued in his favor and his first wife. In spite of the
evidence presented by the petitioner, the Court ruled that the said evidence does not
categorically prove that non-existence of the marriage license. Thus, a judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage is still needed.

From the majority of the mentioned cases, the Supreme Court ruled that a judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage is not enough in order for an individual to be acquitted
from the charge of bigamy.

If the accused contracted a second marriage before the first marriage was legally
dissolved, the accused cannot escape the charges of bigamy even if the first marriage was
judicially declared as void ab initio (Mercado, Antone and Odtuhan Case).

The Court exhaustively discussed in the above cases the requirement of a judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage in order to contract a second marriage, in accordance
with Article 40 of the Family Code. Parties involved in a bigamy case, assuming that the first
marriage was void, should not be permitted to judge for themselves the nullity of the marriage
regardless of it being done in good faith.