Bigamy in the Philippines: Why a Court Declaration Is Needed Even for Void Marriages

The Supreme Court has settled a critical question in Philippine family law: can a person marry again without first obtaining a court declaration that their previous marriage is void? In Mercado v. Tan (G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000), the Court answered with a firm no. Even if the first marriage is void from the beginning, a judicial declaration of nullity is still required before contracting a subsequent marriage. Without it, the person commits bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Facts of the Case

Vincent Paul Mercado married Ma. Thelma Oliva in 1976. Years later, on June 27, 1991, he married Consuelo Tan, declaring himself "single" in the marriage contract. At that time, his first marriage had not been legally dissolved.

After Consuelo filed a bigamy complaint in October 1992, Mercado filed a petition to declare his first marriage void. The court granted that petition in May 1993, declaring the marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. However, the bigamy case against him proceeded, and he was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, leading to the Supreme Court petition.

The Issue

The central question was whether the nullity of Mercado's first marriage—declared after he had already contracted the second marriage—could serve as a defense against the bigamy charge.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed Mercado's conviction. The Court held that the elements of bigamy were present when the Information was filed: Mercado had been legally married, the marriage had not been dissolved, he contracted a second marriage, and that second marriage had all the essential requisites for validity.

The Court acknowledged that earlier jurisprudence was conflicting. In People v. Mendoza (95 Phil. 845) and People v. Aragon (100 Phil. 1033), the Court held that no judicial declaration was needed for void marriages. However, those cases relied on the old Marriage Law (Act No. 3613), which stated that illegal marriages were void from their performance.

The Court explained that Article 40 of the Family Code changed this rule. The provision requires that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring such marriage void. This provision, which took effect after the Mendoza and Aragon rulings, explicitly requires a judicial declaration of nullity before a person can remarry. The Court noted that this requirement also protects the spouse who, believing their marriage is void, marries again—with the judicial declaration, that person cannot be charged with bigamy.

The Court also rejected Mercado's argument that a void marriage is "deemed never to have taken place." While that may be true in civil law, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated when he contracted the second marriage without the required declaration. The subsequent declaration of nullity was immaterial.

Practical Takeaways

• Get the declaration first. A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is required before contracting a subsequent marriage—even if the first marriage is void.
• Timing matters. Obtaining the declaration after contracting the second marriage does not erase criminal liability. The crime is committed at the moment the second marriage is celebrated.
• The rule protects everyone. The requirement prevents individuals from unilaterally deciding their marriage is void and remarrying without court oversight.
• Seek legal advice early. Anyone who believes their marriage is void should consult a lawyer and file the appropriate petition before entering into a new relationship.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.