Bigamy and the Need for a Judicial Declaration of Nullity Before Remarriage

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a crucial rule in Philippine family law: a person who contracts a second marriage without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of their first marriage is guilty of bigamy, even if the first marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. The case of Lasanas v. People (G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014) clarifies the strict requirement imposed by the Family Code and its implications for criminal liability.

The Facts of the Case

Noel Lasanas married Socorro Patingo in 1968 without a marriage license. They reaffirmed their vows in a religious ceremony in 1980, again without a license. After separating in 1982, Lasanas married Josefa Eslaban in 1993, declaring himself single on the marriage certificate.

In 1996, Lasanas filed for annulment of his first marriage. However, in 1998, Socorro filed a criminal complaint for bigamy against him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Lasanas, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, leading to his appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether Lasanas could be held criminally liable for bigamy when his first marriage was void for lack of a marriage license, and whether he needed a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting a second marriage.

The Ruling: Judicial Declaration Is Mandatory

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Article 40 of the Family Code requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before a person can remarry. This requirement applies even if the first marriage is patently void.

The Court emphasized that parties to a marriage cannot judge for themselves whether their marriage is void. Until a competent court declares the marriage null and void, the presumption is that the marriage exists. As the Court stated, one who contracts a second marriage before such declaration "assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy."

Elements of Bigamy Under Article 349

The Court outlined the four elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code:

1. The offender has been legally married
2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved
3. The offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage
4. The second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity

The Court clarified that the nullity of the second marriage is not a defense. As established in Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, the law penalizes the mere act of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Allowing a person to escape liability by pointing to flaws in the second marriage would render the bigamy law ineffective.

Good Faith Is Not a Defense

The Court rejected Lasanas's defense of good faith. Notably, he filed for annulment only after marrying Eslaban, and the court in that civil case ultimately declared his first marriage valid. The Court warned that allowing the defense of good faith would enable offenders to evade prosecution by promptly filing for nullity after being caught.

Practical Takeaways

• A judicial declaration of nullity is mandatory before remarriage, even if the first marriage appears void on its face.
• Contracting a second marriage without this declaration constitutes bigamy, punishable by prision mayor (imprisonment of 8 years and 1 day to 10 years).
• The nullity of the second marriage does not negate criminal liability for bigamy.
• Filing for annulment after contracting the second marriage does not cure the offense; the crime is consummated at the moment the second marriage is celebrated.
• Good faith is not a valid defense when the offender failed to secure the required judicial declaration before remarrying.

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