Why a Court Declaration of Nullity Is Crucial to Avoid Bigamy in the Philippines

In the Philippines, marriage is not just a personal commitment but a legal status that carries serious consequences. One of the most important rules under the Family Code is that a person who wishes to remarry after a previous marriage must first obtain a judicial declaration of nullity—even if that first marriage was void from the start. Without this declaration, entering into a second marriage can expose a person to criminal prosecution for bigamy.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue squarely in Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis (G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000), clarifying that a pending civil case for nullity of a first marriage cannot be used to suspend a criminal case for bigamy. The ruling underscores a fundamental principle: no one may judge the validity of their own marriage; only the courts can.

The Facts of the Case

The respondent contracted a first marriage in 1985. Without having that marriage annulled, nullified, or terminated, he married the petitioner in 1996, and allegedly a third woman as well. When the petitioner filed a complaint, an information for bigamy was filed against him in 1998.

After the criminal case was filed, the respondent initiated a civil action seeking the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage, claiming it was celebrated without a marriage license. He then asked the trial court to suspend the bigamy case, arguing that the civil case presented a prejudicial question. The trial court granted the suspension, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision.

What Is a Prejudicial Question?

A prejudicial question arises when a civil case involves an issue so intimately connected with a criminal case that its resolution would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Under Rule 111, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, two elements must exist:

1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and
2. The resolution of that issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed.

The Court explained that a prejudicial question does not resolve the merits of the criminal charge. It merely tests whether the allegations in the information are sufficient to sustain further prosecution. A party raising a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted the essential elements of the crime as alleged.

Article 40 of the Family Code

The key provision in this case is Article 40 of the Family Code, which states that a prior judicial declaration of nullity is required before a party may remarry. This applies even when the first marriage is void, such as one celebrated without a marriage license.

The clear implication, the Court said, is that parties cannot determine for themselves whether their marriage is valid or void. Whether the first marriage was void for lack of a license is a matter of defense that must be raised during the trial of the bigamy case—not through a separate civil action filed after the criminal charge has been brought.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the pending civil case for nullity was not a prejudicial question to the bigamy case. The Court reasoned:

• At the time the respondent contracted his second marriage, his first marriage was presumed valid and subsisting because no judicial declaration of nullity had been obtained.
• Any decision in the civil case for nullity would not erase the fact that the respondent entered into a second marriage while the first was still presumed to exist.
• The respondent's intent was clear: he sought the nullity declaration only after being sued for bigamy, to delay or defeat the criminal prosecution.

The Court quoted the earlier ruling in Landicho v. Relova, which held: "Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy."

The Court also noted that the law leans toward the validity of marriage. Under the Civil Code, "every intendment of law or fact leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds." Even if the absence of a marriage license appears obvious, only a court can declare the marriage void.

Why This Matters

The ruling prevents an "adventurous bigamist" from evading prosecution by simply claiming that the first marriage was void. If a person could remarry without a judicial declaration of nullity and later use the nullity case to escape bigamy charges, the provisions on bigamy would become meaningless.

The Court emphasized that ignorance of Article 40 cannot be used as an excuse. Every person is presumed to know the law. The burden of proving that the first marriage was dissolved before the second marriage was contracted rests on the defense, but this must be raised during the trial of the bigamy case itself.

Practical Takeaways

• Obtain a judicial declaration of nullity before remarrying. Even if the first marriage appears void, a court must declare it so before a second marriage can be validly contracted.
• A pending nullity case cannot suspend a bigamy prosecution. Filing a civil case for nullity after being charged with bigamy will not stop the criminal case.
• The first marriage is presumed valid until a court says otherwise. No matter how obvious the defect may be, only a court can declare a marriage void.
• Raise nullity as a defense during trial. A person accused of bigamy may argue that the first marriage was void, but this must be done in the criminal case itself, not through a separate civil action.
• Seek legal advice before remarrying. The consequences of failing to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity include criminal liability and the invalidity of the second marriage.

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