Understanding Bad Faith in Philippine Bigamy Cases: When Can You Claim Damages

The Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Mercado v. Ongpin (G.R. No. 207324) provides important guidance on when a spouse can claim moral and exemplary damages in cases involving bigamous marriages. The Court clarified that merely contracting a second marriage while a first marriage subsists does not automatically entitle the innocent spouse to damages—the presence of bad faith or malice must be clearly established.

The Facts of the Case

Rene Ongpin married Alma Mantaring in 1972. Mantaring later obtained a divorce decree in Nevada, United States. Believing he was validly divorced, Ongpin married Mary Elizabeth Mercado in New Jersey in 1989. The couple separated in 2000, and Ongpin subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage in 2003.

In 2006, Ongpin filed a petition to declare his marriage to Mercado void under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which considers bigamous marriages void from the beginning. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and awarded Mercado moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, finding that Ongpin's act of contracting a second marriage undermined the family as a social institution.

The Issue: What Constitutes Bad Faith?

The central question was whether Ongpin acted in bad faith when he married Mercado despite his first marriage still being valid. The Court of Appeals reversed the damages award, finding that Ongpin believed in good faith that the Nevada divorce was valid because he thought his first wife had become a United States citizen.

The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, emphasizing that bad faith must be proved to sustain a damages claim under Article 19 of the Civil Code.

The Court's Ruling on Damages

The Court explained that moral damages may be awarded in bigamy cases based on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code. However, for an abuse of rights claim under Article 19, three elements must concur: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) the right is exercised or duty performed in bad faith; and (3) the sole intent is to prejudice or injure another.

Crucially, the Court distinguished this case from Manuel v. People, where damages were awarded because the bigamous spouse had actively deceived his second wife—courting her, assuring her he was single, and maintaining the deception throughout the marriage. In Mercado, there was no such pattern of fraud.

The Court noted that Mercado herself knew as early as 1992 that there might be an issue with Ongpin's divorce. Both parties consulted a lawyer who advised them to have the first marriage annulled. Mercado did not initiate any action to protect her civil status and appeared complacent about the uncertainty surrounding her marriage's validity.

Practical Takeaways

• Bad faith is not presumed. The law presumes good faith, and the party claiming damages must prove bad faith by clear and convincing evidence.
• Mere bigamy is not enough. Contracting a second marriage while a first subsists does not automatically warrant damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code.
• Look for deceitful conduct. Damages are more likely awarded where the bigamous spouse actively deceived the innocent spouse—such as falsely claiming to be single or concealing the existing marriage.
• Knowledge matters. If the "innocent" spouse knew or should have known about potential issues with the first marriage, this can defeat a damages claim.
• Exemplary damages depend on moral damages. Under Article 2234 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages cannot be awarded unless the claimant is first entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory damages.

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