Who Can Nullify a Bigamous Marriage? The Supreme Court's Answer

The Supreme Court recently settled an important question in Philippine family law: who has the legal personality to ask a court to declare a bigamous marriage void? In Quirit-Figarido v. Figarido (G.R. No. 259520, November 5, 2024), the Court ruled that a person who knowingly contracted a bigamous marriage cannot later file a petition to have that marriage declared void—even if no one else is left to file it.

The decision underscores a key principle: the rules on nullity of marriage exist to protect the institution of marriage, not to give guilty spouses a convenient exit.

The Facts of the Case

Maria Lina married Ho Kar Wai, a Chinese national, in Hong Kong in 1989 and again in the Philippines in 1994. In 2003, while still lawfully married to Ho, she married Edwin Figarido. She knew her first marriage was still subsisting when she entered the second union.

In 2007, Ho obtained a divorce decree in Hong Kong, which a Philippine court recognized in 2009. Years later, in 2017, Maria Lina filed a petition to declare her marriage to Edwin void for being bigamous under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. She wanted the court to declare her marriage void so she could remarry.

Both the family court and the Court of Appeals denied her petition. She appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether Maria Lina, as the spouse who knowingly contracted a bigamous marriage, had the legal personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of that marriage.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the lower courts.

Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages are void from the beginning. However, the procedural rule governing petitions for declaration of nullity of void marriages—which the Court applied in this case—provides that only the husband or the wife may file such a petition. The Court clarified that this refers to the aggrieved or injured spouse.

The Court explained that in a bigamous marriage, the parties to the subsequent marriage are not considered husband and wife in the eyes of the law. The spouse of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has the personality to file the petition. This was established in earlier cases such as Juliano-Llave v. Republic (662 Phil. 203) and Fujiki v. Marinay (712 Phil. 524).

In this case, Maria Lina was the one who knowingly married Edwin while her marriage to Ho was still valid. She was the erring spouse, not the injured one. The Court rejected her argument that the divorce decree obtained by Ho somehow transferred to her the right to file the petition.

The Court also declined to exercise equity jurisdiction in her favor, citing Alcantara v. Alcantara (558 Phil. 192). A person who comes to court must come with clean hands. Allowing the offending spouse to nullify a bigamous marriage at will would treat bigamy as a matter of convenience rather than a transgression.

Notably, the Court clarified that its ruling does not "legalize" bigamous marriages. A bigamous marriage remains void, and its nullity may be invoked for purposes other than remarriage—such as determining heirship, legitimacy of children, settlement of estates, or dissolution of property. The denial simply means the erring spouse cannot use the court to obtain the capacity to remarry.

Practical Takeaways

• Only the innocent spouse can file. In a bigamous marriage, only the aggrieved or injured spouse of the prior subsisting marriage may petition for declaration of nullity.
• Guilty spouses have no remedy to remarry. A person who knowingly contracted a bigamous marriage cannot later ask the court to nullify it just to gain the capacity to remarry.
• Void does not mean automatically dissolved for remarriage. Even if a marriage is void ab initio, a judicial declaration is still required before a party can remarry.
• Other legal effects can still be addressed. The nullity of a bigamous marriage may be raised for purposes like inheritance, child legitimacy, or property settlement, even without a direct petition for nullity.
• Clean hands matter. Courts will not use equity to rescue a party who knowingly violated the law and benefited from the situation for years.

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