Who May Nullify a Bigamous Marriage? The Supreme Court’s Ruling in Quirit-Figarido v. Figarido

The Supreme Court has settled a critical question in family law: who may ask the courts to declare a bigamous marriage void? In Maria Lina P. Quirit-Figarido v. Edwin L. Figarido (G.R. No. 259520, November 5, 2024), the Court ruled that only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of the prior subsisting marriage has the legal personality to file such a petition. A spouse who knowingly contracted a bigamous marriage cannot invoke its illegality to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity and the right to remarry.

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. While still lawfully married to Ho, Maria Lina began a relationship with Edwin Figarido and married him in 2003. She had two children with Edwin. In 2007, Ho obtained a divorce decree in Hong Kong, which a Philippine Regional Trial Court recognized in 2009.

In 2017, Maria Lina filed a petition to declare her marriage to Edwin void ab initio for being bigamous under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. She argued that since Ho had already divorced her, she was the only person left with an interest in nullifying the bigamous marriage. Both the family court and the Court of Appeals denied her petition, ruling that she lacked legal personality to file it.

The Issue

The central question was whether Maria Lina, as the spouse who knowingly contracted a bigamous marriage, had the legal capacity to petition for its nullification.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied Maria Lina's petition. The Court held that under the applicable rules governing declarations of nullity of void marriages, a petition for declaration of nullity may be filed solely by the husband or the wife of the prior subsisting marriage. The exact text of the relevant rule is not available in the ASG law library, but the Court's ruling in this case, citing its earlier decisions in Juliano-Llave v. Republic and Fujiki v. Marinay, clarified that this refers to the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse—the husband or wife of the first, valid marriage.

Maria Lina did not qualify. She was the one who contracted the bigamous marriage while her first marriage was still valid. The Court rejected her argument that Ho's divorce decree transferred to her the right to file the petition. The divorce merely ended Ho's status as the injured spouse; it did not make Maria Lina the aggrieved party.

The Court also emphasized that the State has no absolute obligation to dissolve bigamous marriages at the request of the erring spouse. Allowing a guilty spouse to nullify a bigamous marriage would treat bigamy as "a matter of convenience" and make a mockery of the institution of marriage.

Practical Takeaways

• Only the innocent spouse may sue. The spouse of the prior subsisting marriage—the one injured by the bigamous union—is the only party with legal personality to petition for its nullity.
• The guilty spouse cannot benefit. A person who knowingly enters a bigamous marriage cannot later invoke its illegality to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity and the right to remarry.
• A void marriage still needs judicial declaration for remarriage. While a bigamous marriage is void from the beginning, a court declaration is still required before a party may remarry. For other purposes—such as determining heirship, legitimacy of children, or settlement of estate—the nullity may be raised even without such a declaration.
• The divorce of the prior spouse does not cure the disability. Even if the first spouse obtains a divorce, the guilty party in the bigamous marriage does not automatically gain the right to petition for nullity.
• Bigamy carries separate liabilities. The denial of a petition for nullity does not legalize the bigamous marriage. Erring parties may still face civil and criminal liability for bigamy.

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