[G.R. No. 145226. February 6, 2004.

LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Morigo v. People

Facts:

Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were married without a marriage ceremony and a
solemnizing officer. Lucia later filed a petition for divorce against Lucio which was granted by
the court of Ontario, Canada. Lucio later on married Maria Lumbago at Bohol after the said
divorce decree . The City Prosecutor, meanwhile, charged him with bigamy for contracting a
second marriage without having first a judicial declaration of nullity. Appelant was convicted of
bigamy. He invokes good faith to absolve him from the charge by relying on the divorce decree
held by Lucia Barette.

The trial court granted the nullity of the marriage of Lucio and Lucia.

Issue: whether or not petitioner committed bigamy

Held: No.

The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally married.
But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there
is no first marriage to speak of.

No marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. Petitioner
and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The mere private act of
signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no
judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an
ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first
secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
[A.C. No. 2349. July 3, 1992.]

DOROTHY B. TERRE, complainant, vs. ATTY. JORDAN TERRE, respondent

Terre v. Terre- declaration necessary

Dorothy B. Terre charged respondent Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar with "grossly
immoral conduct," consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman
other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained subsisting. No
judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration obtained as to the nullity of such
prior marriage of respondent with complainant. Respondent invokes good faith believing such
declaration was not necessary.

Issue: WON a judicial declaration of nullity is necessary for void marriage

Held: YES.

For purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a
judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential. In contracting a
second marriage with Helina Malicdem while his first marriage with complainant
Dorothy Terre was subsisting, constituted "grossly immoral conduct" under Section 27 of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment of respondent
Jordan Terre.
[G.R. No. L-10016. February 28, 1957.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PROCESO

S. ARAGON, defendant-appellant

People v. Aragon- declaration NOT necessary

Facts:

The accused, under the name of Proceso Rosima, contracted marriage with a certain Maria
Gorrea. While his marriage to her was subsisting, the accused, he contracted another marriage
under the name of Proceso Aragon, contracted a canonical marriage with Maria Faicol.

The accused sent Maria Faicol to Ilioilo, allegedly for the purpose of undergoing treatment of her
eyesight. During her absence, the accused contracted a third marriage with a certain Jesusa C.
Magsalang. Aragon was convicted of bigamy by the trial court.

Issue: WON Aragon is guilty of bigamy.

Held:

No.

A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal
and void from its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity as
distinguished from mere annulable marriage.

The Revised Penal Code is interpreted in favor of the accused. Within the contemplation of the
legislature, an express provision to that effect would or should have been inserted in the law. In
its absence, we are bound by said rule of strict interpretation already adverted to.
It is to be noted that the action was instituted upon complaint of the second wife, whose marriage
with the appellant was not renewed after the death of the first wife and before the third marriage
was entered into. Hence, the last marriage was a valid one and appellant's prosecution for
contracting this marriage can not prosper.
[G.R. No. 137110. August 1, 2000.]

VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO a.k.a. VINCENT G. MERCADO, petitioner, vs.

CONSUELO TAN, respondent

Mercado v. Mercado declaration necessary

Facts:

On April 10, 1976, petitioner Dr. Vincent Paul G. Mercado contracted his first marriage with
Ma. Thelma G. Oliva On June 27, 1991, the petitioner contracted his second marriage with
herein respondent Ma. Consuela Tan in his first marriage having been legally dissolved. On
October 5, 1992, herein respondent filed a complaint for bigamy against the petitioner. On the
other hand, on November 13, 1992, the petitioner instituted an action for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage against Ma. Thelma V. Oliva on grounds of psychological incapacity pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code.. The marriage between petitioner and Thelma Oliva was declared
null and void in May 6, 1993. RTC and CA ruled that petitioner is guilty of bigamy.

Issue: WON petitioner is guilty of bigamy

Held: YES.

ART. 40 of the FC provides that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such marriage void. A
judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can
be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such
judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy punishable under Art. 349 of the RPC. This principle
applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as "void. Significantly, it observed
that the second marriage without the declaration is bigamous and criminal in character.
That he subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was
immaterial. To repeat, the crime had already been consummated by then before the declaration of
nullity.
[G.R. No. 138509. July 31, 2000.]

IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner, vs. ISAGANI D.

BOBIS, respondent.

Bobis v. Bobis

Facts:

An information for bigamy was filed against respondent on February 25, 1998 for having
contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis on January 25, 1996 and
allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez. Thereafter, respondent initiated a
civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that
it was celebrated without a marriage license. Respondent then filed a motion to suspend the
proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first
marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The trial judge granted the motion to
suspend the criminal case. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied.
Hence, the petition.

Petitioner argued that respondent should have first obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his
first marriage before entering into the second marriage, inasmuch as the alleged prejudicial
question justifying suspension of the bigamy case is no longer a legal truism pursuant to Article
40 of the Family Code.

Issue: WON judicial declaration of nullity is necessary for a marriage that is void due to lack of
marriage license.

Held: Yes

Article 40 of the Family Code, requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage before a party may remarry. The clear implication of the law is that it is not for the
parties, particularly the accused, to determine the validity or invalidity of the marriage.
Whether or not respondent's first marriage was void for lack of a license is a matter of defense
because there is still no judicial declaration of its nullity at the time the second marriage was
contracted, and any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that
respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage.
[G.R. No. 160172. February 13, 2008.]

REINEL ANTHONY B. DE CASTRO, petitioner, vs. ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE

CASTRO, respondent.

De Castro v. De Castro

Facts:

Petitioner Reinel and respondent Annabelle met and became sweethearts in 1991. They had a
marriage license but was later on expired. They contracted marriage without a marriage license.
Respondent had a child, and she claims for child support against the petitioner.

Petitioner denied that he is married to respondent, claiming that their marriage is void ab
initio since the marriage was facilitated by a fake affidavit; and that he was merely prevailed
upon by respondent to sign the marriage contract to save her from embarrassment and possible
administrative prosecution due to her pregnant state; and that he was not able to get parental
advice from his parents before he got married.

Petitioner claims that a void marriage can be the subject of a collateral attack. Thus, there is no
necessity to institute another independent proceeding for the declaration of nullity of the
marriage between the parties.

Issue:
1. WON the marriage is valid.
2. WON there is a necessity to institute another independent proceeding for the
declaration of nullity of marriage

HELD:

1. Yes. In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence presented that petitioner and
respondent did not have a marriage license when they contracted their marriage. They
were not exempt from the marriage license requirement. Their failure to obtain and
present a marriage license pursuant to Article 3 of the Family Code.renders their marriage
void ab initio.
2. In case of support, a lower court can declare marriage void even without prior judicial
declaration of nullity of a void marriage filed in a separate action considering that the
determination of the issue on the validity of marriage was important in the resolution of
the right of child to be supported. This is because the validity of a marriage as a general
rule can be collaterally attacked.
It reiterated however, that for purposes of remarriage, the only acceptable proof is a
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage.
[G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001.]

SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, vs. SUSAN YEE

CARIÑO, respondent.

Carino v. Carino

SPO4 Santiago S. Carino contracted two marriages. The first was with petitioner with whom he
begot two (2) children, while the second, during the subsistence of the first, was with respondent
with whom he had no issue. When he died in 1988 petitioner and respondent filed claims for
monetary benefits and financial assistance from various government agencies. Petitioner
collected most of the death benefits. Respondent, in an action for collection, sought to recover
half the amount collected by petitioner. She claimed that she had no knowledge of the previous
marriage with petitioner and presented evidence that the same was contracted without the
necessary marriage license.

ISSUE: WON a judicial declaration of nullity is necessary for purposes of remarriage in the
absence of marriage license in the first marriage.

Held: Yes.

The marriage of the deceased Santiago and petitioner Susan Nicdao in the absence of a marriage
license is void ab initio. However, for purposes of remarriage, a prior judicial declaration of
nullity of the previous marriage must be obtained.

The subsequent marriage to respondent Susan Yee was bigamous, because the first marriage,
though void, was still presumed to be valid, considering that there was no judicial declaration of
nullity of the first marriage. Therefore their marriage is also void.
[G.R. No. L-53703. August 19, 1986.]

Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy

Facts:
Lilia Olivia Wiegel got married to Karl Heinz Wiegel on July, 1978. Karl learned that Lilia had a
subsisting marriage, and then he filed for a declaration of nullity of their marriage. Lilia
contracted her first marriage with Eduardo Maxion on June 25, 1972. She claims that the first
marriage is not valid because they were forced to enter the union and vitiated by force and
Maxion was married to someone else at that time.

ISSUE: 1. WON Lilia’s first marriage is void?

3. WON judicial declaration of nullity is necessary for a prior void marriage?

HELD:

1. No. The presence of force only makes a marriage voidable, not void. (CC ART. 85) It is
valid until annulled and since there was no annulment, marriage is still valid.

2. Yes.There is likewise no need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage
of her first husband at the time they married each other, for then such a marriage though
void still needs according to this Court a judicial declaration of such fact and for all legal
intents and purposes she would still be regarded as a married woman at the time she
contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel; accordingly, the marriage of
petitioner and respondent would be regarded VOID under the law