ATIENZA vs.

BRILLANTES
March 29, 1995 | A.M. No. MTJ-92-706
“Judge with 2 wives”

SUMMARY:
Judge Brillantes was held to have committed bigamy for being unable to have his previous marriage with
Zenaida Ongkiko (Brillantes having remarried to another) declared void by the courts. Judge contends
that art. 40 of the Family Code does not apply to him since his first marriage was contracted prior to the
enactment of art. 40. But because of the principle of retroactivity of laws, said article applies to him. And
since he did not comply with the requirement of article 40, he has committed bigamy for being unable to
have his previous marriage declared void by the court.

FACTS:

 Complainant Atienza has 2 children with Yolanda de Castro.

 Atienza found out that his baby-mama Yolanda de Castro (case does not say if they’re married or
what) is cohabitating with Judge Brillantes.
 Atienza says that Judge Brillantes was already married to Zenaida Ongkiko and that they have 5
children together. Atienza filed complaint of Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety
against Judge Brillantes.
 Brillantes contends that his marriage with Zenaida was not valid for lack of a marriage license.
Brillantes also says that when he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles, California in
1991, he believed in all good faith and for all legal intents and purposes that he was single
because his first marriage with Zenaida was solemnized without a license.
 Brillantes also argues that the provision of Article 40 of the Family Code does not apply to him
considering that his first marriage took place in 1965 and was governed by the Civil Code of the
Philippines; while the second marriage took place in 1991 and governed by the Family Code.

ISSUE:

1. WON Article 40 of the Family Code is applicable to the case at bar.  YES
2. WoN Brillantes is guilty of bigamy for being unable to apply Art. 40 of the Family Code and did not
have his previous marriage to Zenaida declared void by the court?  YES

RATIO:

1. On the applicability of Art. 40 of the Family Code:

Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3,
1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the Family Code, said
Article is given “retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.” This is particularly true with Article 40, which is a rule of
procedure. Respondent has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Article 40
to his case.

2. On Brillantes’ bigamy:

A person who enters in a subsequent marriage on the premise that his previous marriage is void will be
liable for bigamy if the previous marriage had not been previously declared void by the court. (Art. 40)
Brillantes, being unable to apply Art. 40 and not have his previous marriage to Zenaida be declared void
by the courts, is guilty of bigamy for entering into a subsequent marriage with de Castro on the mere
belief that his previous marriage was void.