BY GEROME DALIPE
ILOILO City – The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a spouse who knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage cannot seek its nullification, reserving this right only for the aggrieved spouse.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC En Banc denied a petition by a Filipina who sought to void her second marriage on the grounds of bigamy.
The petitioner, previously married to a Chinese national in Hong Kong and the Philippines, had an affair with a Filipino client while working as a bank teller in Hong Kong.
After becoming pregnant, she returned to the Philippines, married the Filipino, and had two children with him.
Her first husband later obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which a Parañaque court recognized, dissolving their marriage.
However, 14 years after marrying her second husband, the petitioner sought to nullify the union, claiming it was void for being bigamous and requested permission to remarry.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed her petition, ruling that she lacked legal standing as she knowingly entered into the bigamous marriage.
Arguing before the SC, the petitioner maintained that since her first marriage was dissolved, she alone had the right to nullify the second marriage, which was void from the start and required a court declaration.
The SC rejected her argument, clarifying that under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages are void from the beginning.
However, the court emphasized that only the injured spouse from either marriage can seek annulment.
In this case, the petitioner’s first husband forfeited this right by obtaining a divorce.
The Court explained that nullifying a bigamous marriage aims to protect an existing legal union, not to terminate it.
Since the petitioner’s first marriage had already been dissolved, no legal union remained to protect.
The SC noted the petitioner’s 14-year delay in challenging the second marriage and concluded that her motivation was not to uphold her first marriage but to remarry. Allowing such actions, the Court said, would set a dangerous precedent.
“Otherwise, it will give rise to a ridiculous situation [where] the party who contracted the illicit subsequent marriage is permitted to invoke [its] bigamous nature… to nullify the same… Bigamy will be treated by the erring spouse as a matter of convenience,” the SC ruled.
The SC clarified that while the bigamous marriage remains void for all legal purposes — such as determining the legitimacy of children and rightful heirs — the guilty spouse remains liable for potential civil and criminal charges for bigamy./PN
