4 justices oppose 2017 annulment ruling, say guilty spouses also deserve protection
MANILA, Philippines — Four Supreme Court magistrates expressed their dissent to a ruling in a 2017 annulment case that prevented the voiding of a marriage between a couple.
The case, promulgated on Nov. 5, 2024, denied a Filipina's petition to nullify her second marriage on the grounds of bigamy.
Ten out of the 15 justices of the Supreme Court voted to deny the petition of the Filipina, saying that she did not have the “personality” to file an annulment on her second marriage, as she was the “guilty spouse” in the marriage that is considered by law as bigamous.
However, three Supreme Court associate justices—Amy Lazaro-Javier, Rodil Zalameda and Marvic Leonen—dissented from the majority opinion.
Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan was on official leave, while Associate Justice Ramon Hernando, who was on official business, also disagreed.
Lazaro-Javier and Zalameda each penned their own dissenting opinions on the case.
The case. The case centers on the petitioner’s marital history. She first married a Chinese national in Hong Kong in 1989 and again in the Philippines in 1994.
While still married, she had an affair with a Filipino client, became pregnant and later married him in 2003, despite her existing marriage.
Her first husband eventually obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which was recognized in the Philippines, dissolving their marriage.
After 14 years, the petitioner separated from her second husband and sought to annul their marriage, claiming it was void due to bigamy. In seeking to declare their marriage void, she also requested the court’s permission to remarry.
However, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals denied her petition, ruling that she lacked legal standing since she had knowingly entered into the bigamous marriage.
She then brought the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the dissolution of her first marriage gave her the right to seek the nullity of the second, which had been invalid from the start.
Lazaro-Javier's dissent
The associate justice first pointed out the rule in Section 2(a) of Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 02-11-10-SC, or the rules of declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages.
In the rules, Lazaro-Javier pointed out that either the husband or wife in a void marriage can file a petition to annul the marriage, and that the rules do not distinguish between the "guilty" and "innocent" spouse.
“Thus, I see no reason why we should prevent [petitioner] from pursuing the present action to declare the nullity of her marriage to [second spouse] on the ground that she is supposed to be the guilty spouse. In any event, her pursuit of such civil action is without prejudice to a criminal prosecution for bigamy that may later on be filed against her, if warranted,” Lazaro-Javier’s opinion read.
“Even then, I maintain that [petitioner] bore the badge of good faith when she contracted her marriage with [second husband],” she added.
Banking on good faith, Lazaro-Javier also pointed out that the petitioner relied on a lawyer’s advice that she could remarry following the absence of her first husband.
“Precisely because [petitioner] is a layperson who is not learned in the intricacies of the law, she naturally believed and heeded the lawyer’s advice,” Lazaro-Javier said.
“Thus, she should not be faulted for truly believing that there was no legal impediment if she married Edwin [second spouse],” she added.
Zalameda’s dissent
Meanwhile, Zalameda emphasized that there is no provision in the Family Code that only the aggrieved or innocent spouses are the only ones that can file a petition for nullity of marriage.
“Being inexistent under the law, the nullity of a void marriage can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil court between any parties at any time, whether before or after the death of either or both the spouses,” Zalameda’s dissenting opinion read.
“A void marriage is void by itself without need of any judicial declaration of nullity. Testimonial or documentary evidence may prove the absolute nullity of the previous marriage,” he added.
He explained that neither the Family Code nor A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC makes any qualification regarding which spouse may file a petition to declare a marriage void, noting that only the “rationale” of the administrative matter made this distinction.
“Even assuming that the drafters of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC failed to have contemplated a situation, such as in this case, We see now the possibility that a party may admit that he or she is the erring party in a void marriage,” he said.
He then urged the high court to “adapt to current realities” and warrant a more liberal approach and a relaxation of the rule.
“I dissent and the Court should have granted this petition as it is the only way for [petitioner] to rectify her grave mistake and formally put an end to an obviously void marriage,” Zalameda said.
“In doing so, the Court actually reinforces the State's interest in prohibiting parties from entering into bigamous marriage and preventing said void marriage from further unleashing its undesirable consequences,” he added.
Justice system available to everyone
Despite being the “guilty spouse,” Lazaro-Javier said the petitioner must not be “denied by the protection of the law.”
Lazaro-Javier said that regardless of “perceived immorality,” the petitioner still deserves legal protection.
“To be abundantly clear, even unfaithful wives who cheat on their husbands are entitled to the full measure of protection of the law, as morally objectionable as their infidelity may have been,” she said.
The associate justice also said that regardless of any alleged “promiscuity” or disrespect toward her first husband, the petitioner is still entitled to the same legal protections afforded to all women.
“This should not entitle the State or the Court to strangle her into a marriage that in law is clearly void,” Lazaro-Javier said.
She also pointed out that disqualifying a woman from challenging a bigamous marriage adds to the list of discriminatory rules women face under the Family Code.
“This is the problem when we begin to rationalize the rules we craft on the basis of our value judgments that persons who have been through multiple relationships, including bigamous alliances, are depraved, immoral, and deserving of their fate,” Lazaro-Javier said.
“There again the use of the word ‘fate.’ This word masks the whole process of imposing the rule, because "fate" connotes the inevitable and natural, thus stopping us from unmasking the political and historical biases that underlie our reasons for creating the rule,” she added.
- Latest
- Trending
