Futile defense

When a marriage has been declared null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of a spouse under Article 36 of the Family Code, it is deemed that no marriage has taken place at all so that no marriage bond has been dissolved. This is the principle that Mandy tried to invoke in his case.

Mandy married Connie in a marriage ceremony solemnized before a judge and subsequently affirmed in religious rites at a Catholic Church. Their union started out well as they bore two children. But as years passed, the couple’s relationship hit the rocks especially when Connie appeared to be psychologically incapable of complying with her essential marital obligations. It was during this time when Mandy met and got attracted to Lita who worked in the same hospital. And so after 15 years, Mandy once more proposed marriage to Lita. Despite knowing that Mandy was a married man with two children, Lita took the plunge relying on the fact that Connie would no longer return to Mandy, she being by then living with another man. She married Mandy in civil rites before another judge which was likewise affirmed in a church ceremony two days later.

But more than one year after their marriage and with a son, Lita felt ashamed because of talks that her husband was already a married man and she was only his querida. So, through her counsel, she filed a letter-complaint for bigamy and damages against Mandy with the City prosecutor which eventually resulted in the institution of the criminal charge in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). One month later, Mandy filed an Action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with his first wife Connie.

While the criminal case for bigamy was still pending, Mandy obtained a decision declaring his first marriage to Connie null and void from the beginning (ab initio). But the RTC in the criminal case nevertheless found Mandy guilty of bigamy, and sentenced him to a prison term of three years, four months and 15 days minimum up to eight years and 21 days, maximum. This ruling was later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) without however awarding the damages claimed by Lita.

Even with his twin set-backs, Mandy still went to the Supreme Court contending that since he already obtained a declaration of nullity of his first marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, he cannot be guilty of bigamy because a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all so there is no first marriage to speak of. Was he correct?

No. The fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge. There must first be a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage before contracting the second marriage. Under Article 40 of the FC, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. The parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such is the fact. They must first secure a judicial declaration of nullity of their marriage before they should be allowed to marry again.

In the instant case, Mandy contracted a second marriage although there was yet no judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage. In fact he instituted the petition to have the first marriage declared void only after Lita had filed a letter -complaint charging him with bigamy. By contracting a second marriage while his first marriage is subsisting, he committed bigamy punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

But Lita is not entitled to damages. She was fully conscious of the consequences of her act. She should have known that she would suffer the humiliation in the event the truth would come out as it did in this case, ironically because of her personal instigation. Mandy’s case is similar to the ruling in Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. 137110, August 1, 2000.

E-mail: [email protected]