3 months ago
32
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
February 17, 2025 | 3:20pm
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has ruled that only the aggrieved spouse, not the one who knowingly entered a bigamous marriage, has the right to petition the court to declare the second marriage void.
In a decision dated November 5, 2024, penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the high court denied a Filipina's petition to nullify her second marriage on the grounds of bigamy.
The case
The case involves a complex marital history. The petitioner first married a Chinese national in Hong Kong in 1989 and again in the Philippines in 1994. While still married and working in a bank in Hong Kong, she had an affair with a Filipino client, became pregnant, and returned to the Philippines. She then married her Filipino partner in 2003, despite her existing marriage overseas.
The petitioner's first husband later obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which was recognized by a Philippine court, effectively dissolving their initial marriage. After 14 years, the petitioner separated from her second husband and sought to nullify their marriage, claiming it was void due to bigamy.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals denied her petition, citing her lack of legal standing as she had knowingly entered the bigamous union. The lower courts also said that the petitioner had “no personality” to file the case, as she was not the spouse who was “aggrieved or injured by the bigamous marriage.”
This prompted the petitioner to file a petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the dissolution of her first marriage gave her the right to seek the nullity of the second.
She also asserted that because her second marriage was invalid from the outset, the high court was obligated to declare it void.
The ruling
"Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
...
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41."
The Supreme Court upheld decisions of the two lower courts, ruling that the right to petition for annulment belonged to the petitioner's first husband as the aggrieved or innocent spouse from either marriage.
The first husband could petition for annulment, but this right is already lost after he successfully obtained a divorce. This right can neither be transferred to the petitioner, who is considered the guilty spouse.
The high court emphasized that the purpose of invalidating a bigamous marriage is to protect an existing legal union, not to terminate one that no longer exists. Since the petitioner's first marriage had already been dissolved, there was no legal union left to protect.
"Lamentably for [petitioner], under the current rules and jurisprudence, there exists no legal recourse for her to redress her inability to remarry, which she inflicted on herself to begin with," the high court wrote.
The Supreme Court also pointed out that the petitioner benefited from the second marriage and waited 14 years to file the petition—not to recognize her first marriage—but to gain the ability to remarry.
The court said this could not be allowed, as it would create an "absurd situation" where the party who entered the illicit marriage could then use its bigamous nature to nullify it.
“In the latter case, instead of being treated as a transgression warranting redress, bigamy will be treated by the erring spouse as a matter of convenience,” the court said.
In denying the petition, the Supreme Court clarified that this does not legitimize the bigamous marriage. It remains void, even without a court declaration, for other legal purposes such as determining the legitimacy of children and rightful heirs.
The court said: "The denial of [petitioner's] petition is not a refusal to declare her bigamous marriage void, but rather a repudiation of [petitioner's] legal personality to file the said petition."
The guilty spouse may still face civil and criminal liability for bigamy, according to the court.
