ANTONE V. BERONILLA
G.R. No. 183824, [December 8, 2010], 637 SCRA 615.
DOCTRINE:
As reiterated in a long line of cases, Article 40 of the Family Code has been established as a new provision expressly requiring judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage for purposes of remarriage. Therefore, a person who contracts a subsequent marriage absent a prior judicial declaration of nullity is guilty of bigamy.
FACTS:
Myrna Antone alleged in her Affidavit-Complaint,filed in March 2007, that she and Leo were married in 1978. However, Leo contracted a second marriage with Cecile Maguillo in 1991. The prosecution filed the Information in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a criminal case of Bigamy.
Pending the setting of the case for arraignment, Leo moved to quash the Information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because his marriage with Myrna was declared null and void as of April 2007 and became final and executory on May 2007. Leo argues that since the marriage had been declared null and void from the beginning, there was actually no first marriage to speak of. Thus, absent the first marriage, the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute the crime of bigamy. The prosecution argued that the marriage of Myrna and Leo on 1978 was not severed prior to his second marriage on 1991, for which bigamy has already been committed before the court declared the first marriage null and void on 2007.
The RTC sustained the motion to quash relying on Morigo v. People. Similarly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether a subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage only after contracting the subsequent marriage is immaterial in the crime of bigamy.
HELD:
Yes.
RULING:
Article 40 of the Family Code has reversed the previous ruling of People v. Mendoza (under the Civil Code) declaring that: (a) a case for bigamy based on a void ab initio marriage will not prosper because there is no need fora judicial decree to establish that a void ab initio marriage is invalid; and (b) a marriage declared void ab initio has retroactive legal effect such that there would be no first valid marriage to speak of after all, which renders the elements of bigamy complete.
In fact, this was exhaustively discussed in Mercado v. Tan. It stated that, under the Family Code a subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage is immaterial in a bigamy case because, by then the crime had already been consummated. Otherwise stated, a person who contracts a subsequent marriage absent a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is guilty of bigamy.
While, Morigo v. People was promulgated after Mercado, the facts are different. In Mercado, the first marriage was actually solemnized, although later declared void ab initio. While in Mendoza, no marriage ceremony was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer, because what occurred was a mere signing of a marriage contract through a private act. Thus, there is no need to secure a judicial declaration of nullity before Morigo can contract a subsequent marriage. The ruling of Morigo is not applicable to this case.
