The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that only the injured spouse – not the one who knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage – can ask the court to nullify it.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the SC En Banc denied a Filipina’s petition to declare her second marriage void for being bigamous.
The petitioner first married a Chinese national in Hong Kong and the Philippines. While working as a bank teller in Hong Kong, she had an affair with a Filipino client, later resigning and returning to the Philippines upon becoming pregnant with his child. She then married him in the Philippines, and they had two children together.
Her first husband later obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, which a Parañaque court recognized, effectively dissolving their marriage.
After 14 years, she separated from her second husband and sought to nullify their marriage, arguing that it was void for being bigamous. She also requested permission to remarry.
However, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals denied her petition, stating that she lacked legal standing because she had knowingly entered the bigamous union, the SC Office of the Spokesperson said in a press release Feb. 14.
The petitioner then argued before the SC that because her first marriage was already dissolved, she alone had the right to seek the nullity of the second. She also emphasized that because her second marriage was invalid from the beginning, the SC had no choice but to declare it void.
But the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that only the aggrieved or innocent spouse from either marriage has the right to petition for the annulment of a second marriage. In this case, it was the petitioner’s first husband who held that right, but he lost it after obtaining a divorce.
This right did not transfer to the petitioner, who is considered the guilty spouse, the SC ruled.
Article 35(4) of the Family Code states that bigamous marriages, or those entered into while either party is still legally married to another, are invalid from the beginning. However, bigamous marriages must still be declared void by a court for the purpose of remarriage.
The SC emphasized that the purpose of invalidating a bigamous marriage is to protect an existing legal union – not to end it. Since the petitioner’s first marriage had already been dissolved, there is no legal union left to protect.
It also noted that the petitioner benefited from the second marriage and waited 14 years to file the petition – not to recognize her first marriage, which no longer existed, but to gain the ability to remarry.
The SC ruled that this cannot be allowed, “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.”
The SC also clarified that denying the petition does not legalize the bigamous marriage. It remains void, even without court declaration, for all other legal purposes, such as determining the legitimacy of children and rightful heirs.
The guilty spouse is also still subject to possible civil and criminal liability for bigamy, it added. ||
