CASE DIGEST: LUISITO G. PULIDO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G. R. No. 220149. July 27, 2021

FACTS: 

Pulido and Arcon were married on September 5, 1983, in a civil wedding at the Municipal Hall of Rosario Cavite. In 2007, Pulido stopped going home to their conjugal dwelling. Upon confrontation, Arcon found out that Pulido has an affair with Baleda and they were married on July 31, 1995.

In December 2007, Arcon filed a bigamy case against Pulido and Baleda. 

Pulido defended that both of his marriage was void ab initio. His marriage with Arcon is void due to lack of a marriage license,  and his marriage to Baleda is also void due to lack of a marriage ceremony. 

Baleda on the other hand claimed that she only knew Pulido's prior marriage sometime in April 2007 and that she filed a Petition to Annul their marriage before the filing of the bigamy case. The court even declared their marriage null and void for being bigamous on October 25, 2007.

The trial court convicted Pulido of bigamy but acquitted Baleda. 

Appeals and motions of Pulido were likewise denied. The court ruled in reliance with the provision of Art. 40 of the Family Code. 

Meanwhile, in 2015, the court in a civil case declared Arcon and Pulido's marriage null and void. A decree of absolute nullity of their marriage was issued in 2016.

ISSUE:

Whether a Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void ab initio marriage in a bigamy case.

RULING:

No. The court in this case abandons its earlier rulings and holds that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time within which they are secured. 

The court based the foregoing conclusion and justification on the following:

Retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage in criminal prosecutions for bigamy.

The court stressed that the nullity of a void ab initio marriage, being inexistent under the eyes of the law can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil court between parties at any time, whether before or after the death of either or both the spouses. A void marriage is ipso facto void without the need for any judicial declaration of nullity. This requirement is necessary under Art. 40, where the law treated a void ab initio marriage as valid for purposes of remarriage.

Thus, being inexistent from the beginning, the void first marriage does not qualify nor satisfy one of the essential elements of bigamy which requires the existence of a prior valid marriage. Logically, there is no first marriage to begin with. As for the retroactive effect of a void ab initio marriage, there is nothing to annul nor dissolve as the judicial declaration of nullity merely confirms the inexistence of such marriage. This also explains why the second element of bigamy which requires that the former marriage has not been legally dissolved or annulled is wanting in the case of void ab initio prior marriage. The RPC provision regarding bigamy pertains to contracting a subsequent marriage when a voidable or valid first marriage is still subsisting. 

In the same vein, when the accused contracted a subsequent void ab initio marriage, which is void other than it being bigamous, it has the effect of not having entered into a subsequent marriage at all because the same is inexistent from the beginning. Thus, negates the existence of one of the elements of bigamy which requires that the accused contracts a second or subsequent marriage. A subsequent judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the second marriage merely confirms its inexistence. 

In both instances, the accused may validly raise the defense of a void ab initio marriage without a judicial declaration of nullity. 

Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of absolute nullity for purposes of remarriage but not as a defense in bigamy. 

The Court clarifies that the requirement under Art. 40 (Final judgment requiring the previous marriage void) need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage. The word "solely" under Art. 40 qualifies the "final judgment declaring such previous marriage void" and not "for purposes of remarriage".

In effect, the judicial declaration of absolute nullity may be invoked in other instances for purposes other than remarriage. Nonetheless, other evidence, testimonial or documentary, may also prove the absolute nullity of the previous marriage in the said instances. Hence, such previous void marriage need not be proved solely by an earlier judgment of the court declaring it void. For purposes of remarriage, the only evidence to prove a void marriage is the final judgment declaring its absolute nullity. In other cases, the absolute nullity of a marriage may be proved by evidence other than such judicial declaration.

You may read the full text of the case on this link: SC Post: Pulido vs. People