PSA-PFR-Family Code Art.

35 Cases
Family Code

1976, respondent, Lourdes Cipriano, married Socrates Flores.

Art. 35. Void and Voidable Marriages. The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning:
1.

2.

3.

Cipriano.

Those contracted by any party below either years of age even with the consent of

2001, respondent filed a Petition for the Annulment of her marriage with

parents or guardians;

Socrates on the ground of psychological incapacity as defined in Article 36 of the

Those solemnised by any person not legally authorised to perform marriages

Family Code.

unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in

2003, RTC declared the marriage of Respondent and Socrates null and void.

good faith that the solemnising officer had the legal authority to do so;

2004, Silverios daughter from SIlverios first marriage, filed a Complaint for

Those solemnised without a license, except those covered by the preceding

Bigamy against respondent on grounds that the respondent failed to reveal to

Chapter;

Silverio that she was still married to Socrates.

4.

Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41;

5.

Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the
other; and

6.

1983, during the substance of the said marriage, respondent married, Silverio

Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.

Respondent alleged that the first marriage was already declared void ab initio in
2003, a year before the filing of the bigamy case.
The Prosecution filed in its Comment arguing that the crime of bigamy had
already been consummated when respondent filed her petition for declaration of
nullity.

Cases:

RTC ruled in favor of Respondent because they believed that there was no more

Montaes vs Cipriano

first marriage to speak of and thus the element of two valid marriages in bigamy was

October 22, 2012

absent.

Peralta, J.

The petitioner petitioned directly to the SC.

FACTS:

ISSUES

Petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul the decision of the RTC which

1. Whether or not the declaration of nullity of respondents first marriage justifies the

dismissed the information for bigamy filed against respondent.

dismissal of the bigamy case against her.

Robviewer

PSA-PFR-Family Code Art. 35 Cases

HELD

This was done in order to (1) have the judgment recognized and (2) have declared

1. No. The respondents clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of her

the marriage between Marinay and Maerkara void ab initio under Article 35 of the

first marriage in order to prevent her prosecution for bigamy. At the time the

Family Code and (3) for the annotation of the judgement by the Office of the

respondent contracted a second marriage, the first marriage was still

Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the NSO.

subsisting as it had not yet been legally dissolved. The crime of bigamy was

RTC dismissed the petition on the ground of the violation of the Rule on

already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second

Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable

marriage.

Marriages. - Only the husband or wife can file the petition to declare their marriage
void, making Fujiki the wrong party to file the case.

Fujiki vs. Marinay

Fujiki sought reconsideration claiming that the case was for recognition of foreign

June 26, 2013

judgement and thus a special proceeding so the rule does not apply.

Carpio, J.

Petition for reconsideration dismissed.

FACTS

OSG agreed with Fujiki, believing that he is an injured party who can sue to

2004, Minoru Fujiki, a Japanese national, married respondent Maria Paz

declare as void the bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maerkara.

Marinay.

ISSUES

Fujiki could not bring Marinay to Japan because of her parents, so they lost contact

1. Whether or not the Rule is applicable to this special proceeding.

2. Whether or not a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognise

with each other.

2008, without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay married Shinichi

a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse

Maekara (Maekara) and then went to Japan where she suffered physical abuse.

and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.

Marinay contacted Fujiki, and they were able to reestablish their relationship.

HELD

Fujiki obtained a judgment from a family court in Japan that declared Marinay and

1. No. There is no reason to prevent Fujiki from simply proving as a fact the

Maerkaras marriage on the ground of bigamy.

Judgment of the Japanese Family Court nullifying the marriage between

Then, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC for a Recognition of Foreign Judgment.

Marinay and Maerkara on the ground of bigamy. And also because the

Robviewer

PSA-PFR-Family Code Art. 35 Cases

1. Whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second marriage is a

judgment is fully consistent with public policy since bigamous marriage are
declared void from the beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code.

ground for dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy.

2. Yes. The former husband is an injured party, therefore he can file a petition

HELD
1. No. It is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon

(unimportant).

the commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him
Capili vs. People

until extinguished as provided by law. It is clear then that the crime of bigamy

July 3, 2013

was committed by petitioner from the time he contracted the second

Peralta, J.

marriage with private respondent. Those, the finality of the judicial declaration of

FACTS

nullity of petitioners second marriage does not impede the filing of a criminal

James Capili married Shirley Tismo, while his previous marriage with Karla

charge for bigamy against him.

Medina-Capili had not been legally dissolved or annulled.

People vs. Odtuhan

Petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings alleging that: (1) there is a

July 17, 2013

pending civil case of the declaration of nullity of the second marriage filed by

Peralta, J.

Karla Capili, (2) in the event that the marriage is declared null and void, it will

FACTS

exculpate him from the charge of bigamy, and (3) the pendency of the civil case

1980, Respondent Edgardo Odtuhan married Jasmin Modina.

serves as a prejudicial question in the instant criminal case.

1993, respondent married Eleanor Alagon.

In the interim, the RTC of Antipolo declared the second marriage void ab initio.

1994, he filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Modina.

Petitioner then filed his Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the

1999, RTC granted petition declaring marriage void ab initio for lack of a marriage

2nd marriages had already been declared void thus no bigamy.

license.

RTC granted petition to Dismiss.

2003, Alagon died.

CA reversed and set aside the RTCs decision.

Private complainant, Evelyn Alagon, learned of respondents previous marriage with

ISSUE

Modina before Eleanor died.

Robviewer

PSA-PFR-Family Code Art. 35 Cases

PC filed a Complaint-Affidavit charging respondent with Bigamy.

extinguished as provided by law and that the time of filing of the criminal complaint

Respondent moved for the quashal of the information on two grounds: (1) that the

or information is material only for determining prescription.

facts do not charge the offence of bigamy; and (2) that the criminal action or
liability has been extinguished (because of the declaration of nullity).

Garcia-Quiazon vs. Belen

RTC ruled against respondent.

July 31, 2013

Respondent file petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the CA.

Perez, J.

Petition was granted. RTC branch instruction to give due course to and receive

FACTS

evidence on the petitioners motion to quash and resolve the bigamy case.

This case started as a Petition for Letters of Administration of the Estate of

"A motion to quash information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity
of a criminal complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in
point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information.

Eliseo Quiazon (Eliseo), filed by herein respondents who are Eliseos commonlaw wife and daughter.
Petition was opposed by petitioners Amelia Garcia-Quiazon (Amelia) to whom

Petitoner then filed a petition before SC.

Eliseo was married.

ISSUE

1992, Eliseo died intestate (meaning no will).

1. Whether or not the dissolution of the previous marriage is enough ground to

1994, Elise Quiazon represented by her mother, Lourdes Quiazon. filed the Petition

dismiss the bigamy case.

for Letters for Administration before the RTC of Las Pias City.

HELD

Elise claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo having been conceived and

1. No. To conclude, the issue on the declaration of nullity of the marriage

born at the time when her parents were both capacitated to marry each other.

between petitioner and respondent only after the latter contracted the

Elise impugned the validity of Eliseos marriage to Amelia claiming that it was

subsequent marriage is, therefore, immaterial for the purpose of establishing

bigamous for having been contracted doing the subsistence of the latters marriage

that the facts alleged in the information for Bigamy does not constitute an

with Filipito Sandico.

offense. Settled is the rule that criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon
the commission of the offense and from that instant, liability appends to him until

She filed the Letters in order to preserved the estate of Eliseo and to prevent the
dissipation of its value and her appointment as administratrix.

Robviewer

PSA-PFR-Family Code Art. 35 Cases

Amelia filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue asserting that
Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las Pias City. They also claimed
that there was no factual and legal bases for Elise to be appointed
administratrix.
Elises successional rights would be prejudiced by her fathers marriage to
Amelia, which is why she wanted to prove that it was bigamous.
RTC ruled in favor of Elise.
CA upheld the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE (3 issues, only 1 relevant to PFR)
1. Whether or not the decedents marriage to Amelia is void for being bigamous (thus
extinguishing Amelias rights to the property).
HELD
1. Yes. Elise, as a compulsory heir, has cause of action for the declaration of the
absolute nullity of the void marriage of Eliseo and Amelia, and the death of either party
to the said marriage does not extinguish such cause of action. the existence of a
previous marriage between Amelia and Filipito was sufficiently established by no
less than the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Diocese of Tarlac and signed by
the officiating priest of the Parish of San Nicolas de Tolentino in Capas, Tarlac. Amelia
and Eliseos marriage was solemnized, the inescapable conclusion is that the latter
marriage is bigamous and, therefore, void ab initio.

Robviewer