Montañez v. Cipriano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano married Socrates Flores on April 8, 1976. During the subsistence of this marriage, she married Silverio V. Cipriano on January 24, 1983. In 2001, respondent filed a petition to annul her marriage with Socrates on the ground of psychological incapacity, which was granted by the RTC of Muntinlupa on July 18, 2003, becoming final on October 13, 2003. On May 14, 2004, Merlinda Cipriano Montañez, Silverio's daughter, filed a complaint for Bigamy against respondent. Procedural History: An Information for Bigamy was filed against respondent. Respondent filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the annulment of her first marriage meant there were no two valid marriages, and that the crime had prescribed. The RTC initially denied the motion, citing Mercado v. Tan. However, upon reconsideration, the RTC quashed the information, ruling that since both marriages occurred before the Family Code, and jurisprudence was ambivalent, the absence of a prior judicial declaration of nullity should not prejudice the accused, especially since her first marriage was later declared void. The RTC further reasoned that a declaration of nullity merely confirms the marriage never existed, thus her second marriage could not be criminal. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to annul the RTC's dismissal of the Information for Bigamy.
Issue(s)
Whether the judicial nullity of a first marriage prior to the enactment of the Family Code and the pronouncement in Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy on the ground of psychological incapacity is a valid defense for a charge of bigamy for entering into a second marriage prior to the enactment of the Family Code and the pronouncement in Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy. Whether the trial court erred in stating that the jurisprudence prior to the enactment of the Family Code and the pronouncement in Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy regarding the necessity of securing a declaration of nullity of the first marriage before entering a second marriage was ambivalent, such that a person was allowed to enter a subsequent marriage without the annulment of the first without incurring criminal liability.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Order dated September 24, 2007, and the Resolution dated January 2, 2008, of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, are SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 4990-SPL is ordered REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the judicial nullity of a first marriage is a valid defense for bigamy: The Court ruled in the negative. The crime of bigamy is consummated at the time of the celebration of the second marriage. In this case, respondent contracted a second marriage with Silverio on January 24, 1983, while her first marriage with Socrates, celebrated in 1976, was still subsisting and had not been judicially dissolved. The subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage in 2003 is immaterial because, at the time of the second marriage, the first marriage was deemed valid and subsisting. The Court reiterated the principle that parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity; it must be submitted to competent courts, and only when declared void can it be held as such. Therefore, contracting a second marriage before a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage carries the risk of prosecution for bigamy. On the issue of whether jurisprudence prior to the Family Code was ambivalent regarding the necessity of a prior judicial declaration of nullity: The Court disagreed with the trial court's assessment. It cited established jurisprudence, including Mercado v. Tan, Abunado v. People, and Tenebro v. CA, which consistently held that a subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is immaterial to the consummation of the crime of bigamy. The Court emphasized that the State's penal laws on bigamy would be rendered nugatory if individuals could escape liability by simply ensuring their marital contracts were flawed and then claiming nullity. The principle that a marriage, even if void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences, including incurring criminal liability for bigamy, was affirmed. The Court also clarified that Article 40 of the Family Code, requiring a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting a subsequent marriage, has retroactive effect as a procedural rule and does not impair vested rights, citing Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr. and Jarillo v. People. The argument that the marriages were contracted before the Family Code's effectivity was found unmeritorious, as the procedural rule on declaration of nullity applies retroactively.
Main Doctrine
The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of a first marriage does not negate the crime of bigamy if a second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, as the crime is consummated at the time of the celebration of the second marriage.