Quirit-Figarido v. Figarido
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maria Lina P. Quirit-Figarido (Maria Lina) contracted a marriage with Ho Kar Wai in Hong Kong in 1989, and again in the Philippines in 1994. While this marriage was still subsisting, Maria Lina met Edwin L. Figarido (Edwin) in 2000. After a period of courtship, they married on February 22, 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines. They subsequently had two children. In 2007, Ho Kar Wai obtained a divorce decree from Hong Kong, and this was recognized by a Philippine Regional Trial Court (RTC) in 2009. Maria Lina and Edwin separated in 2014. Procedural History: On March 6, 2017, Maria Lina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Edwin before the RTC of Parañaque City, alleging it was bigamous. The RTC denied her petition on August 30, 2019. Maria Lina's motion for reconsideration was also denied. She appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision on June 21, 2021. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Maria Lina filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. She argues that her marriage to Edwin is void ab initio due to bigamy and that she should be declared to have the right to remarry. The core issues presented are whether she has the legal personality to file the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage and whether she can remarry if the marriage is declared void. The Supreme Court is asked to rule on these matters, considering the established jurisprudence on who may petition for the declaration of nullity of a void marriage.
Issue(s)
Whether Maria Lina has the personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Edwin. Whether Maria Lina can remarry if her marriage with Edwin is declared void ab initio for being bigamous.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated June 21, 2021, and the Resolution dated November 16, 2021, of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Maria Lina has the personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Edwin: The Court held that only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either marriage may petition to declare the nullity of a subsequent bigamous marriage. Maria Lina, having contracted a bigamous marriage while her prior marriage to Ho Kar Wai was subsisting, is not the aggrieved or injured spouse. Therefore, she lacks the legal capacity to file the petition for the declaration of nullity of her subsequent marriage to Edwin. The Court reiterated that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, specifically Section 2(a), and its Rationale, clearly state that only the husband or wife may file such a petition, referring to the spouses of the prior subsisting marriage. The Court clarified that the parties to a bigamous marriage are neither husband nor wife in the eyes of the law, and thus cannot petition for the nullity of their own union on that ground. The fact that Ho Kar Wai obtained a divorce decree did not transfer the right to petition to Maria Lina; rather, Ho Kar Wai was the injured spouse who had the right to file the petition, but his legal standing ceased after his divorce. On whether Maria Lina can remarry if her marriage with Edwin is declared void ab initio for being bigamous: The Court ruled that Maria Lina cannot remarry based on her petition. While bigamous marriages are void ab initio under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, they must be judicially declared void for the parties to avail of the right to remarry. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the rules and jurisprudence on void marriages is to preserve marriage, not to provide guilty spouses a means to dissolve their illegitimate union. Maria Lina's objective was to acquire the right to remarry, which she inflicted upon herself by contracting a bigamous marriage. The Court rejected her plea to exercise equity jurisdiction, citing the principle that one who comes to court must do so with clean hands. Allowing the erring spouse to file such a petition would lead to a legal absurdity and treat bigamy as a matter of convenience rather than a transgression.
Main Doctrine
Only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either marriage may petition to declare the nullity of a subsequent bigamous marriage. The erring spouse, who contracted the bigamous marriage, lacks the legal capacity to file such a petition.