By Farah G. Decano

 

IT is good to be updated of recent Supreme Court rulings. Hence, Atty. Daphne Arriola prepared this below:

“Can someone who knowingly broke the fundamental rules of marriage rewrite those same rules to conveniently escape his or her previous marriage obligations to subsequently remarry? In a recent decision, the Supreme Court delivered a resounding “no,” offering a clear interpretation of who holds the legal right to challenge a bigamous marriage where a person contracts a second marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved.

The En Banc ruling in Maria Lina P. Quirit-Figarido, Petitioner, vs. Edwin L. Figarido, Respondent (G.R. No. 259520, November 5, 2024) answers the issue of who can file a petition for the annulment of a marriage tainted by bigamy. At the heart of this decision lies Section 2(a) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which typically empowers a husband or wife to seek the dissolution of a void marriage. However, the Court has now made a significant clarification stating that this provision does not extend to those who willfully and knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage.

Bigamy is a criminal offense punished under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. What injury does the guilty spouse suffer from his or her act of knowingly contracting a bigamous marriage? None. He or she is however seen as the erring party in the eyes of the law and so is the spouse that knew of the prior existing marriage upon entering the bigamous marriage.

In this case, Maria Lina, who is the party at fault, cannot invoke the Court’s aid in her attempt to free herself from her bigamous marriage with Edwin (the subsequent spouse). Even Edwin, cannot be considered as the injured spouse because he knew of the first marriage of Maria Lina when he considered to having an extramarital affair with Maria Lina.

The En Banc Decision underscores a fundamental principle that only the injured spouse, and not those who knowingly and voluntarily enter into a bigamous marriage, should be permitted to profit from their own wrongdoing by asking the court to nullify it. To allow otherwise would inevitably bastardize the institution of marriage to the prejudice of the State. The Court sought to prevent a situation where individuals could casually discard their illegal marriages, effectively reaping the rewards of their deceit without facing the consequences.

Furthermore, permitting the guilty spouse to initiate a petition for nullity would create a legal contradiction wherein the very individual responsible for the illegal marriage would be empowered to invoke its illegality to dissolve it. This legal absurdity would grant wrongdoers the power to dismantle their marriages at will, undermining the very concept of marital stability.

In the concurring opinions of Chief Justice Gesmundo and Justice Caguioa, they further explained that procedural rules must not be interpreted in a manner that favors those who have acted illegally or contravenes public policy. The age-old principle of “he who seeks equity must do equity” prevails.  One cannot seek justice with unclean hands.

Ultimately, the Court’s decision reflects a commitment to preserving the integrity of marriage, rather than providing a convenient escape route for those who have deliberately violated its principles.

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments