Under the Family Code, a party may file a petition for declaration of nullity of his/her marriage on the ground that it is bigamous. Bigamy as we all know is contracting marriage despite the subsistence of a previous marriage. Undeniably, the court can and must declare void the subsequent marriage.

But the question is, can any party, whether aggrieved or guilty, file the petition? In this case, the petitioner contracted a second marriage to another party despite being validly married to someone else. When her relationship with her second husband deteriorated, she filed a petition with the court for the declaration of its nullity. Her ground — bigamy.

After trial, the court denied her petition citing that she was the guilty party. Unfazed, she asked the appellate court to reverse the trial court. She stood pat on her contention for why her marriage should be declared null. The Court of Appeals thumbed down her petition. This prompted her to go to the Highest Tribunal. The Supreme Court also did not side with her. In discussing why it denied her petition, I quote herein the concurring opinion of the Chief Justice, which succinctly explains why:

“The ponencia denies the petition. It cites the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders, which states that only the aggrieved or injured spouse may file petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. In this case, Maria Lina is not the injured spouse because she was the one who entered into the subsequent marriage knowing fully well that she had an existing marriage with Ho Kar Wai. Further, the ponencia declares that the State does not have a mandatory obligation to dissolve bigamous marriages.

“I concur in [sic] the ponencia. I believe that the Court should not lend aid to Maria Lina in her attempt to remarry, after she knowingly and willingly brought about and reaped the fruits of her bigamous act.

“There is no question that the marriage between Maria Lina and Edwin is void for being bigamous. The issue before the Court in the instant case is not with regard to the characterization of the marriage between Maria Lina and Edwin, but with regard to the interpretation of the rules as to who should be allowed to petition for court relief.

“In ruling on this issue, it is my humble view that the Court should be guided by the principle that the rules of procedure should not be interpreted or applied in a way that would benefit wrongdoers or that would be contrary to public policy.

“With this in mind, it is my position that Section 2(a) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC), which provides that ‘[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife,’ should be read so as to exclude from its coverage those husbands or wives who are guilty of knowingly and willingly entering bigamous marriages. In other words, persons who commit bigamy, and who later come to court to seek relief from their own bigamous marriages, should not be entertained.

“Such a position is consistent with the court’s ruling in Juliano-Llave v. Republic. In that case, the court ruled that, in a bigamous marriage, the aggrieved or injured spouse with the personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is the spouse in the subsisting previous marriage. It was explained that:

“The subsequent spouse may only be expected to take action if he or she had only discovered during the connubial period that the marriage was bigamous, and especially if the conjugal bliss had already vanished. Should parties in a subsequent marriage benefit from the bigamous marriage, it would not be expected that they would file an action to declare the marriage void and thus, in such circumstances, the ‘injured spouse’ who should be given a legal remedy is the one in a subsisting previous marriage. The latter is clearly the aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only threatens the financial and the property ownership aspect of the prior marriage but most of all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse. The subsequent marriage will always be a reminder of the infidelity of the spouse and the disregard of the prior marriage which sanctity is protected by the Constitution.

“My position is, furthermore, founded on the basic principle that one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands, and on the age-old maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio no man can be allowed to found a claim upon his own wrongdoing. Thus, a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue.”

The facts and quoted concurring opinion are from Maria Lina Figarido v. Edwin Figarido (G.R. No. 259520, 5 November 2024).