Bigamy is when a person contracts a subsequent marriage with someone while still actually married to another. Thus, when a party files for a declaration of nullity of his subsequent marriage based on bigamy, all he has to do is show that he was previously married. To prove that, he must present the marriage certificate of his first marriage. And with that, must the court grant the annulment?

Let us see what the Supreme Court says in Leoncio L. Melocoton v. Jennifer Pring and the Republic of the Philippines (G.R. 265808, 22 January 2025). In this case, the petitioner-husband filed for the annulment of his marriage to respondent-wife. He alleged that his marriage to her was bigamous in view of his previous marriage to someone else.

During trial, he presented the marriage certificate of his previous marriage. Accordingly, the trial court granted his petition for annulment. On appeal, however, the Office of the Solicitor General, counsel for the State, opposed the grant of the petition.

It contended that the petitioner-husband failed to prove the status of the previous marriage at the time he contracted the second one. His failure to do so meant there was no previous marriage and, ergo, no bigamy existed. Accordingly, he had a valid and existing marriage to the second wife, the respondent.

The Court of Appeals gave its nod to the OSG’s contention. It thus reversed the decision of the trial court. Dissatisfied, the petitioner, of course, went up to the Supreme Court. But when he did, this is how the High Court decided:

“To recall, petitioner filed a Petition for Nullity of Marriage and Correction of Entries in the Certificates of Title of the subject properties against respondent. The RTC granted the petition for nullity of marriage but denied the correction of entries in the certificates of title of the subject properties. Aggrieved by the decision of the RTC, petitioner filed a Partial Appeal before the CA, only raising the issue on the correction of entries in the certificates of title of the subject properties.

“The OSG then filed its Appellee’s Brief and argued that petitioner has not shown the status of his prior marriage and thus cannot successfully claim bigamy. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the marriage between petitioner and respondent Pring is not bigamous, hence valid... With this, we now resolve the status of the marriage between petitioner and respondent. To reiterate, petitioner argued before the RTC that his marriage to Jimenez is valid and thus, his subsequent marriage to respondent is bigamous. We do not agree.

“A marriage is considered bigamous if it was contracted while a party’s marriage has not yet been legally dissolved. Bigamous or polygamous marriages are void from the beginning... Thus, the elements of bigamy are as follows: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case their spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that they contract a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

“From the foregoing, to claim bigamy, petitioner must not only show compliance with the requisites of marriage but also must show that his prior marriage to Jimenez is valid and subsisting at the time of his second marriage with respondent Pring. To recall, petitioner married Jimenez in 1981 while his marriage with respondent Pring occurred in 1987. However, records are bereft of proof of the status of petitioner’s first marriage at the time he married respondent Pring.”

It contended that the petitioner-husband failed to prove the status of the previous marriage at the time he contracted the second one.

“Here, petitioner only presented the photocopy of the front page of the marriage certificate to prove the validity of his marriage to Jimenez. While the marriage certificate is the primary proof of marriage, the fact that the same marriage subsists during the time of the celebration of the second marriage was not reflected in the marriage certificate. Further, petitioner’s narration that Jimenez is now living in the United States of America is self-serving and offers nothing of evidentiary value. Thus, petitioner failed to prove that his second marriage with respondent Pring is bigamous... The presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage. Any doubt should be resolved to sustain such validity.

“Indeed, this Court is mindful of this principle as well as of the constitutional policy which protects and strengthens the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. In this case, having failed to establish petitioner’s claim of bigamy, then the presumption on the validity of his marriage with respondent Pring prevails.”

The takeaway: Always prove that the previous marriage was still subsisting when the second one was contracted to show bigamy.