No first marriage license, no bigamy

Everyone, please take note. This is a good read.

A wife had one marriage after another, even without having her first marriage declared void ab initio. The hubby in the second marriage sued her for bigamy. The wife argued that the first marriage, among other things, did not have a marriage license. She presented the local civil registrar, who testified to that effect.

The trial court convicted her. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. Discontented, the wife pursued the matter to the Supreme Court with the staunch contention that her first marriage was void for the absence of that formal requirement, even without availment of a judicial declaration of nullity.

The Supreme Court in this case ruled in favor of the wife. It decreed, “As correctly raised by Imelda in her Compliance, the Court En Banc’s recent ruling in Pulido should be appreciated in her favor.

“In Pulido, the Court abandoned the precedent that a judicial declaration of nullity is necessary to prove a void ab initio marriage in a bigamy case: After careful consideration, this Court is constrained to abandon our earlier rulings that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages cannot be raised as a defense by the accused in a criminal prosecution for bigamy.

“We hold that a judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time within which they are secured.

“To summarize and for future guidance, the parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio first and subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. The same rule now applies to all marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code. Article 40 of the Family Code did not amend Article 349 of the RPC, and thus, did not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage in the criminal prosecution for bigamy.

“However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot interpose an annulment decree as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy since the voidable first marriage is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was contracted. The crime of bigamy, therefore, is consummated when the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the voidable first marriage. The same rule applies if the second marriage is merely considered as voidable.

“To our mind, it is time to abandon the earlier precedents and adopt a more liberal view that a void ab initio marriage can be used as a defense in bigamy even without a separate judicial declaration of absolute nullity. The accused may present testimonial or documentary evidence such as the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first [and/or] subsequent void ab initio marriages in the criminal prosecution for bigamy. The said view is more in accord with the retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage, the purpose of and legislative intent behind Article 40 of the Family Code, and the rule on statutory construction of penal laws.

“Therefore, the absence of a ‘prior valid marriage’ and the subsequent judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage, Pulido is hereby acquitted from the crime of Bigamy charged against him. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of Bigamy are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.

“Stated otherwise, one of the essential elements of Bigamy is a prior valid marriage. If the supposed ‘first marriage’ was void ab initio, it is inexistent from the beginning, and thus, an element of the felony would be lacking. In which case, the acquittal of the accused for the felony of Bigamy is warranted. Applying the foregoing to this case, Imelda has assailed the validity of her prior marriage to Takahiko in the absence of a valid marriage license.

“As proof, Imelda submitted the Certification dated 14 January 2009 issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite (14 January 2009 Certification), which states that: We certify that this Office has no record of application for marriage license of Takahiko Sato and [Imelda] who are alleged to have applied in June 2000 in this municipality. Hence, we cannot issue, as requested, a true copy of the Application for Marriage License or transcription from the Register of Applications for Marriage License.

“We also certify that the records of applications for marriage license for the year 2000 are still intact in the archives of this office. According to Article 3 of the Family Code, a valid marriage license is a formal requisite of marriage. In connection with this, Article 4 of the Family Code provides that, “[t]he absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2).

“Moreover, in Cariaga v Republic (Cariaga), the Court held that “[f]or a marriage to be considered void due to the lack of a marriage license, the absence of such license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties.

“In this case, Imelda’s claim that her first marriage was void due to the absence of a marriage license is supported by the 14 January 2009 Certification, which provides that there is no record for application of marriage license of Takahiko and Imelda. Thus, there is compliance with the evidentiary requirements laid down in Cariaga.”

The facts and quoted redacted portion of the decision are from SC G.R. 233512 (26 February 2026).