Introduction

In the Philippines, marriage is governed by the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended), which emphasizes the sanctity and permanence of marital unions. However, instances of multiple marriages can lead to criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code, particularly for bigamy. Bigamy occurs when a person contracts a second marriage while a prior valid marriage subsists, without the first having been legally dissolved or annulled. This article explores the legal concept of nullifying a second marriage as a potential strategy to mitigate or avoid bigamy charges. It delves into the grounds for nullity, procedural requirements, judicial interpretations, and practical implications within the Philippine legal framework. While nullification may serve as a defense or remedial measure, it does not automatically erase criminal intent or liability, and outcomes depend on specific circumstances.

This discussion is rooted in Philippine jurisprudence, statutory provisions, and established legal principles, highlighting that nullifying a second marriage is not a straightforward escape from prosecution but rather a complex judicial process aimed at declaring the marriage void from the beginning.

Understanding Bigamy in Philippine Law

Bigamy is criminalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815, as amended), which states: "The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings." The elements of bigamy include:

A valid first marriage that has not been legally terminated.
The contraction of a second marriage.
The second marriage having all the essential requisites for validity, except for the subsistence of the prior marriage.

The Supreme Court has clarified in cases like People v. Aragon (G.R. No. L-5930, 1954) that the crime is consummated upon the celebration of the second marriage, regardless of whether the parties cohabit or the marriage is later consummated. Penalties range from six years and one day to twelve years of imprisonment, underscoring the state's interest in protecting the institution of marriage.

Importantly, bigamy is a public crime, prosecutable even without a complaint from the offended spouse, though the first spouse's pardon can extinguish liability if given before the institution of criminal proceedings (Article 344, Revised Penal Code). However, if the second marriage is declared null and void ab initio (from the beginning), it may raise questions about whether bigamy was committed at all, as the second union never legally existed.

Grounds for Nullifying a Marriage Under the Family Code

The Family Code distinguishes between void and voidable marriages. Void marriages are invalid from the outset and can be challenged by any interested party at any time, while voidable marriages are valid until annulled. Nullifying a second marriage typically involves declaring it void under Article 35, which lists grounds for absolute nullity, including:

Bigamous or Polygamous Marriages: Article 35(4) explicitly declares a marriage void if contracted by any party during the subsistence of a previous marriage, unless the prior spouse has been absent for four consecutive years (or two years in cases of danger) and is believed dead, or the prior marriage was annulled or declared void.

Other relevant grounds for nullity that might apply to a second marriage include:

Lack of legal capacity (e.g., one party under 18 without parental consent, Article 35(1)).
Absence of a valid marriage license (Article 35(3)), except in cases of marriages in articulo mortis or remote places.
Psychological incapacity (Article 36), where one or both parties are unable to fulfill marital obligations due to psychological reasons, as interpreted in landmark cases like Republic v. Molina (G.R. No. 108763, 1997).
Incestuous marriages (Article 37) or those against public policy (Article 38), such as between step-siblings or with a person convicted of adultery.

For voidable marriages (annulment under Articles 45-47), grounds include fraud, force, impotence, or sexually transmissible diseases. However, annulment differs from nullity in that it treats the marriage as valid until judicially dissolved, which may not retroactively negate bigamy charges.

In the context of avoiding bigamy, nullifying the second marriage on the ground that it is bigamous creates a circular argument: the marriage is void because it is bigamous, but proving bigamy requires the second marriage to have been contracted. Jurisprudence, such as Mercado v. Tan (G.R. No. 137110, 2000), holds that a judicial declaration of nullity is required to establish the void nature of the marriage, even for bigamous ones, to avoid self-serving declarations.

The Process of Nullifying a Second Marriage

Nullification proceedings are initiated through a petition for declaration of nullity filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with family court jurisdiction, as per the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8369). Key steps include:

Filing the Petition: The petitioner (typically the second spouse, the first spouse, or the Solicitor General in some cases) must file a verified petition alleging the grounds for nullity. Jurisdiction lies where either party resides.
Service and Answer: The petition is served on the respondent, who has 15 days to file an answer. Failure to answer may lead to default judgment.
Pre-Trial and Collusion Investigation: Under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), the court investigates for collusion. The prosecutor participates to ensure no fabrication.
Trial and Evidence: Evidence may include marriage certificates, witness testimonies, psychological evaluations (for Article 36 cases), and proof of the subsisting first marriage. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish the ground by preponderance of evidence.
Decision and Appeal: If granted, the decision declares the marriage void ab initio. Appeals go to the Court of Appeals, and ultimately the Supreme Court.

The process can take 1-3 years, depending on court backlog, and involves costs for filing fees (around PHP 5,000-10,000), attorney's fees (PHP 100,000+), and expert witnesses. Indigent litigants may avail of free legal aid from the Public Attorney's Office.

Effects of Nullification on Bigamy Charges

Nullifying the second marriage can have significant implications for bigamy prosecution:

Retroactive Effect: A declaration of nullity means the second marriage never existed legally. In Toring v. Toring (G.R. No. 165321, 2010), the Supreme Court noted that void marriages produce no legal effects, except for children born before the declaration, who are considered legitimate.
Defense Against Bigamy: If the second marriage is declared void before or during bigamy proceedings, it may serve as a defense. In People v. De Lara (G.R. No. L-28682, 1970), the Court acquitted the accused because the second marriage lacked essential requisites, rendering it non-existent for bigamy purposes. However, if the accused knew of the subsisting first marriage, good faith may not absolve criminal intent.
Timing Considerations: Nullification after bigamy charges are filed does not automatically dismiss the case, as the crime is based on the act of contraction. Per Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis (G.R. No. 138509, 2000), criminal liability attaches at the time of the second ceremony, irrespective of later nullification.
Alternative Strategy: Nullifying the First Marriage: Often, to avoid bigamy, parties seek to nullify the first marriage instead, retroactively validating the second. This requires proving grounds like psychological incapacity or absence of requisites in the first union. Success in nullifying the first marriage can lead to dismissal of bigamy charges, as seen in Domingo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 104818, 1993).

However, nullification does not shield against related charges, such as concubinage (Article 334, RPC) or adultery (Article 333, RPC), if applicable.

Jurisprudential Developments and Key Cases

Philippine courts have evolved interpretations:

Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay (G.R. No. 132524, 1998): Emphasized that bigamous marriages are void, but judicial declaration is mandatory for third-party effects.
Niñal v. Bayadog (G.R. No. 133778, 2000): Clarified exceptions for bigamous marriages where the prior spouse is absent and presumed dead.
Republic v. Olaybar (G.R. No. 189538, 2014): Ruled that a simulated or fictitious marriage (e.g., for immigration) may be declared void, potentially avoiding bigamy if no intent to marry existed.
Recent trends post-Tan v. Republic (G.R. No. 237199, 2022) show stricter scrutiny on psychological incapacity claims to prevent abuse as a "divorce substitute."

The 2023 amendments to the Family Code via Republic Act No. 11596 (expanding grounds for annulment) have not directly altered bigamy provisions but facilitate easier nullification for voidable marriages.

Practical Considerations and Ethical Implications

Parties considering nullification should consult licensed attorneys, as self-representation is risky. Documentation like NSO-certified marriage certificates is crucial. For overseas Filipinos, petitions can be filed via consular offices under the Vienna Convention.

Ethically, while nullification upholds legal order, using it solely to evade charges may invite judicial skepticism. The state prioritizes marriage protection, and courts may impose civil liabilities, such as support for children or property division under Article 147/148 for void marriages.

In cases involving foreigners, the Nationality Principle applies, but Philippine law governs if the marriage occurred locally.

Conclusion

Nullifying a second marriage in the Philippines offers a legal pathway to declare it void, potentially mitigating bigamy charges by establishing that no valid subsequent marriage existed. However, this is not a guaranteed avoidance mechanism, as criminal liability hinges on the circumstances at the time of contraction. Thorough understanding of the Family Code, Revised Penal Code, and relevant jurisprudence is essential. Individuals facing such situations should seek professional legal counsel to navigate the intricacies, ensuring compliance with the law while addressing personal and familial consequences. This process underscores the Philippine legal system's commitment to marital integrity, balancing justice with remedial options.