Mercado vs. Tan

The Court held that a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted; absent such declaration, a person who contracts a second marriage while the first is subsisting is guilty of bigamy, even if the first marriage is void ab initio. Because Article 40 of the Family Code requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before it may be invoked for purposes of remarriage, the subsequent judicial nullification of the first marriage does not absolve a defendant of bigamy consummated prior to such decree.

Vincent Paul G. Mercado married Ma. Thelma Oliva on April 10, 1976 in Cebu City. While that marriage subsisted and without any judicial declaration of its nullity, Mercado contracted a second marriage with Ma. Consuelo Tan on June 27, 1991 in Bacolod City, indicating his status as "single" on the marriage contract. On October 5, 1992, Tan filed a letter-complaint for bigamy with the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. More than a month later, on November 13, 1992, Mercado filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Oliva. The trial court declared the first marriage null and void on May 6, 1993.

• First Marriage: On April 10, 1976, Vincent Paul G. Mercado married Ma. Thelma Oliva in a civil ceremony in Cebu City. The marriage was blessed in religious rites on October 10, 1976. Two children were born from this union.
• Second Marriage: On June 27, 1991, while the first marriage was subsisting and without any judicial declaration of its nullity, Mercado contracted a second marriage with Ma. Consuelo Tan before MTCC-Bacolod City. In the marriage contract, Mercado indicated his status as "single." The civil marriage was confirmed in a church ceremony on June 29, 1991. A child, Vincent Paul, Jr., was sired from this union.
• Criminal and Civil Actions: On October 5, 1992, Tan filed a letter-complaint for bigamy with the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City. On November 13, 1992, Mercado filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Oliva in RTC-Br. 22, Cebu City. On January 22, 1993, the Information for bigamy was filed. On May 6, 1993, the RTC Cebu City declared the first marriage null and void.
• Lower Court Findings: The trial court and the Court of Appeals both found that all the elements of bigamy were present, emphasizing that no judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage had been obtained at the time the second marriage was celebrated. The CA additionally found that Tan was aware of Mercado's previous marriage and could not claim to be an innocent victim entitled to damages.

• Petitioner argued that he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, rendering it void ab initio.
• Petitioner maintained that unlike voidable marriages, which are valid until set aside, a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place; thus, there was no first marriage to speak of at the time of the second marriage.
• Petitioner invoked the commentary of former Justice Luis Reyes that if the first marriage is void from the beginning, it serves as a defense in a bigamy charge.
• Petitioner sought a liberal interpretation of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Articles 36 and 40 of the Family Code, claiming it negated his guilt or at least raised reasonable doubt.

• Respondent countered that the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was obtained only after the Information for bigamy had been filed, by which time the crime had already been consummated.
• Respondent argued that a judicial declaration of nullity of a void previous marriage must be obtained before a person can contract a subsequent marriage, pursuant to Article 40 of the Family Code.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the element of a previous legal marriage is present to convict petitioner of bigamy.
  • Whether a liberal interpretation of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Articles 36 and 40 of the Family Code, negates petitioner's guilt.
  • Whether petitioner is entitled to an acquittal on the basis of reasonable doubt.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court ruled against petitioner on all substantive issues. The Court held that the element of a previous legal marriage is present because, at the time the second marriage was contracted, the first marriage was subsisting and had not yet been judicially declared void. A liberal interpretation of Article 349 in favor of the accused cannot override the explicit mandate of Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a final judgment declaring a previous marriage void before it can be invoked for purposes of remarriage. Because the crime of bigamy is consummated the moment a person contracts a second marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved or judicially declared void, the subsequent nullity decree does not extinguish criminal liability. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

• Judicial Declaration of Nullity Requirement — The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. The Court applied this doctrine to supersede the old rule derived from People v. Mendoza and People v. Aragon, which held that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. By statutory mandate of Article 40 of the Family Code, parties to a marriage, even if void ab initio, cannot assume its nullity and must first secure a judicial declaration before marrying again; otherwise, the second marriage is bigamous and criminal in character.
• Elements of Bigamy — The Court reiterated the four elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code:
  1. That the offender has been legally married;
  2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
  3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
  4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The Court found all elements present at the time the second marriage was celebrated.

• "A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as 'void.'"
• "In this light, the statutory mooring of the ruling in Mendoza and Aragon – that there is no need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage -- has been cast aside by Article 40 of the Family Code. Such declaration is now necessary before one can contract a second marriage. Absent that declaration, we hold that one may be charged with and convicted of bigamy."

• People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 (1954) — Abandoned/Overruled. The Court set aside the ruling in this case that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage, finding it superseded by Article 40 of the Family Code.
• People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033 (1957) — Abandoned/Overruled. Followed Mendoza; similarly set aside by the Court in light of Article 40 of the Family Code.
• Vda de Consuegra v. GSIS, 37 SCRA 315 (1971) — Followed. The Court cited this case as early jurisprudence impressing the need for a judicial declaration of nullity even for manifestly void marriages.
• Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy, 143 SCRA 499 (1986) — Followed. Affirmed the necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity before a person can be regarded as single for purposes of remarriage.
• Domingo v. CA, 226 SCRA 572 (1993) — Followed. The Court relied on this case to stress that the Family Code settled the conflicting jurisprudence by explicitly requiring a judicial declaration of absolute nullity either as a cause of action or a ground for defense.
• Terre v. Terre, 211 SCRA 6 (1992) — Followed. The Court cited this administrative case to reinforce that a judicial declaration of nullity is essential to determine whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, and that a second marriage contracted without such decree is bigamous and criminal in character.

• Article 349, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of bigamy as contracting a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved. Applied as the statutory basis for the petitioner's conviction, the Court emphasizing that the crime is committed by the act of contracting the second marriage before the first is legally dissolved or judicially declared void.
• Article 40, Family Code — Provides that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Applied to require a prior judicial decree of nullity before a subsequent marriage can be validly contracted, and to hold that absent such decree, bigamy liability attaches.
• Article 36, Family Code — Provides for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Referenced as the basis for the subsequent civil court decree declaring petitioner's first marriage void, which the Court ruled could not retroactively extinguish criminal liability for bigamy.

Melo (Chairman), Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.

• Vitug, J. — Argued that Article 40 of the Family Code, which requires a judicial declaration of nullity, applies only "for purposes of remarriage" and should not overturn the criminal law rule that a void marriage is inexistent from the beginning. The dissent maintained that a void marriage, being a total nullity, should be capable of being independently raised as a defense in a criminal case for bigamy, distinct from the civil requirement of a judicial decree. The dissent opined that Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code contemplated an existing, valid, or voidable prior marriage, not a void one, and voted to grant the petition.