Quirit-Figarido vs. Figarido

Only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either the prior subsisting marriage or the subsequent bigamous marriage has the legal personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of a void marriage on the ground of bigamy. The spouse who is at fault for contracting the bigamous marriage is barred from filing such a petition.

The case involves a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on bigamy. The petitioner, Maria Lina, was previously married. She contracted a second marriage while the first was still subsisting. The first marriage was later dissolved by a foreign divorce, which was judicially recognized in the Philippines. Maria Lina then sought to nullify her second marriage to regain the capacity to remarry.

• Filed in the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 10 (Family Court), as a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage (Civil Case No. 2017-41).
• The RTC denied the petition in its Decision dated August 30, 2019.
• Maria Lina appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
• The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision in its Decision dated June 21, 2021.
• The case was elevated to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• Maria Lina married Ho Kar Wai in 1989 (Hong Kong) and again in 1994 (Philippines).
• While this marriage was subsisting, she met Edwin in 2000. They began an affair and married on February 22, 2003, in Quezon City.
• They had two children.
• On November 28, 2007, Ho Kar Wai obtained a divorce decree in Hong Kong.
• In 2009, an RTC recognized this foreign divorce decree in the Philippines.
• Maria Lina and Edwin separated in 2014.
• In 2017, Maria Lina filed a petition to declare her marriage to Edwin void ab initio for being bigamous, seeking the capacity to remarry.

• Maria Lina argued she was the only real party-in-interest left to file the petition since Ho Kar Wai (the injured spouse of the prior marriage) had divorced her and could no longer file, and Edwin (the second husband) could not file as he was not the injured spouse of the prior marriage.
• She contended that denying the petition would have the effect of legalizing a bigamous marriage, contrary to Article 35(4) of the Family Code.
• She asserted that no one would be prejudiced if the marriage was nullified, as the prior marriage was already dissolved and there were no properties involved.

• The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic, argued that Maria Lina lacked legal personality to file the petition because she was not the aggrieved or injured spouse.
• The OSG maintained that under the rules and jurisprudence, only the innocent spouse may petition for the nullity of a bigamous marriage.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether Maria Lina has the legal personality to file the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Edwin on the ground of bigamy.
  2. Whether Maria Lina can remarry if the marriage is declared void.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. No. The SC ruled that Maria Lina lacks the legal personality. Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, as interpreted in Juliano-Llave and Fujiki, allows only the "aggrieved or injured spouse" to file. Maria Lina, being the spouse guilty of contracting the bigamous marriage, is not the aggrieved or injured party. The right to file did not transfer to her upon the dissolution of the prior marriage.
  2. No. The denial of the petition means no judicial declaration of nullity exists. Under Article 40 of the Family Code, such a final judgment is required for purposes of remarriage. Therefore, Maria Lina does not have the legal capacity to remarry.

• Aggrieved/Injured Spouse Doctrine in Bigamy — In petitions for declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage, only the spouse who is innocent and aggrieved by the bigamy has standing to file. This includes: (1) the spouse of the prior subsisting marriage, or (2) the innocent spouse in the subsequent bigamous marriage who discovered the bigamy after the wedding. The guilty spouse who knowingly entered the bigamous union is barred.
• Doctrine of Unclean Hands — A litigant may be denied equitable relief if their conduct regarding the subject matter of the suit is inequitable, dishonest, or in bad faith. The SC applied this to deny Maria Lina relief, as she knowingly contracted the bigamous marriage and sought to benefit from her own wrongdoing.

• "The intention behind the relevant rules and applicable jurisprudence is to preserve marriage, not to provide the guilty spouses in a bigamous marriage a convenient means to dissolve their illegitimate union."
• "The State does not have an absolute responsibility to dissolve bigamous marriages irrespective of the circumstances of the case and the acts and omissions of the parties involved."
• "This results in a legal absurdity, as the offending spouse is essentially empowered to dissolve the marriage at will."

• Juliano-Llave v. Republic — Established that in bigamy cases, the "aggrieved or injured spouse" under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the spouse of the prior subsisting marriage, who is the party clearly aggrieved by the bigamous union.
• Fujiki v. Marinay — Clarified and reiterated the Juliano-Llave ruling, stating that the husband or wife of the prior subsisting marriage has the personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of the bigamous marriage.
• Alcantara v. Alcantara — Applied the doctrine of unclean hands to deny a petition for nullity filed by a spouse who willfully participated in the irregular marriage ceremony.

• Article 35(4) of the Family Code — Declares bigamous or polygamous marriages void from the beginning.
• Article 40 of the Family Code — Provides that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage only on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
• Section 2(a), A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages) — States that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. The SC, following precedent, interpreted this to mean only the aggrieved or injured spouse in bigamy cases.

• Gesmundo, C.J. (Concurring) — Emphasized the application of equity principles and the doctrine of unclean hands. Argued that the Court should not aid a party who knowingly and willingly brought about and benefited from a bigamous act. The rules of procedure should not be interpreted to benefit wrongdoers.
• Caguioa, J. (Concurring) — Argued that allowing the guilty spouse to nullify the marriage would make a mockery of the institution of marriage. The denial of personality is not to validate the bigamous marriage but to protect the sanctity of marriage as an institution. The marriage remains void for all other purposes (e.g., inheritance, support) without a judicial declaration.
• Singh, J. (Separate Concurring) — Agreed with the ruling but suggested that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC should be amended for clarity, proposing that standing be explicitly granted to the aggrieved spouse of the prior marriage or the innocent spouse of the bigamous marriage.

• Lazaro-Javier, J. (Dissenting) — Argued that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is clear: either the husband or the wife in the void marriage may file. The "aggrieved spouse" qualification is not in the rule's text. Cited Cariaga v. Republic to argue the unclean hands doctrine should not bar a petition to declare a void marriage, as public policy demands that void marriages be declared null. Also cited foreign jurisprudence (Townsend v. Morgan) to argue that a party seeking annulment is deemed to be repenting, and the State's interest in dissolving void marriages is paramount.
• Zalameda, J. (Dissenting) - Argued that the Family Code does not qualify which spouse may file for nullity. The State has no interest in preserving a bigamous marriage. The ruling creates an absurd situation where a palpably void marriage is left undissolved due to a procedural technicality. The Court should exercise its equity jurisdiction to declare the marriage void, reinforcing the State's policy against bigamy.