Quirit-Figarido vs. Figarido

Only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either the prior or the subsequent marriage has the legal personality to petition for the declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage; the spouse who is guilty of contracting the bigamous union lacks such standing.

Maria Lina P. Quirit-Figarido was married to Ho Kar Wai in 1989 in Hong Kong and again in 1994 in the Philippines. While this marriage was subsisting, she married Edwin L. Figarido in 2003 in Quezon City. In 2007, Ho Kar Wai obtained a divorce decree in Hong Kong, which was later recognized by a Philippine Regional Trial Court in 2009. Maria Lina and Edwin separated in 2014. In 2017, Maria Lina filed a petition before the Family Court to declare her marriage to Edwin void ab initio on the ground of bigamy under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, praying also for a declaration of her legal capacity to remarry.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioner Maria Lina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Edwin, alleging it was bigamous and thus void ab initio under Article 35(4) of the Family Code.
• The Prior Marriage: Maria Lina was validly married to Ho Kar Wai, a Chinese national, in 1989 (Hong Kong) and 1994 (Philippines).
• The Subsequent Marriage: While her first marriage was subsisting, Maria Lina married Edwin on February 22, 2003, in Quezon City. They had two children.
• Dissolution of the First Marriage: On November 28, 2007, Ho Kar Wai obtained a divorce decree from a Hong Kong court. This decree was recognized by the RTC of Parañaque City, Branch 260, in a decision dated February 5, 2009.
• Stipulations During Pre-Trial: The parties stipulated to the existence of the first marriage, the subsequent marriage to Edwin during the subsistence of the first, and the later recognition of the divorce decree.
• Lower Court Proceedings: Despite service by publication, Edwin did not appear. The public prosecutor did not present evidence. The Family Court denied the petition, finding Maria Lina lacked personality to file it. The CA affirmed.

• Legal Personality: Petitioner argued that she was the only real party-in-interest left who could file the action, as the injured spouse from the first marriage (Ho Kar Wai) had obtained a divorce and the respondent (Edwin) was not the injured spouse of the prior marriage.
• No Injured Party Remaining: Petitioner maintained that with the divorce decree, there was no longer an injured party from the prior marriage to protect, and the State's interest in preserving marriage was no longer implicated.
• Legal Absurdity of Denial: Petitioner contended that refusing to nullify the bigamous marriage had the effect of legalizing it, contrary to Article 35(4) of the Family Code which declares such marriages void from the beginning.
• Equity Jurisdiction: Petitioner implored the Court to exercise its equity jurisdiction to remedy her inability to remarry, as no other person could legally file the petition.

• Lack of Personality (OSG Argument): The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that the petitioner, being the spouse guilty of contracting the bigamous marriage, was not the "aggrieved or injured spouse" and therefore had no personality to file the petition for its nullity, pursuant to A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and prevailing jurisprudence.

• Legal Personality: Whether the petitioner, who was guilty of contracting a bigamous marriage, has the legal personality to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of that marriage.
• Right to Remarry: Whether the petitioner can be granted the right to remarry if the marriage is declared void.

• Legal Personality: The petitioner lacks legal personality. Under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and its Rationale, only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse may petition for the declaration of nullity of a void marriage. The petitioner, as the offending spouse in the bigamous union, cannot be considered aggrieved or injured. The dissolution of the prior marriage by divorce did not vest her with the standing to sue, as the right to petition does not transfer to the guilty party.
• Right to Remarry: The petition was denied, thus the question of the right to remarry was not reached. The Court noted, however, that the ultimate objective of the petition was to attain the capacity to remarry, a benefit that cannot be granted to the erring spouse under the current rules. The denial is not a legalization of the bigamous marriage, as its nullity can still be invoked for other purposes (e.g., heirship, settlement of estate) without a judicial declaration.

• Aggrieved or Injured Spouse Rule — In petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage on the ground of bigamy, only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either the prior or the subsequent marriage has legal personality to file the action. The spouse guilty of contracting the bigamous marriage is barred from filing such a petition. This rule is derived from Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and its Rationale, as interpreted in Juliano-Llave v. Republic and Fujiki v. Marinay.
• Clean Hands Doctrine — A party who comes to court must come with clean hands. A petitioner who is responsible for or voluntarily participated in the act they now seek to be relieved from (e.g., contracting a bigamous marriage) cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing and will not be granted equitable relief.

• "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 denial of Maria Lina's petition is not a refusal to declare her bigamous marriage void, but rather a repudiation of Maria Lina's legal personality to file the said petition."
• "Yielding to her position... will inevitably bastardize the institution of marriage to the prejudice of the State."

• Juliano-Llave v. Republic of the Philippines, 662 Phil. 203 (2011) — Applied and followed. This case established that the "aggrieved or injured spouse" in a bigamy case is the spouse of the prior subsisting marriage, who has the personality to question the subsequent marriage.
• Fujiki v. Marinay, 712 Phil. 524 (2013) — Applied and followed. This case clarified that the "husband or the wife" under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the spouse of the prior subsisting marriage, who is the real party-in-interest.
• Alcantara v. Alcantara, 558 Phil. 192 (2007) — Applied by analogy. This case invoked the clean hands doctrine to deny relief to a petitioner who sought to nullify a marriage he willfully contracted.
• Cariño v. Cariño, 403 Phil. 861 (2001) — Cited for the principle that a judicial declaration of nullity is required only for purposes of remarriage; for other purposes, the nullity may be invoked without such a declaration.

• Article 35(4), Family Code — Provides that bigamous or polygamous marriages are void from the beginning.
• 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. Interpreted by the Court's Rationale to mean only the aggrieved or injured spouse.
• Article 40, Family Code — Cited for the principle that a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is required only for purposes of contracting a subsequent marriage.

• Inting, M. Lopez, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ.
• Gesmundo, C.J. (see concurring opinion)
• Caguioa, J. (see concurring opinion)
• Singh, J. (see separate concurring opinion)

• Justice Lazaro-Javier — Filed a dissenting opinion (details not provided in the main decision text).
• Justice Zalameda — Filed a dissenting opinion (details not provided in the main decision text).
• Justice Leonen, SAJ. — Dissented and joined the dissent of Justices Javier and Zalameda.
• Justice Hernando — Joined the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Javier.