Bocario, Gian Carlo B.
JD – 1A
Civil Law Case Digests
MARBELLA-BOBIS VS. BOBIS
G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000
Ynares-Santiago, J.
FACTS:
On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani contracted a first marriage with one
Maria Dulce. Without said marriage having been annulled, nullified or terminated,
Isagani contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda on January 25, 1996
and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia. An information for bigamy was
filed against Isagani based on Imelda's complaint. Sometime thereafter, Isagani
initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first
marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a marriage license. Isagani
then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy
invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial
question to the criminal case. The trial judge granted the motion to suspend the
criminal case.
ISSUE:
Is judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage a requirement before a party
may contract a subsequent marriage?
RULING AND CONCLUSION (IRAC METHOD):
Yes, a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is required before
entering into a subsequent marriage.
Article 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the time of celebration of
the second marriage, requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage before a party may remarry. Only when the nullity of the marriage is so
declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the
presumption is that the marriage exists.
The respondent did not obtain the judicial declaration of nullity when he entered
into the second marriage.
In the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having
obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to
have validly entered into the second marriage. Per current jurisprudence, a
Bocario, Gian Carlo B.
JD – 1A
Civil Law Case Digests
marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party
can marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void. The reason is
that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to
be subsisting.
Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot even be
successfully invoked as an excuse.
The contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not
been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is an
act penalized by the Revised Penal Code. The legality of a marriage is a matter of
law and every person is presumed to know the law. As respondent did not obtain
the judicial declaration of nullity when he entered into the second marriage, why
should he be allowed to belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to delay
his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by his own disobedience of the
law? If he wants to raise the nullity of the previous marriage, he can do it as a
matter of defense when he presents his evidence during the trial proper in the
criminal case.
Therefore, Isagani is still regarded as a married man for all intents and purposes
since the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting in the absence of a judicial
declaration of its nullity.
