Second Marriage, First Crime: Why Declaring Your First Marriage Void in Court Matters

Thinking of remarrying after a previous marriage that you believe was invalid from the start? Think again. Philippine law mandates a crucial step: obtaining a judicial declaration that your first marriage is void, even if it was inherently invalid. Skipping this step and proceeding with a second marriage can land you in serious trouble – specifically, facing bigamy charges. This Supreme Court case clarifies why getting that court declaration beforehand is not just a formality, but a legal necessity to avoid criminal prosecution.

G.R. No. 137110, August 01, 2000: Vincent Paul G. Mercado A.K.A. Vincent G. Mercado vs. Consuelo Tan

INTRODUCTION

Imagine falling in love again after a previous marriage that was deeply flawed, perhaps even void from the beginning. You believe you’re free to marry, but Philippine law throws a curveball. Vincent Mercado found himself in this predicament, believing his first marriage was void, and marrying Consuelo Tan without formally nullifying the first union in court. This decision by the Supreme Court in Vincent Paul G. Mercado v. Consuelo Tan serves as a stark reminder: in the Philippines, even if your first marriage is void, you must secure a judicial declaration of its nullity before entering into a second marriage, or risk being charged with bigamy. The case highlights the critical importance of proper legal procedures in marital matters, especially when remarriage is involved. The central legal question: Can a person be convicted of bigamy for a second marriage if their first marriage was void ab initio but not yet judicially declared as such at the time of the second marriage?

LEGAL CONTEXT: BIGAMY AND VOID MARRIAGES IN THE PHILIPPINES

Bigamy, as defined under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved. The law 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.”

For a bigamy charge to stand, four elements must be present:

1. The offender is legally married.
2. The first marriage has not been legally dissolved.
3. The offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
4. The second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

Philippine law recognizes different types of marriages, including valid, voidable, and void ab initio (void from the beginning) marriages. Void ab initio marriages are considered as if they never happened due to certain defects present at the time of the marriage, such as lack of consent or being incestuous. Article 35, 36, 37, 38 and 53 of the Family Code enumerate grounds for void marriages. However, the Family Code, specifically Article 40, introduces a procedural requirement even for void marriages when remarriage is contemplated:

“ART. 40. 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.”

This provision was a game-changer. Prior to the Family Code, some jurisprudence suggested that a judicial declaration wasn’t necessary for void marriages, especially in criminal cases like bigamy. However, Article 40 and subsequent Supreme Court decisions aimed to clarify and standardize the process, emphasizing the need for a court declaration to ensure legal certainty and order in marital relationships. The legal landscape before Mercado v. Tan was marked by conflicting jurisprudence, with cases like People v. Mendoza and People v. Aragon suggesting no need for judicial declaration for void marriages in bigamy cases, contrasted by cases like Vda de Consuegra v. GSIS and Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy highlighting the need for such declaration, at least in civil contexts. Domingo v. CA further solidified the necessity of judicial declaration under the Family Code, bridging the gap between civil and criminal implications.

CASE BREAKDOWN: MERCADO’S MARRIAGE MUDDLE

Vincent Mercado was already married to Ma. Thelma Oliva in 1976. Despite this existing marriage, Vincent married Ma. Consuelo Tan in 1991. Crucially, at the time of his marriage to Consuelo, Vincent had not obtained any judicial declaration that his first marriage to Thelma was void. Consuelo later discovered Vincent’s prior marriage and filed a bigamy case against him. Interestingly, after the bigamy case was filed, Vincent initiated a separate civil action to have his first marriage to Thelma declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Vincent of bigamy. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this conviction, emphasizing that at the time of the second marriage, the first marriage was still legally subsisting as there was no judicial declaration of nullity yet.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the lower courts’ decisions, meticulously traced the evolution of jurisprudence on this matter. The Court acknowledged the previous “conflicting” rulings but firmly stated that Article 40 of the Family Code, coupled with the ruling in Domingo v. CA, settled the issue. Justice Panganiban, writing for the Court, quoted:

“A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense; in fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, the person who marries again cannot be charged with bigamy.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that even if Vincent’s first marriage was indeed void ab initio (a point the Court did not definitively rule on in this bigamy case), this void nature was not an automatic defense against bigamy. The critical moment was the date of the second marriage. At that time, no court had declared the first marriage void. Therefore, from the perspective of the law, the first marriage was still considered valid and existing. The Court reasoned that allowing a void ab initio argument without prior judicial declaration would create chaos and encourage individuals to bypass legal procedures. As the Court highlighted:

“To repeat, the crime had already been consummated by then. Moreover, his view effectively encourages delay in the prosecution of bigamy cases; an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We cannot allow that.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld Vincent Mercado’s conviction for bigamy, reinforcing the principle that a judicial declaration of nullity is a prerequisite for remarriage, even when a prior marriage is claimed to be void ab initio.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECT YOURSELF FROM BIGAMY CHARGES

The Mercado v. Tan case provides clear and crucial guidance for anyone considering remarriage after a previous marital union in the Philippines. It dispels any notion that simply believing your first marriage was void is enough to legally justify a second marriage. This ruling has significant practical implications:

• Judicial Declaration is Mandatory: Regardless of whether you believe your previous marriage was void ab initio (e.g., due to lack of consent, psychological incapacity, etc.), you must obtain a judicial declaration of nullity from a Philippine court before entering into a subsequent marriage.
• Timing is Everything: The judicial declaration must precede the second marriage. Obtaining a declaration after contracting a second marriage does not retroactively absolve you of bigamy.
• No Self-Determination of Nullity: You cannot unilaterally declare your marriage void and act on that assumption. The determination of nullity is the court’s prerogative.
• Protection Against Bigamy: Securing a judicial declaration is not just a procedural hoop; it’s your legal shield against potential bigamy charges if you remarry.

Key Lessons from Mercado v. Tan:

• Get a Court Order First: Before remarrying, always secure a judicial declaration of nullity for any prior marriage, even if you believe it was void.
• Timing Matters in Bigamy: The crucial point is whether a judicial declaration existed *before* the second marriage was celebrated.
• Don’t Assume, Consult a Lawyer: Do not assume your marriage is void and proceed with remarriage. Seek legal advice and initiate court proceedings to obtain a declaration of nullity.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is bigamy in the Philippines?

A: Bigamy is the act of contracting a second marriage while still legally married to another person. It is a crime punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

Q: What does “void ab initio” marriage mean?

A: “Void ab initio” means void from the beginning. A void ab initio marriage is considered never to have legally existed due to inherent defects at the time of its celebration, such as lack of consent, incestuous relationships, or psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Q: If my first marriage was void from the start, why do I need a court declaration to remarry?

A: Philippine law, specifically Article 40 of the Family Code and clarified by Supreme Court jurisprudence like Mercado v. Tan, requires a judicial declaration of nullity even for void ab initio marriages for the purpose of remarriage. This is to ensure legal certainty and prevent individuals from unilaterally deciding their marriage is void and remarrying, which could lead to bigamy charges.

Q: What happens if I remarry without a judicial declaration of nullity for my first (void) marriage?

A: You risk being charged with bigamy, even if your first marriage was indeed void ab initio. As Mercado v. Tan illustrates, the lack of a prior judicial declaration at the time of the second marriage is the determining factor for a bigamy charge.

Q: Is obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity the same as annulment?

A: No. Annulment applies to voidable marriages, which are valid until annulled by a court. A judicial declaration of nullity, on the other hand, confirms that a marriage was void from the beginning. While both require court proceedings, they address different types of marital invalidity.

Q: What should I do if I want to remarry and I’m unsure about the validity of my previous marriage?

A: Consult with a lawyer immediately. A lawyer can assess your situation, advise you on the validity of your previous marriage, and guide you through the process of obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity if necessary, ensuring you avoid legal complications like bigamy.

Q: Does this ruling mean that even if my first marriage was obviously invalid (like if I married my sibling unknowingly) I still need to go to court before remarrying?

A: Yes, according to the current interpretation of Philippine law as clarified in cases like Mercado v. Tan and Domingo v. CA. Even in cases where the marriage is patently void, the safest and legally compliant course of action is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity before remarrying to avoid any risk of bigamy charges.

ASG Law specializes in Family Law and Criminal Defense, particularly in complex marital issues like annulment, declaration of nullity, and bigamy cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your marital matters are handled with expertise and care.