In the Philippines, contracting a second marriage while the first is still legally binding is a crime. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified that claiming a spouse is presumed dead based solely on prolonged absence isn’t enough to avoid a bigamy charge; a formal court declaration is required. This ensures legal marriages are protected and individuals act in good faith when remarrying.

Love, Loss, and Legal Loopholes: Can a Missing Spouse Excuse Bigamy?

Eduardo Manuel was found guilty of bigamy for marrying Tina Gandalera while still legally married to Rubylus Gaña. Manuel argued he believed Gaña was dead after being absent for over 20 years. The case hinged on whether his belief was a valid defense without a formal declaration of Gaña’s presumptive death.

The prosecution presented evidence that Manuel married Gaña in 1975, and this marriage was never legally dissolved. Later, he married Gandalera in 1996, representing himself as single. Gandalera discovered Manuel’s prior marriage through the National Statistics Office (NSO), leading to the bigamy charge. Manuel defended himself, claiming he told Gandalera about his first marriage and believed it was invalid due to Gaña’s prolonged absence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Manuel, stating that his belief, even if true, didn’t absolve him from bigamy. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing the need for a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines bigamy as contracting a second marriage before the first is legally dissolved or before the absent spouse is declared presumptively dead through a proper court judgment. The purpose of criminalizing bigamy is to protect the marital relationship established by law.

Art. 349. Bigamy. – 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 conviction, the prosecution must prove a prior legal marriage and a subsequent marriage without the first being lawfully dissolved. Importantly, the second marriage must be valid except for the existence of the first. Some legal scholars argue fraudulent intent is an element of bigamy, while others focus on the mere existence of an undissolved marriage and a second marriage.

Central to the Supreme Court’s ruling was the interpretation of Article 41 of the Family Code in conjunction with Article 390 of the Civil Code. Article 390 allows for a presumption of death after seven years of absence, while Article 41 of the Family Code mandates a judicial declaration of presumptive death before a subsequent marriage can be considered valid. Article 41 of the Family Code, which amended the rules on presumptive death, explicitly requires a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse.

Art. 41.  A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.

The Supreme Court affirmed the need for this declaration, aligning civil and criminal law to avoid confusion. Without a judicial declaration, the spouse risks a bigamy charge. The Court highlighted the importance of protecting marriage as a social institution. Requiring a judicial declaration safeguards the marital relationship and protects individuals from the legal ramifications of a second marriage based solely on personal belief.

The court also addressed the awarding of moral damages. While bigamy isn’t explicitly listed under Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which allows moral damages in certain cases, the Court awarded damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the same code, citing the principle of abuse of rights. The petitioner’s fraudulent misrepresentation caused emotional distress and social humiliation to the private complainant, thus justifying moral damages.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied Manuel’s petition, upholding his conviction for bigamy and the award of moral damages. This case underscores that a genuine belief that a spouse is deceased due to prolonged absence is not a sufficient legal defense against bigamy. A judicial declaration of presumptive death is mandatory.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The main issue was whether a person can be convicted of bigamy if they remarried based on a belief that their absent spouse was dead, even without a court declaration of presumptive death.
What is bigamy under Philippine law?	Bigamy is the act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage is still legally valid and undissolved. It is a crime punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
What does Article 41 of the Family Code say?	Article 41 states that for a subsequent marriage to be valid when a prior spouse is absent, there must be a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse. This declaration is obtained through a summary proceeding.
Why is a judicial declaration of presumptive death important?	The judicial declaration is necessary to prove good faith and avoid criminal liability for bigamy. It ensures that the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is dead before remarrying.
What is the difference between Article 390 of the Civil Code and Article 41 of the Family Code?	Article 390 of the Civil Code provides for a presumption of death after seven years of absence. Article 41 of the Family Code modifies this by requiring a judicial declaration of presumptive death before a subsequent marriage.
What are moral damages?	Moral damages are compensation for pain, suffering, and distress caused by someone’s wrongful act or omission. These are awarded to compensate for the non-pecuniary losses suffered by the injured party.
Can moral damages be awarded in bigamy cases?	Yes, moral damages can be awarded in bigamy cases, even though bigamy is not explicitly mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Moral damages can be awarded under other provisions like Articles 19, 20 and 21 due to the fraudulent and deceitful acts of the offender.
What was the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Eduardo Manuel for bigamy, emphasizing that a judicial declaration of presumptive death is required to avoid criminal liability when remarrying after a spouse’s absence. The Court also upheld the award of moral damages to the private complainant.

This case sets a clear precedent: claiming a spouse is presumed dead due to absence is not enough to excuse bigamy. A formal court declaration is essential before remarrying. This ruling protects the institution of marriage and emphasizes the need for legal compliance when dealing with absent spouses.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: EDUARDO P. MANUEL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 165842, November 29, 2005