FACTS:

Eduardo P. Manuel was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Tina Gandalera-Manuel while his marriage to Rubylus Gaña was still legally existing. The prosecution presented evidence that Eduardo was married to Rubylus Gaña on July 28, 1975. Eduardo met the private complainant, Tina Gandalera, in January 1996 and eventually proposed marriage to her, assuring her that he was single. They got married on April 22, 1996. However, their marriage became strained starting in 1999, with Eduardo making himself scarce and providing little financial support. Tina discovered in August 2001 that Eduardo had been previously married when she made inquiries at the National Statistics Office (NSO). Eduardo, on the other hand, claimed that he informed Tina of his previous marriage and believed his first marriage to be invalid. He further alleged that he only married Rubylus due to her threats of committing suicide and that he hadn't heard from her for more than 20 years, believing his first marriage had been dissolved. After trial, the court found Eduardo guilty of bigamy and sentenced him accordingly. Eduardo appealed the decision, arguing that he married Tina in good faith and without malice.

The petitioner, Eduardo, was charged with the crime of bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Gandalera while his first wife, Gaña, was still alive. Eduardo defended himself by claiming that Gaña could be presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code since she had been absent for 21 years. He argued that the presumption of death arises by operation of law when the specified period of absence and the present spouse's reasonable belief in the absentee's death are present, as provided in Article 41 of the Family Code.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) disagreed with Eduardo's defense and argued that Article 41 of the Family Code, which requires a judicial declaration of presumptive death, applies in this case. The OSG contended that even if the first marriage was void, the parties should not be allowed to decide for themselves the nullity of the marriage; instead, the matter should be brought before the court for resolution. The OSG also emphasized that the crime of bigamy is an offense against the State, not just against the private complainant.

The trial court found Eduardo guilty of bigamy and imposed a penalty. The OSG agreed with Eduardo's argument that the penalty imposed was erroneous but sought the affirmance of the trial court's decision with modification.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court's decision with modification as to the penalty imposed. It ruled that the prosecution had proven all the elements of bigamy and cited previous rulings to support its conclusion that there should have been a judicial declaration of presumptive death before Eduardo could lawfully marry Gandalera.

Eduardo filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, insisting that Gaña could be legally presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code and that the award of moral damages had no basis in fact and in law.

The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that the CA's decision was in accordance with the law, jurisprudence, and the evidence on record.

The Supreme Court denied Eduardo's petition for lack of merit.

The accused was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with the private complainant while his first marriage to Gaña was still subsisting. The prosecution proved that the accused was married to Gaña in 1975, and that such marriage was not judicially declared null and void. The accused then married the private complainant in 1996. The accused claimed that he believed his first wife was already dead because he had not heard from her for more than 20 years since 1975. However, he failed to present a judicial declaration of presumptive death as required by the Revised Penal Code and the Family Code. The accused is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he contracted the second marriage. The defense of mistake of fact or good faith is not valid in a prosecution for bigamy, and the accused failed to prove that he acted in good faith. The prosecution is burdened to prove the felony of bigamy, which requires that the accused has been legally married and contracts a subsequent marriage without the former marriage being dissolved.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement for a judgment of presumptive death was for the benefit of the present spouse. Without such a judgment, the present spouse could be charged and convicted of bigamy even if they believed in good faith that the absent spouse was already dead. The requirement was also for the benefit of the State, as marriage is a social institution of utmost importance. Public policy, good morals, and the interest of society dictate the need for laws to regulate civil marriages, ensuring that they are valid and anchored in the most positive evidence of the death of the first spouse or the presumptive death of the absent spouse. The law seeks to protect the family as a basic autonomous social institution and enhances the welfare of the community.

Marriage involves not only the parties to the union but also the approving State. The consequences of an invalid marriage are serious not just for the parties involved, but also for innocent parties and society as a whole. To ensure the procurement of the most positive evidence of death or presumptive death of the absent spouse, a competent court must declare the presumptive death. Without such proof, marriage cannot be treated as dissolved, and second marriages are not allowed. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code makes the dissolution of marriage dependent on both the personal belief of the parties and objective facts that can be easily proven in court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner's reliance on Article 390 of the Civil Code as a basis for his acquittal for bigamy is correct.

2. Whether the requirement of instituting a petition for declaration of presumptive death is necessary for the acquittal of one charged with bigamy.

3. Whether a judicial declaration of presumptive death is necessary before the present spouse can contract a subsequent marriage.

4. Whether a judicial declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a second marriage.

5. Whether moral damages can be awarded in a bigamy case.

6. Whether the petitioner is liable to the private complainant for moral damages under Article 2219 of the Civil Code.

7. Whether the principle of abuse of rights has been violated resulting in damages under Article 20 or Article 21 of the Civil Code or other applicable provisions of law.

8. Whether the petitioner's acts of committing bigamy and causing emotional distress to the private complainant warrant the award of moral damages.

RULING:

1. The petitioner's reliance on Article 390 of the Civil Code as a basis for his acquittal for bigamy is misplaced. The period of seven years under Article 390 was reduced to four consecutive years under Article 41 of the Family Code. Before a spouse can contract a subsequent marriage, he or she must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absentee spouse. There must be a judicial declaration of presumptive death for a subsequent marriage to be valid.

2. The requirement of instituting a petition for declaration of presumptive death is necessary for the acquittal of one charged with bigamy. The provision in Article 41 of the Family Code is designed to harmonize civil law and Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code and to put an end to the confusion in previous court rulings.

3. A judicial declaration of presumptive death is required before the present spouse can contract a subsequent marriage. The former spouse must be absent for seven consecutive years, the present spouse must not know the former spouse to be living, and the former spouse must be generally reputed to be dead and believed to be so by the present spouse.

4. Yes, a judicial declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a second marriage.

5. No, moral damages cannot be awarded in a bigamy case.

6. The Court ruled that the petitioner is liable to the private complainant for moral damages under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code. Although bigamy is not specifically mentioned in Article 2219, the petitioner is still liable for moral damages based on the principles of abuse of rights and violation of Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code.

7. The Court held that the petitioner's collective acts of fraud and deceit constituted willful, deliberate, and malicious conduct that caused injury to the private complainant. The lack of physical injuries does not bar an award for moral damages. The petitioner's actions were not merely negligent, but willfully and maliciously wrongful, entitling the private complainant to both compensatory and punitive damages.

8. The Court held that the petitioner's acts of committing bigamy and causing emotional distress to the private complainant are against public policy and are therefore grounds for the award of moral damages. The Court ruled that the private complainant, as an innocent victim of the petitioner's perfidy, is not barred from claiming moral damages. Additionally, considerations of public policy do not prevent her from recovering damages.

PRINCIPLES:

• Marriage is a social institution of the highest importance and is protected and strengthened by the State.

• The consequences of an invalid marriage can be serious and affect the parties, innocent parties, and society.

• The laws regulating civil marriages are necessary for the interest, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community.

• A civil marriage requires the positive evidence of the death of the first spouse or the presumptive death of an absent spouse.

• A subsequent marriage can only be sustained if there is proof of the declaration of the presumptive death of the absent spouse.

• The period of seven years in Article 390 of the Civil Code was reduced to four consecutive years under Article 41 of the Family Code.

• Before a subsequent marriage can be valid, there must be a judicial declaration of presumptive death.

• The petitioner's reliance on Article 390 of the Civil Code as a defense for bigamy is incorrect.

• The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code is solely for the administration of the estate of the absent spouse and is not necessary for the celebration of a subsequent civil marriage.

• A judicial declaration of presumptive death is not final and executory and is subject to contrary proof.

• The words "proper proceedings" in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code refer to those authorized by law, such as the administration or settlement of the estate of a deceased person.

• A second marriage is bigamous if the circumstances in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 83 of the Civil Code are not present. A second marriage, even if annullable, should not give rise to bigamy.

• The present spouse must secure a judgment declaring the presumptive death of the absent spouse and adduce evidence of a well-founded belief in order to contract a subsequent marriage and avoid being charged with bigamy. Such judgment serves as proof of the present spouse's good faith.

• The Family Code provides for a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absentee spouse before the other spouse can remarry.

• Moral damages may be awarded only in criminal cases enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code and analogous cases. Bigamy is not included in the enumerated cases.

• Principle of abuse of rights - Every person must exercise their rights and perform their acts with justice, giving everyone their due and observing honesty and good faith. Abuse of rights involves the exercise of a legal right or duty in bad faith, with the sole intent to prejudice or injure another.

• Article 20 of the Civil Code - Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same. It provides a remedy for violations of laws that do not specifically provide their own sanctions.

• Article 21 of the Civil Code - Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages. It provides a legal remedy for moral wrongs that are not specifically addressed in statutes.

• Acts that undermine and subvert the family as a social institution, good morals, and the interest and general welfare of society are against public policy.

• A person induced by fraudulent representation to commit an act that they believe is neither illegal nor immoral, but is in fact a criminal offense, has a right to recover damages from the person who induced them.

• Actions for deceit for fraudulently inducing a woman to enter into the marriage relation have been recognized in other jurisdictions.

• Considerations of public policy do not prevent recovery of damages when the plaintiff was conscious of no moral turpitude, their illegal action was induced solely by the defendant's misrepresentation, and their cause of action is not based on any transgression of the law by themselves.