View full case

LUCIO MORIGO Y CACHO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of the petitioner for the crime of bigamy. The trial court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced him to a prison term.

The petitioner and Lucia Barrete were boardmates and lost contact after school year 1977-78. In 1984, the petitioner received a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore, leading to an exchange of letters and them becoming sweethearts. Lucia returned to the Philippines in 1986 and later left for Canada where they maintained constant communication.

Lucia proposed marriage and they got married in 1990. However, Lucia filed for divorce in Canada in 1991, which was granted by the court. The petitioner then married another woman in 1992.

The petitioner filed a complaint for nullity of marriage in 1993 and was subsequently charged with bigamy. The trial court ruled that the lack of a valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of bigamy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage could not acquit the petitioner. The divorce decree obtained by Lucia in Canada was also held to be invalid in the Philippines.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the appellate court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the lack of a valid marriage ceremony can be a defense in a charge of bigamy.

  2. Whether or not the Canadian divorce decree obtained by one of the parties is valid and can be recognized in the Philippines.

  3. Whether or not good faith in contracting a second marriage based on a mistaken understanding of the law can be a valid defense in a bigamy case.

RULING:

  1. The lack of a valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of bigamy. The parties to a marriage cannot assume that their marriage is void even if that is the case. They must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again. (Following the ruling in Domingo v. Court of Appeals)

  2. The Canadian divorce decree cannot be recognized in the Philippines and is not valid. The court of a country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and in which one or both spouses may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce has no jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of the parties. Therefore, a divorce granted by said court is not entitled to recognition anywhere. (Following the ruling in Ramirez v. Gmur and Article 15 of the Civil Code)

  3. Good faith in contracting a second marriage based on a mistaken understanding of the law is not a valid defense in a bigamy case. Ignorance of the law does not exempt a person from the consequences of his or her actions. (Following the ruling in People v. Bitdu)

PRINCIPLES:

  • Want of a valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of bigamy.

  • A divorce decree obtained by one of the parties from a court in a foreign jurisdiction where neither of the spouses is domiciled is not valid and cannot be recognized in the Philippines.

  • Ignorance of the law does not exempt a person from the consequences of his or her actions.