View full case

MERLINDA CIPRIANO MONTAÑEZ v. LOURDES TAJOLOSA CIPRIANO

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case is seeking to annul the order of the RTC which dismissed the information for bigamy filed against the respondent, Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano. Based on the facts presented, it is established that the respondent first married Socrates Flores in 1976 and then married Silverio V. Cipriano in 1983 while her first marriage was still valid. In 2001, the respondent filed a petition for the annulment of her marriage with Socrates, which was granted in 2003. Subsequently, in 2004, the petitioner, who happens to be Silverio's daughter, filed a complaint for bigamy against the respondent. However, the RTC dismissed the information on the ground that at the time the respondent contracted her second marriage, there was no requirement for a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC, prompting the petitioner to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) should have filed the petition instead of the private complainant.

  2. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in quashing the Information for bigamy filed against the respondent.

  3. Whether the subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage justifies the dismissal of the Information for bigamy.

  4. Whether the subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage rendered the charge of bigamy against the respondent improper.

  5. Whether the retroactive application of Article 40 of the Family Code violates the respondent's right to remarry without securing a judicial declaration of nullity of a completely void marriage.

RULING:

  1. The Court gives due course to the petition filed by the private complainant, even though it should have been filed by the OSG. The Court has previously accepted similar actions without proper representation by the OSG. Furthermore, the OSG has ratified and adopted the petition as its own.

  2. The RTC erred in quashing the Information for bigamy. The elements of bigamy were present, as the respondent contracted a second marriage while her first marriage was still subsisting. The subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage does not justify the dismissal of the Information, as the offense of bigamy had already been consummated before the declaration of nullity.

  3. The subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage does not justify the dismissal of the Information for bigamy. The charge of bigamy requires that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. Even if the first marriage is later declared void, the point is that both marriages were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled. The declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage but does not erase its legal effects, including incurring criminal liability.

  4. No, the subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage did not render the charge of bigamy against the respondent improper. The essential elements of the offense of bigamy were sufficiently alleged since at the time the respondent contracted the second marriage, the first marriage was still subsisting and had not yet been legally dissolved. The subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage does not change the fact that the respondent contracted the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage.

  5. The retroactive application of Article 40 of the Family Code does not violate the respondent's right to remarry without securing a judicial declaration of nullity of a completely void marriage. Article 40 of the Family Code, being a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively. The retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any vested right and does not impair the respondent's right to remarry without a judicial declaration of nullity of a completely void marriage.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The OSG should represent the government in all judicial proceedings filed before the court.

  • The elements of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally married, (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse cannot be presumed dead, (c) the offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage, and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

  • The subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage does not justify the dismissal of the Information for bigamy, as the offense had already been consummated before the declaration.

  • The State's penal laws on bigamy must still be enforced even if the marital contracts are flawed in some manner to escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages. (People v. Nepomuceno)

  • When a person contracts a second marriage without the previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy is already consummated. (Jarillo v. People)

  • Parties to a marriage cannot judge for themselves the nullity of a marriage. The nullity of marriage must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity is declared can it be held as void. (People v. Nepomuceno)

  • The retroactive application of procedural laws, such as Article 40 of the Family Code, is allowed as long as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights. (Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr.)

  • Allowing individuals to disregard Article 40 of the Family Code and escape a bigamy charge by claiming that the first marriage is void and the subsequent marriage is equally void without a prior judicial declaration of nullity would render the provision on bigamy nugatory. (Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis)