TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that a person cannot escape bigamy charges by claiming their first marriage was void without a prior judicial declaration of nullity. Isagani Bobis was charged with bigamy for marrying Imelda Marbella-Bobis while still married to Maria Dulce Javier. He then sought to annul his first marriage, arguing this civil case was a “prejudicial question” that should halt the bigamy trial. The Court rejected this, emphasizing that under Article 40 of the Family Code, a marriage, even if arguably void, must be judicially declared so before remarriage. Otherwise, the presumption of a valid existing marriage persists, and the second marriage constitutes bigamy. This ruling underscores the importance of obtaining a court declaration to avoid criminal liability and protects the sanctity of marriage by preventing individuals from unilaterally deciding the nullity of their marital bonds.

Can You Remarry First, Ask Questions Later? Bigamy and the Peril of Presumptions

This case revolves around Isagani Bobis, who entered into multiple marriages without formally dissolving his first. He was charged with bigamy after marrying Imelda Marbella-Bobis while his first marriage to Maria Dulce Javier was still subsisting. Seeking to avoid criminal liability, Isagani initiated a civil action to declare his first marriage void, claiming it was celebrated without a valid marriage license. The central legal question is whether this subsequent civil action constitutes a prejudicial question that would suspend the criminal proceedings for bigamy. The petitioner, Imelda Marbella-Bobis, argued that Isagani should have obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage before entering into a second marriage, as required by Article 40 of the Family Code.

A prejudicial question arises when the resolution of a civil case is logically antecedent to the issue involved in a criminal case. This means the civil case involves facts that determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Rules of Court outlines two essential elements for a prejudicial question: the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. However, a prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve guilt or innocence but tests the sufficiency of allegations in the information.

Article 40 of the Family Code mandates a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may remarry. This provision clearly states that the validity or invalidity of a marriage is not for the parties to determine themselves. The intent behind this requirement is to prevent individuals from unilaterally deciding their marital status and potentially committing bigamy. Consider this excerpt from Landicho v. Relova:

(P)arties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

In the present case, Isagani sought a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. The Supreme Court recognized the danger of allowing such a maneuver, as it could incentivize individuals to disregard Article 40, contract subsequent marriages, and then escape bigamy charges by claiming the first marriage was void. Such a scenario would undermine the provisions on bigamy and the sanctity of marriage.

The Court emphasized that the Civil Code favors the validity and indissolubility of marriage bonds. Therefore, parties cannot simply assume their marriage is void; they must seek a determination from a competent court. Even if the absence of a requirement, like a marriage license, seems obvious, the intervention of the courts is necessary. This is why Article 40 requires a final judgment, which only the courts can render. He who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. The defense can always raise the issue of the first marriage’s validity during the trial proper in the criminal case.

The Court noted that Isagani only sought a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage after being sued for bigamy, suggesting his intent was to frustrate or delay the criminal prosecution. The burden of proof to show the dissolution of the first marriage before the second marriage was contracted rests upon the defense. The Supreme Court stressed that not every defense raised in the civil action may be used as a prejudicial question to obtain the suspension of the criminal action. Therefore, the lower court erred in suspending the criminal case for bigamy.

Without a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, Isagani could not validly enter into the second marriage. The first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that he entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. The Court held that a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge; therefore, it is not a prejudicial question. Isagani cannot be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.

FAQs

This case reinforces the importance of adhering to legal procedures when dealing with marital status. Attempting to circumvent the law by unilaterally declaring a marriage void can have serious legal consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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: Imelda Marbella-Bobis v. Isagani D. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000