TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that in the Philippines, a person cannot unilaterally declare their marriage void and remarry. A judicial declaration of nullity from a competent court is absolutely necessary before remarrying; otherwise, the subsequent marriage is considered bigamous. In De Guzman v. People, the Court upheld the conviction of Prudencio De Guzman for bigamy because he remarried without a court declaring his first marriage void, despite his claims of its invalidity due to a missing signature on one copy of the marriage certificate. This case underscores that only courts have the authority to determine the validity of a marriage for purposes of remarriage.

When One ‘I Do’ Becomes Two: The Perils of Presuming Marital Nullity

Prudencio De Guzman found himself in legal hot water after presuming his first marriage was invalid and proceeding to marry again. The central question in De Guzman v. People was whether Prudencio could be convicted of bigamy, having contracted a second marriage without a judicial declaration nullifying his first. Prudencio argued that his first marriage to Arlene was void from the start due to a missing signature of the solemnizing officer on the National Statistics Office (NSO) copy of their marriage certificate. He further claimed good faith based on a Certificate of No Marriage Record from the NSO, suggesting no impediment to his second marriage. However, the prosecution presented evidence of a valid marriage certificate from the Local Civil Registrar, complete with signatures, along with wedding photos and Prudencio’s own admission of the first marriage. The case hinged on the critical legal principle in Philippine law regarding the necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage.

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Leonen, firmly reiterated the established doctrine that a party cannot unilaterally assume the nullity of their marriage for remarriage purposes. Article 40 of the Family Code is unequivocal: “The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” This provision, as emphasized by the Court, settled prior jurisprudential conflicts and definitively mandates a judicial pronouncement. Citing Teves v. People, the Court stressed that invoking the nullity of a prior marriage to justify a subsequent one requires a “final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.” Prudencio’s reliance on the NSO’s Certificate of No Marriage Record was deemed insufficient to establish good faith or a valid basis for assuming his first marriage was void. The Court reasoned that the existence of the marriage certificate and wedding photos clearly indicated a valid union, overriding the implications of the ‘no record’ certificate.

Prudencio also challenged the validity of his first marriage based on the absence of the solemnizing officer’s signature on the NSO copy of the marriage certificate. The Court dismissed this argument, noting the trial court’s finding that this discrepancy was likely an inadvertent error, as the Local Civil Registrar’s copy was duly signed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the presentation of a marriage license is not indispensable to prove a marriage, especially when a certified true copy of the marriage certificate is available. The Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the marriage certificate itself is sufficient evidence. Even the absence of the solemnizing officer’s signature in one copy does not automatically invalidate the marriage, particularly when other evidence confirms the solemnization. The prosecution successfully demonstrated all elements of bigamy: a prior existing and undissolved marriage to Arlene, and a subsequent marriage to Jean Basan.

Adding a layer of complexity, Arlene, Prudencio’s first wife, executed an Affidavit of Desistance during the appeal, stating reconciliation and requesting dismissal of the case. The Court, however, gave no probative value to this affidavit, emphasizing that affidavits of desistance executed after conviction are viewed with skepticism, especially when presented as an afterthought. The Court cited People v. Dela Cerna, stating that “the court attaches no persuasive value to a desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought.” Arlene’s desistance, coming 13 months post-conviction, did not negate the established elements of bigamy. Therefore, the Court affirmed Prudencio’s conviction, underscoring that criminal liability for bigamy is not erased by a subsequent reconciliation or desistance from the offended party.

Ultimately, De Guzman v. People serves as a stark reminder of the legal framework surrounding marriage and remarriage in the Philippines. It reinforces the principle that marriage is not a matter of personal interpretation or unilateral declaration. The Family Code mandates a formal judicial process to dissolve or nullify a marriage for remarriage purposes. Individuals contemplating remarriage must secure a judicial declaration of nullity for their prior marriage to avoid the serious legal repercussions of bigamy. Ignorance of this legal requirement, or a personal belief in the invalidity of a marriage without court intervention, is not a valid defense against bigamy charges.

FAQs

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: De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 224742, August 07, 2019