IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner

vs.

ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent

Doctrine:

Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

Facts:

On October 21, 1985 the respondent and Maria Dulce Javier got married. This was the first
marriage of the respondent which was not judicially declared as nullified before the second
marriage contracted by the respondent with the petitioner which was celebrated on January 25,
1996. It was also alleged that there is a third marriage contracted by the respondent with some
Julia Hernandez.

On February 25, 1998, the petitioner filed bigamy, a criminal case, against his husband
respondent. Thereafter, the respondent initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of his first marriage on the grounds that this was celebrated without a marriage
license which is a formal requisite for a valid marriage. The respondent also contends of his
ignorance of the requirement of judicial declaration of nullity of marriage before contracting in a
new marriage. Thus, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) suspended the proceedings of the criminal
case pending the decision of the civil case.

The petitioner then files this case for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent can invoke his ignorance of the requirement under Article 40 of
the Family Code.

Held:

No, the respondent cannot invoke his ignorance of the requirement for the judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage before contracting a new marriage.

Article 3 of the Civil Code states that, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith. Thus, the respondent is presumed to have a conclusive knowledge of the requisites of
a valid marriage since the Family Code is already in effect and force during the celebration of his
second marriage with the petitioner.
Hence, the decision of the RTC in suspending the criminal case pending the civil case was
reversed because it is wrong to invoke ignorance of a law which is already in effect and force
like the Family Code.