Articles:

FC Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;

FC Art. 39. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe.
(As amended by Executive Order 227 and Republic Act No. 8533; The phrase "However, in case of
marriage celebrated before the effectivity of this Code and falling under Article 36, such action or defense
shall prescribe in ten years after this Code shall take effect"has been deleted by Republic Act No. 8533
[Approved February 23, 1998]).

FC Art. 40. 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. (n)

FC Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null
and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for
four consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was
already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth
in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive
death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

FC Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be void ab
initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the
other are revoked by operation of law.

Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse.

The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they
are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.chanrobles virtual
law library

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon
a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.chanrobles
virtual law library

In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The
provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories
after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.chanrobles virtual law library
Art. 349. Bigamy. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract
a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the
absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings.

Wiegel v Sempio-Diy

Facts:

 Karl Wiegel file a case for the declaration of nullity of his marriage in the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court.
 Lilia Wiegel had subsisting marriage with Maxion, when she married Karl Wiegel.
 She claimed that, she and Eduardo Maxion have been allegedly force to enter said marital union.

Issue:

 W/N the marriage of Lilia to her first marriage is void, to the fact that they were been forced to
enter the said marital union.

Held:

 No. Even though there was a presence of vitiated force between the parties, the marriage will be
still valid not be void but merely voidable and therefore valid until annulled. Accordingly her
marriage to Wiegel is void.

Dorothy Terre v Atty. Jordan Terre

Facts:

 Dorothy was married to Merlito Bercentilla, but was considered void marriage, due to incestuous
relationship (first cousins).
 Jordan courted Dorothy and persuade her that her marriage with his first cousin was void ab
initio.
 Jordan and Dorothy got married after getting consent by the family of Dorothy and begot a child.
 Jordan after the celebration of marriage, disappeared and unaware of the reason for his
disappearance.
 Jordan was found out married to a certain Helina Malicdem. ( 3 years of disappearance)
 Dorothy filed a case for Bigamy against Vilma Malicdem.
Issue: W/N Jordan is held liable for bigamy

Held:

 Yes. When the second marriage was entered into. Jordan prior marriage with complainant was
still subsisting and No judicial declaration of the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent with
complainant.

Domingo v CA

Facts:

 Delia and Domingo were married in Pasig.

 
 Their relationship tour sour. Delia Avera filed a petition declaring nullity of marriage and
separation of property against Roberto Domingo.
 Roberto had a subsisting marriage with Emerlina dela Paz, which is still valid and existing.
  Delia has been working in Saudi Arabia and is only able to stay in the Philippines when she
would avail of the one-month annual vacation leave granted by her employer.
 Roberto has been unemployed and completely dependent upon her for support and subsistence.

 Her personal properties amounting to P350,000.00 are under the possession of Roberto, who
disposed some of the said properties without her knowledge and consent;
 While Delia was on her vacation, she discovered that he was cohabiting with another woman.
 Emerlina Paz sued them for the grounds of Bigamy.

ISSUES:

 W/N a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary. (If in the affirmative,
whether the same should be filed only for purpose of remarriage.)
 W/Nthe petition entitled “Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property” is the
proper remedy of private respondent to recover certain real and personal properties allegedly
belonging to her exclusively.

 HELD:

 Yes. The nullification of a marriage for the purpose of contracting another cannot be
accomplished merely on the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that their union is
defective. Were this so, this inviolable social institution would be reduced to a mockery and would
rest on a very shaky foundation.

On the other hand, the clause “on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such marriage
void” in Article 40 of the Code denotes that such final judgment declaring the previous marriage
void is not only for purpose of remarriage.
  2) Yes. The prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be raised together with the
other incident of their marriage such as the separation of their properties. The Family Code has
clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation
of property according to the regime of property relations governing them.

Hence, SC denied the instant petition. CA’s decision is affirmed.

Carino v Carino

Facts:

 SPO4 Santiago Carino contracted two marriages.

 First was with Susan Nicdao with two offsprings.
 Second was with Susan Yee cohabited for 10 years.
 The first marriage was void since they do not give marriage license.
 SPO4 Santiago become ill and later died.
 Both Nicdao and Yee filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance.
 Yee filed case for collection of sums of money against Nicdao.
 RTC decision in favor of Yee

Issue:

 W/N the non-declaration of nullity of a marriage of Roberto made his subsequent marriage void.

Held:

 The marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due the absence of a valid marriage
license. The marriage between Yee and SPO4 is likewise null and void for the same has been
solemnized without the judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage between Nicdao and
SPO4. Under Article 40 of the FC, 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. Meaning, where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for
purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law, for said projected
marriage to be free from legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a
marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to the determination of
heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime,
or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even after the
death of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said
marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. In such instances, evidence
must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such
 a previous marriage an absolute nullity. These need not be limited solely to an earlier final
judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void.

Bobis v Bobis

Facts:

 Isagani Bobis contracted 3 marriages.

 First marriage was with Maria Dulce Javier.
 Second marriage was with Imelda Marbella-Bobis.
 Third marriage was with Julia Sally Hernandez.
 Imelda Marbella-Bobis file complaint against Isagani for Bigamy.
 Isagani inititiated a civil action for the judicial nullity of his marriage on the ground that it was
celebrated without marriage license.

Issue:

 W/N the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy.

Held:

No. The subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage does not
constitute a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy.

A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved therein. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so
intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. Its two essential
elements are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.

In Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity
of the first marriage, cannot be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. In the current
jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can
marry again; otherwise the second marriage will also be void. The reason is that, without a judicial
declaration of its nullity, the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the case at bar, respondent
was for all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his second
marriage with petitioner. Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent
entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil
case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question.

Mercado v Tan

Facts:

 Vincent Mercado contracted two marriages.

 First marriage was with Thelma Oliva, begot two children.
 Second marriage was with Consuelo Tan, begot a son.
 Consuelo Tan filed complaint for Bigamy against Vincent Mercado.
 A month after the Bigamy case was filed, he then file an action for declaration of nullity of
Marriage against Thelma Oliva.
 RTC decision favored Mercado and marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and void.
Issue:

 Is the judicial declaration of nullity of prior marriage necessary for remarriage?

Held:

 The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. Under
Article 40 of the Family Code, “ The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
the purpose of remarriage on a basis solely of final judgement declaring such previous marriage
void, but here the final judgement declaring accused’s previous marriage null and void came not
before the celebration of the second marriage, but after when the case for bigamy against the
accused was already tried in court. A first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in
a bigamy case.

Ty v CA

FACTS:

 In 1977, Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva in a civil ceremony. They had a church wedding in
the same year as well.
 In 1980, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC declared their marriage as null and
void; the civil one for lack of marriage license and the subsequent church wedding due to the lack
of consent of the parties.
 In 1979, prior to the JDRC of QC decision, Reyes married Ofelia. Then in 1991, Reyes filed for an
action for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Ofelia. He averred that they lack a marriage
license at the time of the celebration and that there was no judicial declaration yet as to the nullity
of his previous marriage with Anna.
 Ofelia presented evidence proving the existence of a valid marriage license including the specific
license number designated. The lower court however ruled that Ofelia’s marriage with Reyes is
null and void. The same was affirmed by the CA applying the provisions of the Article 40 of the
Family Code.

Issue:

Can the absolute nullity of the previous of marriage of Reyes be invoked in the case at bar?
Held:

Article 40 of the Family Code provides, “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 means that before one can enter into a second marriage he must first acquire a judicial declaration of
the nullity of the previous marriage and such declaration may be invoked on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring the previous marriage as void. For purposes other than remarriage, other evidences
may be presented and the declaration can be passed upon by the courts. In the case at bar, the lower
court and the CA cannot apply the provision of the Family Code. Both marriages entered by Reyes were
solemnized prior to the Family Code. The old Civil Code did not have any provision that states that there
must be such a declaration before remarriage can be done hence Ofelia’s marriage with Reyes is valid.
The provisions of the Family Code (which took effect in 1987) cannot be applied retroactively especially
because they would impair the vested rights of Ofelia under the Civil Code which was operational during
her marriage with Reyes. GRANTED.
Tenebro v CA

Facts:

 Petitioner Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with private complainant Leticia Ancajas on
April 10, 1990. The two were wed by Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of the City Trial Court of Lapu-
lapu City. Tenebro and Ancajas lived together continuously and without interruption until the latter
part of 1991, when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to
a certain Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986. Tenebro showed Ancajas a photocopy of a
marriage contract between him and Villareyes. Invoking this previous marriage, petitioner
thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going to
cohabit with Villareyes.

 On January 25, 1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage, this one with a certain Nilda
Villegas, before Judge German Lee, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 15.
When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she verified from Villareyes whether the latter was
indeed married to petitioner. In a handwritten letter, Villareyes confirmed that petitioner, Veronico
Tenebro, was indeed her husband.

 Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner.

The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of bigamy. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Issue:

Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused for the crime of bigamy despite clear proof that
the marriage between the accused and private complainant had been declared null and void ab initio and
without legal force and effect

Held:

 As such, an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that
the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.

 As a second or subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of petitioner’s valid

marriage to Villareyes, petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas would be null and void ab initio completely
regardless of petitioner’s psychological capacity or incapacity. Since a marriage contracted during
the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not
per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy.

 Thus, as soon as the second marriage to Ancajas was celebrated on April 10, 1990, during the
subsistence of the valid first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated.
Moreover, the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity is not an indicator that petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites
for validity. In this case, all the essential and formal requisites for the validity of marriage were
satisfied by petitioner and Ancajas. Both were over eighteen years of age, and they voluntarily
contracted the second marriage with the required license before Judge Alfredo B. Perez, Jr. of
the City Trial Court of Lapu-lapu City, in the presence of at least two witnesses. The decision of
the Court of Appeals convicting petitioner Veronico Tenebro of the crime of Bigamy is AFFIRMED
Morigo v Morigo

Facts:

 Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at
Tagbilaran City, Province of Bohol, for a period of four (4) years (from 1974-1978).

 After school year 1977-78, Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete lost contact with each other.

 In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The
former replied and after an exchange of letters, they became sweethearts.

 In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there. While in
Canada, they maintained constant communication.

 In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition appellant to join her in
Canada. Both agreed to get married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de
Filipina Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.

 On September 8, 1990, Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving appellant Lucio
behind.

 On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court (General Division) a petition for divorce
against appellant which was granted by the court on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on
February 17, 1992.

 On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa
Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

 On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in
the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No. 6020. The complaint seeks (sic)
among others, the declaration of nullity of accused’s marriage with Lucia, on the ground that no
marriage ceremony actually took place.

 On October 19, 1993, appellant was charged with Bigamy in an Information  filed by the City
Prosecutor of Tagbilaran [City], with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.

Issue:

W/N the Marriage of Morigo and Lucia Barrete was valid

Held:

No. The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia
by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two,
without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio, in
accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code. As the dissenting opinion in CA-G.R. CR No. 20700,
correctly puts it, "This simply means that there was no marriage to begin with; and that such declaration
of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage. In other words, for all intents and purposes, reckoned
from the date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the celebration of the
first marriage, the accused was, under the eyes of the law, never married."  The records show that no
appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 6020, hence, the decision had long
become final and executory.

Teves v People

FACTS:

 Cenon Teves and Thelma got married in 1992.

 After the marriage, Thelma left to work abroad. She would only come home to the Philippines for
vacations. While on a vacation in 2002, she was informed that her husband had contracted
marriage with a certain Edita Calderon. To verify the information, she went to the National
Statistics Office and secured a copy of the Certificate of Marriage indicating that her husband and
Edita contracted marriage on 10 December 2001.

 Petitioner was charged with bigamy.

 During the pendency of the criminal case for bigamy, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the
marriage of petitioner and Thelma null and void on the ground that Thelma is physically
incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
Code.

 Petitioner appealed before the CA contending that the court a quo erred in not ruling that his
criminal action or liability had already been extinguished.

 Petitioner claims that since his previous marriage was declared null and void, there is in effect no
marriage at all, and thus, there is no bigamy to speak of.

 He differentiates a previous valid or voidable marriage from a marriage null and void ab initio, and
posits that the former requires a judicial dissolution before one can validly contract a second
marriage but a void marriage, for the same purpose, need not be judicially determined.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of Bigamy penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code.

HELD:

We find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA. There is nothing in the law that would sustain
petitioner’s contention.

Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code states:

The elements of this crime are as follows:

1. That the offender has been legally married;

2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;

3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
The instant case has all the elements of the crime of bigamy. Thus, the CA was correct in affirming the
conviction of petitioner.

Petitioner was legally married to Thelma on 26 November 1992. He contracted a second or subsequent
marriage with Edita on 10 December 2001. At the time of his second marriage with Edita, his marriage
with Thelma was legally subsisting.

The second or subsequent marriage of petitioner with Edita has all the essential requisites for validity.
Petitioner has in fact not disputed the validity of such subsequent marriage.

It is evident therefore that petitioner has committed the crime charged. His contention that he cannot be
charged with bigamy in view of the declaration of nullity of his first marriage is bereft of merit.

The crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner on 10 December 2001 when he contracted a second
marriage with Edita. The finality on 27 June 2006 of the judicial declaration of the nullity of his previous
marriage to Thelma cannot be made to retroact to the date of the bigamous marriage.

Nollora v People

Facts:

 While Jesusa Pinat Nollora was still in Saudi Arabia, she heard rumors that her husband of two
years has another wife. She returned to the Philippines and learned that indeed, Atilano O.
Nollora, Jr., contracted second marriage with a certain Rowena Geraldino on December 8, 2001.

 Jesusa filed an instant case against Atilano and Rowena for bigamy.  When asked about the
moral damages she suffered, she declared that money is not enough to assuage her sufferings.
Instead, she just asked for return of her money in the amount of P 50,000.

 Atilano admitted having contracted 2 marriages, however, he claimed that he was a Muslim
convert way back to 1992. He presented Certificate of Conversion and Pledge of Conversion,
proving that he allegedly converted as a Muslim in January 1992. And as a Muslim convert, he is
allegedly entitled to marry wives as allowed under the Islam belief.

 Accused Rowena alleged that she was a victim of bigamous marriage. She claimed that she does
not know Jesusa and only came to know her when the case was filed. She insisted that she is the
one lawfully married to Nollora because she believed him to be single and a Catholic, as he told
her so prior to their marriage. After she learned of the first marriage of her husband, she learned
that he is a Muslim convert.  After learning that Nollora was a Muslim convert, she and he also
got married in accordance with the Muslim rites.

Issue:  Whether or not the second marriage is bigamous.

Held:
Yes, the marriage between the Nollora and Geraldino is bigamous under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code, and as such, the second marriage is considered null and void ab initio under Article 35 of the
Family Code.

The elements of the crime of bigamy are all present in the case: that 1) Atilano is legally married to
Jesusa; 2) that their marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to the date of the second marriage;
3)that Atilano admitted the existence of his second marriage to Rowena; and 4) the second marriage has
all the essential requisites for validity except for the lack of capacity of Atilano due to his prior marriage.

Before the trial and appellate courts, Atilano put up his Muslim religion as his sole defense. Granting
arguendo that he is indeed of Muslim faith at the time of celebration of both marriages, he cannot deny
that both marriage ceremonies were not conducted in accordance with Articles 14, 15, 17 up to 20 of  the
Code of Muslim Personal Laws .

In Article 13 (2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws states that any marriage between a Muslim and a
non-Muslim solemnized not in accordance with the Muslim law, hence the Family Code of the Philippines
shall apply. Nollora's religious affiliation or his claim that his marriages were solemnized according to
Muslim law. Thus, regardless of his professed religion, he cannot claim exemption from liability for the
crime of bigamy.

His second marriage did not comply with the Article 27 of the Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
providing: "[N]o Muslim male can have more than one wife unless he can deal with them in equal
companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic Law and only in exceptional cases." Only with
the permission of the Shari'a Circuit Court can a Muslim be permitted to have a second, third or fourth
wife. The clerk of court shall serve a copy to the wife or wives, and should any of them objects, an Agama
Arbitration Council shall be constituted. If the said council fails to secure the wife's consent to the
proposed marriage, the Court shall subject to Article 27, decide whether on not to sustain her objection
(Art. 162, Muslim Personal Laws)

Atilano asserted in his marriage certificate with Rowena that his civil status is "single." Both of his
marriage contracts do not state that he is a Muslim. Although the truth or falsehood of the declaration of
one's religion in the marriage is not an essential requirement for marriage, his omissions are sufficient
proofs of his liability for bigamy. His false declaration about his civil status is thus further compounded by
these omissions.

It is not for him to interpret the Shari'a law, and in apparent attempt to escape criminal liability, he
recelebrated their marriage in accordance with the Muslim rites. However, this can no longer cure the
criminal liability that has already been violated.

Montanez v Cipriano

FACTS:

 On April 8, 1976, respondent married Socrates Flores. On January 24, 1983, during the
subsistence of the said marriage, respondent married Silverio V. Cipriano.
 In 2001, respondent filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa a Petition for the Annulment of her marriage
with Socrates on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity as defined under Article 36 of
the Family Code. On July 18, 2003, the RTC of Muntinlupa, declared the marriage of respondent
with Socrates null and void. Said decision became final and executory on October 13, 2003.
 On May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Cipriano Montañez, Silverio’s daughter from the first
marriage, filed with the MTC of San Pedro, Laguna, a Complaint for Bigamy against respondent.
Lourdes Cipriano alleged that her first marriage was already declared void ab initio in 2003. Thus,
there was no more marriage to speak of prior to her marriage to Silverio on January 24, 1983.
 The prosecution argued that the crime of bigamy had already been consummated when
respondent filed her petition for declaration of nullity.
 RTC ruled in favor of respondent on the ground that both wedding were governed by the Civil
Code, and not the Family Code, hence, no judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a condition
precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage.

ISSUE: Whether the declaration of nullity of respondent's first marriage in 2003 justifies the dismissal of
the Information for bigamy filed against her.

HELD: NO. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who
may feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach to,
nor arise from, procedural laws. In the case at bar, the respondent’s clear intent was to obtain judicial
declaration of nullity to escape from the bigamy charges against her.