Civil Code: Persons, Family, and Relations  In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition

In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition the appellant to
Topic: Family Code of the Philippines: Requisites of Marriage
Relevant Article/s: Art 3 of the Family Code
The formal requisites of marriage are:
1. Authority of the solemnizing officer
2. A valid marriage license except in cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title
3. A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting
parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take
each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of
legal age.
Art 4 of the Family Code
The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab
initio, except as stated in Article 35(2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in
Article 45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party
or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable.
Lucio Morigo y Cacho v People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004
Ponente: Justice Quisumbing
join her in Canada. Both agreed to get married, thus they were married on August 30,
1990, in Bohol. Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving appellant Lucio
behind.
 On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court a petition for divorce against
the appellant, which was granted on January 17, 1992, and to take effect on February
17, 1992.
 On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago in
Bohol.
 On September 21, 1993, the accused filed a complaint about the judicial declaration
of nullity of the first marriage on the ground that no actual marriage ceremony took
place.
 He was later charged with Bigamy filed by the City Prosecutor of the Regional Trial
Court of Bohol.
 The petitioner moved for the suspension of the criminal case invoking prejudicial
questions. The civil case is a prejudicial question to bigamy. The Court granted, but
subsequently, denied the motion for reconsideration of the prosecution.
 The Regional Trial Court of Bohol held Lucio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
bigamy.
 He filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. While the case was pending in the Court
of Appeals, the trial court granted the petition for nullity of marriage since no marriage
ceremony took place. No appeal was taken from this decision, thus, became final and
executory. But the Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit.

Hence, this Petition.

Facts:
Issue:
 Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were board mates in Bohol for four years. They lost
contact when the school year ended. Whether or not Morigo’s first marriage is valid and makes him liable for Bigamy
 When Lucio received a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore, constant
Ruling/s:
communication took place between them. They later became sweethearts.
 In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there.  NO.
While in Canada, they maintained constant communication.
  As provided by Art. 3(3) of the Family Code, “A marriage ceremony which takes
place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer
and their declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence
of not less than two witnesses of legal age” and Art. 4(1) of the same states: “The
absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab
initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).”
 In this case, Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there
was no actual marriage ceremony performed between them by a solemnizing officer
instead they just merely signed a marriage contract. The petitioner does not need to
file a declaration of the nullity of his marriage when he contracted his second
marriage with Lumbago.

Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice Quisumbing, granted the petition and acquitted the
petitioner from the charge of Bigamy on the ground that his guilt has not been proven with
moral certainty.