CASE # 24:

LUISITO G. PULIDO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021

FACTS:
Arcon, a wife of Pulido who was married with him in a civil wedding at the Municipal Hall of
Rosario Cavite filed a case of bigamy against Pulido and Baleda. Pulido defended that both of his
marriage was void ab initio. His marriage with Arcon is void due to lack of marriage license, and his
marriage to Baleda is also void due to lack of marriage ceremony. Baleda on the other hand claimed that
she only knew Pulido's prior marriage sometime in April 2007 and that she filed a Petition to annul their
marriage before the filing of the bigamy case. The court even declared their marriage null and void for
being bigamous on October 25, 2007. The trial court convicted Pulido of bigamy but acquitted Baleda.
Appeals and motions of Pulido were likewise denied. The court ruled in reliance with the provision of
Art. 40 of the Family Code. Meanwhile in 2015, the court in a civil case declared Arcon and Pulido's
marriage null and void. A decree of absolute nullity of their marriage was issued in 2016.

ISSUE:
WON Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void ab initio
marriage in a bigamy case.

RULING:

No. The court in this case abandons its earlier rulings and hold that a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy
case. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages
presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time
within which they are secured. The court stressed out that the nullity of a void ab initio marriage, being
inexistent under the eyes of the law can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage
may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil court between parties at any time, whether
before or after death of either or both the spouses. Thus, being inexistent from the beginning, the void
first marriage does not qualifies nor satisfies one of the essential elements of bigamy which requires the
existence of a prior valid marriage. Logically, there is no first marriage to begin with. As for the
retroactive effect of a void ab initio marriage, there is nothing to annul nor dissolve as the judicial
declaration of nullity merely confirms the inexistence of such marriage. This also explains why the
second element of bigamy which requires that the former marriage has not been legally dissolved or
annulled is wanting in the case of void ab initio prior marriage. The RPC provision regarding bigamy
pertains to contracting a subsequent marriage when a voidable or valid first marriage is still subsisting.
In both instances, the accused may validly raise the defense of a void ab initio marriage without a
judicial declaration of nullity. Article 40 of the Family Code requires a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity for purposes of remarriage but not as a defense in bigamy.
The Court clarifies that the requirement under Art. 40 (Final judgment requiring the previous
marriage void) need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage. The word "solely" under Art. 40
qualifies the "final judgment declaring such previous marriage void" and not "for purposes of
remarriage". In effect, the judicial declaration of absolute nullity may be invoked in other instances for
purposes other than remarriage.