a.

Doctrine: Effects of Declaration of Nullity; Article 40 of the Family Code

applies retroactively on marriages celebrated before the Family Code
insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights.
b. Case Title: Luisito G. Pulido vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
220149, (J. Hernando) (July 27, 2021)
c. Facts:
1. Pulido and Rowena U. Baleda were charged before the RTC with
Bigamy.
2. On September 5, 1983, then 16-year old petitioner married his
teacher, then 22-year old private complainant Nora S. Arcon in a
civil ceremony.
3. Pulido admitted to his affair with Baleda. Arcon learned that Pulido
and Baleda entered into marriage on July 31, 1995.
4. Arcon charged Pulido and Baleda with Bigamy on December 4,
2007.
5. Pulido insisted that he could not be held criminally liable for bigamy
because both his marriage are null and void for lack of a valid
marriage license with Arcon and for lack of a marriage ceremony
with Baleda.
6. In a Decision dated October 25, 2007, Pulido and Baleda’s marriage
was declared null and void.
7. In its June 22, 2009 Decision, the trial court convicted petitioner of
Bigamy and acquitted Baleda.
8. The appellate court, in its assailed March 17, 2015 Decision,
sustained petitioner's conviction but modified the penalty.
 9. Pulido filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the
appellate court in its August 18, 2015 Resolution. Hence, this
Petition for Review on Certiorari.
d. Issue/s: Whether Article 40 of the Family Code applies to the instant
case, considering that Pulido's first marriage was contracted during the
Civil Code and his second marriage was celebrated during the
effectivity of the Family Code.
e. Held: The Court holds that when both the prior and subsequent
marriages were contracted prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, a
void ab initio marriage can be raised as a defense in a bigamy case
even without a judicial declaration of its nullity. Pulido is required to
obtain a judicial decree of absolute nullity of his prior void ab initio
marriage but only for purposes of remarriage. 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.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby

GRANTED. The March 17, 2015 Decision and August 18, 2015
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33008 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Luisito G. Pulido is
ACQUITTED.

SO ORDERED.