G.R. No. 191425 September 7, 2011 [Article 349 Revised Penal Code - Bigamy; Article 35 - Marriage void ab initio]
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.
RULING:
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.
