“The Supreme Court held that ‘only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either marriage may petition to declare the nullity of the subsequent marriage’”
In the case of Quirit-Figarido v. Figarido, the Supreme Court was confronted with a question on whether a spouse who contracted a bigamous marriage can initiate an action to nullify the marriage.
Bigamy is committed when a married person contracts another marriage without his or her existing marriage being dissolved.
“Maria Lina (Quirit-Figarido)… was [first] married to Ho Kar Wai, a Chinese national, on Dec. 13, 1989…”
“In June 2000, Maria Lina met Edwin (Figarido) while she was working as a bank teller at Equitable Bank in Central Hong Kong” (G.R. 259520, Nov. 5, 2024).
“Edwin, who was a regular client of the bank, was an expatriate working as Engineer Manager in The Cable Assembly in Dongguan, China.” When Edwin started courting Maria Lina, the latter disclosed her marital status to Edwin who was willing to wait until she settled her marital problems.
Maria Lina “started to have an affair with [Edwin] although she was still lawfully married to Ho Kar Wai. Eventually, Maria Lina resigned from her work in Hong Kong and returned to the Philippines [after she was impregnated by Edwin].”
On Feb.22, 2003, Maria Lina and Edwin married and were blessed with two children.
“On Nov. 28, 2007 [or four years later], Ho Kar Wai obtained a Certificate of Making Decree Nisi Absolute (Divorce Decree) from the District Court of Hong Kong… dissolving his marriage with Maria Lina.”
Maria Lina later filed a Petition for Recognition/Enforcement of Foreign Judgment before the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City which was subsequently granted. In 2014, Maria Lina and Edwin separated, with the former keeping custody of the two children.
Three years later or on March 6, 2017, Maria Lina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage “for the reason that the same was ‘bigamous,’ pursuant to Article 35(4) of the Family Code. She prayed that her marriage with Edwin be declared void ab initio for being bigamous and that she be declared to have the legal capacity to remarry.”
In 2019, “the family court rendered a Decision denying Maria Lina’s petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.”
On appeal by Maria Lina to the Court of Appeals, the Republic through the Office of the Solicitor General opposed the same because Maria Lina “[was] the party guilty of contracting a bigamous marriage [and] had no personality to file the said petition.”
The Court of Appeals later denied Maria Lina’s appeal causing her to file a Petition to the Supreme Court. Maria Lina raised two issues: “First, whether [she] has the personality to file [in the RTC]… the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Edwin; and second, whether [she] can remarry if… her marriage with Edwin [is declared]… bigamous.”
The Supreme Court held that “only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either marriage may petition to declare the nullity of the subsequent marriage. Inasmuch as Maria Lina is not the aggrieved or injured spouse in her prior marriage, she lacks the legal capacity to petition the declaration of nullity of her subsequent marriage.”
Section 2(a) of A.M. 02-11-10-SC “states that an action for the declaration of nullity of a void marriage may be filed solely by the aggrieved or injured spouse.”
Citing the case of “Fujiki v. Marinay, the Court clarified the husband and the wife contemplated… pertain to the spouses of the prior subsisting marriage because the parties in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the wife in the eyes of the law.”
“Evidently, Maria Lina is guilty of contracting a bigamous marriage because she was [wed] to Edwin while her marriage with Ho Kar Wai was still subsisting. Consequently, she cannot be deemed an aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either marriage and therefore lacks the personality to petition the nullification of her subsequent marriage.”
“Ho Kar Wai was the injured spouse in the prior subsisting marriage… [and] had the right to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between Maria Lina and Edwin. However, after Ho Kar Wai secured the divorce decree… his marital relations with Maria Lina legally ceased.”
There being no prior subsisting marriage, “Ho Kar Wai lost his status as the aggrieved spouse in the subsisting marriage. As a result, he can no longer file the subject (nullity of marriage) petition” but “the same did not render Maria Lina eligible to file the said petition.”
“[I]t becomes apparent that the ultimate objective for Maria Lina’s petition for the declaration of nullity of her bigamous marriage is to attain the capacity to remarry.
“Lamentably for Maria Lina, under the current rules and jurisprudence, there exists no legal recourse for her to redress her inability to remarry, which she inflicted on herself to begin with” (op. cit.).