 |
| The SC's majority decision says that only an innocent spouse can seek to nullify bigamous marriage |
Voting 11 to 4, the Philippine Supreme Court en banc has ruled that a spouse who knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage cannot ask the court to nullify the same.
In a 14-page ruling promulgated on Nov. 5, 2024 but released only today, Feb. 14, 2025, the SC denied the application filed by Maria Lina Quirit-Figarido to have her marriage to Edwin Figarido declared null for being bigamous.
Maria Lina first married Ho Kar Wai, a Chinese national living in Hong Kong, with whom she had a child. While working as a bank teller here, she met Edwin and they had an affair. She later returned to the Philippines and married Edwin. They had two children together.
After a few years, Ho obtained a divorce in Hong Kong, and had it recognized by a Parañaque court.
Maria Lina remained married to Edwin for 14 years, but later decided to file a petition to nullify their marriage, with the intention to remarry. She argued before the Regional Trial Court that her marriage to Edwin was void from the beginning for being bigamous.
The RTC denied her petition, and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This prompted Maria Lina to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
In the majority decision, the SC ruled that only the offended spouse, not the offender, can ask the court to nullify a bigamous marriage. In this case, it was the petitioner’s first husband who held that right, but he lost it after obtaining a divorce. This right did not transfer to the petitioner, who is considered the guilty spouse.
 |
| PRESS THIS FOR DETAILS |
But the court emphasized that denying Maria Lina’s petition is not tantamount to legalizing bigamous marriages, as the parties in such a marriage may still face civil and criminal charges for bigamy.
The SC also did not find merit in Maria Lina’s claim that it would not hurt anyone if the court would grant her petition.
 |
| PRESS THIS FOR DETAILS |
In the majority decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the SC said that allowing a party who intentionally entered into a bigamous marriage and benefited from its convenience for a long period “will inevitably bastardize the institution of marriage to the prejudice of the State."
 |
| PINDUTIN DITO |
Four justices, namely Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, Associate Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier, Rodil Zalameda, and Ramon Paul Hernando, dissented.
“To be abundantly clear, even unfaithful wives who cheat on their husbands are entitled to the full measure of the law, as morally objectionable as their infidelity may have been,” Lazaro-Javier said in her dissent.
Zalameda said the court “should have granted this petition as it is the only way for AAA to rectify her grave mistake and formally put an end to an obviously void marriage.”\
.jpg) |
| PRESS FOR DETAILS |
