Inside 1990, Lucia came back into the Philippines and advised so you’re able to petition appellant to participate her from inside the Canada

MORIGO Vs. Some one

FACTS: Each other provided to marry, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacionalat Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.

On August 19, 1991, Lucia recorded for the Ontario Court (General Section) an excellent petition to own split up facing appellant that was provided from the court on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February 17, 1992.

On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo hitched Maria Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

On September 21, 1993, implicated submitted a criticism to possess official report regarding nullity away from relationships about Local Demonstration Legal out-of Bohol, docketed just like the Civil Instance No. 6020. The fresh new criticism seek (sic) as well as others, this new statement regarding nullity out-of accused’s matrimony that have Lucia, on the ground that zero wedding indeed occurred.

ISSUE: Won Morigo need to have filed declaration into the nullity off his wedding which have Barrete prior to his second y instance.

RATIO: Within the concept from retroactivity out of a marriage being announced void abdominal initio, the 2 have been never ever partnered right from the start. This new contract out-of matrimony are null; they holds zero courtroom feeling. Providing which disagreement to their logical conclusion, having judge objectives, petitioner was not partnered to Lucia during the time the guy contracted the wedding which have Maria Jececha. The newest lifestyle while the authenticity of the first relationship getting an enthusiastic essential element of the fresh crime out-of bigamy, it is but analytical you to definitely a conviction for said offense usually do not getting sustained where there is no basic relationship to speak off. The fresh petitioner, need, perforce end up being acquitted of the quick charges.

The present case is analogous to, but must be distinguished from Mercado v. Tan . . In the latter case, the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was likewise obtained after the second marriage was already celebrated. We held therein that:

A judicial statement regarding nullity of a previous matrimony required prior to a consequent one could getting legitimately contracted. Which principle can be applied even when the prior to relationship is actually described as rules while the void.

They carries stressing even though you to definitely into the Negocio, the initial marriage was solemnized besides after, but double: earliest in advance of a judge in which a married relationship certificate is actually duly awarded then once again half a year after just before an excellent priest during the spiritual rites. Basically, at least, the first relationship seemed to has actually transpired, no matter if afterwards stated void abdominal initio.

Person who enters into a subsequent wedding rather than first getting particularly judicial y

About immediate situation, however, zero wedding ceremony anyway was performed of the a duly subscribed solemnizing administrator. Petitioner and you can Lucia Barrete just finalized a marriage bargain to their own. This new simple personal act away from signing a marriage deal carries zero semblance to a valid relationships and therefore, means no official report off nullity. Such as for instance random hookup Kansas City work alone, without a lot more, can’t be considered so you’re able to compensate an ostensibly appropriate marriage for which petitioner might possibly be kept responsible for bigamy unless of course the guy earliest obtains a judicial report regarding nullity in advance of he agreements a following relationships.

The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done. In points of your own expose case, we kept that petitioner has not yet the time bigamy. Further, we also find that we need not tarry on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent, which is now moot and academic.