BIGAMY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW
“A Practitioners’ & Students’ Guide to the Crime, the Civil Consequences, and the Jurisprudence”
1. Introduction
Bigamy sits at the intersection of public and family law. It is punished as a public offense (the State is the offended party), yet every bigamy case is also a family‐law problem that ripples through the status of spouses, children, and property. Because both the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the Family Code of the Philippines (FC) regulate marriage, lawyers must read them together, alongside special laws such as the Muslim Code (P.D. 1083) and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
2. Statutory Bases
| Source | Key Provision | Substance |
|---|---|---|
| RPC, Art. 349 | Defines and penalises bigamy (☞ prisión mayor: 6 yrs 1 day – 12 yrs). | “Any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead.” |
| Family Code | Art. 35(4) – void ab initio if contracted despite a prior subsisting marriage. Art. 40 – need for judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage. Art. 41 – bona fide remarriage allowed only after a court declares the first spouse presumptively dead (4 yrs; 2 yrs if danger at play). |
Determines civil status and validity of marriages. |
| Rule on Declaration of Nullity/Annulment (A.M. 02‑11‑10‑SC) | Procedure for securing the decree required by Art. 40/41. | |
| Muslim Code (P.D. 1083, Art. 27‑38) | Permits a Muslim husband up to four wives, subject to equitable treatment and Shari’ah Court approval. | Makes bigamy inapplicable if the requirements are met. |
| Civil Code, Art. 390‑391 | Presumption of death (7 yrs; 4 yrs if peril). | Preconditions Art. 41 FC. |
3. Elements of Bigamy (People v. Castro, G.R. 119751, 24 Feb 1998)
- First marriage is valid (or at least has never been judicially declared void/annulled).
- First marriage is subsisting at the time of the second.
- Second marriage is validly celebrated (no mere cohabitation).
- The accused performed or knowingly consented to the second marriage.
Mens rea is irrelevant; bigamy is mala prohibita. However, good‑faith defenses—i.e., honest, reasonable belief in the first spouse’s death or the nullity of the first marriage—have been recognized in equity (e.g., Absconde v. People, G.R. 223456, 16 Oct 2019) but rarely succeed without a prior judicial decree.
4. Penalty, Prescription, and Venue
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Penalty | Prisión mayor → 6 yrs 1 day to 12 yrs; accessory penalties under RPC Art. 43 (perpetual absolute disqualification + civil interdiction). |
| Prescription | 15 years (RPC Art. 90: crimes punishable by prisión mayor). Runs from the commission of the second marriage (People v. Salas, G.R. 144196, 19 Jun 2002). |
| Venue | Any RTC (now Family Court) of the province/city where the second marriage was solemnized; alternatively, where either marriage certificate was recorded if proof rests there (Rule 110, Sec. 15 ROC; People v. Dizon, G.R. 87353, 23 Aug 1991). |
5. Procedural Notes
- Information may be filed by any citizen; no need for the spouse’s complaint (public crime).
- Certified copies of both marriage certificates are primary evidence; lack thereof is not fatal if oral proof establishes the fact of marriage (People v. Licera, G.R. 137110, 17 Apr 2001).
- Judicial declaration of nullity/annulment retroacts to the date of marriage for civil purposes, but not for criminal liability unless obtained before the second marriage (Tenebro v. CA, G.R. 150758, 18 Feb 2004).
6. Defenses, Exemptions, and Mitigating Circumstances
| Defense | Requisites | Pitfalls |
|---|---|---|
| Nullity of first marriage | Decree of nullity must pre‑exist the second marriage (Morigo v. People, G.R. 145226, 06 Feb 2002). | Post‑facto decree does not erase criminal liability (Tenebro). |
| Presumptive death of spouse | (a) Absence ≥ 4 yrs (2 yrs if peril) AND (b) Judicial declaration under FC Art. 41 before second marriage. | Extrajudicial belief or barangay certification is insufficient (People v. Santander, 112 Phil. 577). |
| Muslim polygamy | (a) Parties are Muslims, (b) first wife is notified, (c) equitable treatment, (d) written permission or Court approval. | Failure on any element revives RPC liability (Abdul v. People, G.R. 170904, 14 Jan 2015). |
| Good‑faith belief in void first union | Requires due diligence: e.g., discovery that first spouse previously married someone else and prompt action to annul (People v. Guevarra, G.R. 124389, 31 Jan 2007). | Courts apply a strict test; negligence defeats the defense. |
7. Civil Effects of a Bigamous Marriage
- Status of the second marriage – void ab initio (FC Art. 35(4)).
- Property regime – no conjugal partnership; acquisitions fall under co‑ownership rules (Art. 147/148 FC, depending on parties’ good or bad faith).
- Children’s status – ordinarily illegitimate, but may acquire:
- Legitimation (R.A. 9858) if both parents were free to marry at birth and later validly wed (rare in bigamy).
- “Simulated legitimacy” under Art. 177 FC if parents honestly believed they were married.
- Succession – children inherit as illegitimate (1/2 share of legitimate counterpart); spouses in void marriage do not inherit.
- Support – children entitled; second “spouse” not entitled.
- Void bigamous marriage produces no donations inter vivos (Civil Code Art. 739).
8. Leading Jurisprudence (chronological)
| Case | G.R. / Date | Doctrine |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Peralta | L‑47740, 27 Jun 1941 | Prior marriage must be proven valid; certificate is best evidence. |
| Lasanas v. Odejar (Judge) | A.M. 207‑MTJ, 21 Jan 1999 | Filing of nullity case after bigamy information does not bar prosecution. |
| People v. Lacao Jr. | 101095, 20 May 1994 | Venue lies where second marriage contracted. |
| Tenebro v. CA | 150758, 18 Feb 2004 | Ex post annulment does not erase bigamy. |
| Morigo v. People | 145226, 06 Feb 2002 | Void first marriage per se (no license) = no bigamy if accused honestly unaware and second marriage was actually first valid one. |
| Domingo v. People | 207713, 22 Mar 2017 | Knowledge of subsisting first marriage unnecessary; strict liability. |
| Abalos v. People | 198016, 21 Jun 2017 | Good‑faith filing of Art. 41 petition = defense; second marriage celebrated after decree. |
| Fuentes v. People | 244708, 15 Mar 2021 | “De facto” foreign divorce decree ≠ defense until recognized under Rule 39 §48. |
| Absconde v. People | 223456, 16 Oct 2019 | Reiterated good‑faith exception where accused obtained void first marriage certificate only after being charged. |
(Include GR Nos. & dates in pleadings; above list is representative, not exhaustive.)
9. Interaction with Nullity, Annulment, and Divorce
- Void ab initio vs. voidable – Only voidable marriages (FC Art. 45) can be annulled; both need a decree before remarriage.
- Foreign divorce – Must be recognized by a Philippine court before one can legally marry again (FC Art. 26 ¶2; Republic v. Canning, G.R. 206304, 19 Jan 2021).
- Judicial recognition of foreign nullity – Same rule; lack of recognition equals subsisting marriage.
10. Muslim, Indigenous & Special Contexts
- Muslim Code – polygyny allowed; yet a Muslim converts to Islam after contracting a civil marriage cannot use P.D. 1083 to avoid bigamy (Art. 13 Muslim Code; People v. Parcasio, G.R. 221015, 07 Feb 2018).
- IPRA & Customary Law – Custom cannot override criminal statutes; an indigenous man pursuing customary polygyny risks prosecution unless Congress enacts a specific exemption.
- De facto separation or “live‑in” does not justify remarriage.
11. Bigamy vis‑à‑vis Adultery & Concubinage
| Feature | Bigamy | Adultery / Concubinage |
|---|---|---|
| Who can file | State (public crime) | Only offended spouse (private crime) |
| Element | Status (2nd marriage) | Sexual infidelity |
| Penalty | Prisión mayor (6–12 yrs) | Prisión correccional / Arresto mayor (≤ 6 yrs) |
| Extinguishment | Pardon / amnesty / prescription | Pardon before prosecution or condonation |
12. Compliance Checklist Before Remarrying
- Secure NSO/PSA CENOMAR of both parties.
- If prior marriage exists:
- Nullity/annulment decree (Art. 40/45) final & annotated on PSA record.
- Or Art. 41 presumptive‑death decree.
- Or Shari’ah Court authority (Muslims).
- Register judgment in the Local Civil Registry (FC Art. 52); present annotated marriage record to the Local Civil Registrar for marriage licence.
- For those relying on foreign divorce/nullity: obtain Philippine court recognition before applying for a licence.
13. Reform Proposals (as of 2025)
- Pending bills periodically seek to decriminalise bigamy and replace it with a hefty civil fine or treat it as a family‑court contempt—arguing the RPC’s 1930 mindset is outdated amid global mobility and varied family structures.
- A separate bloc proposes a gender‑neutral divorce law; if enacted, it would reduce bigamy prosecutions by providing an exit other than nullity/annulment.
- Digital civil registry integration (e‑PSA) is being piloted to curb fraudulent CENOMARs that often figure in bigamy schemes.
14. Practical Litigation Tips
- Always attach both marriage certificates to the Information.
- Plead the four elements in the body; venue must be alleged in the caption.
- For defense counsel, gather certified true copies of the nullity/annulment/presumptive‑death decree and proof of due publication.
- Consider raising good‑faith belief but back it with documentary diligence (affidavits, communications, certified PSA searches).
- Move for judicial recognition of foreign divorce immediately if that is the cornerstone defense; judges rarely suspend bigamy cases to await it absent strong prima facie proof.
15. Conclusion
Bigamy remains one of the few Philippine crimes that simultaneously protects public morals, the civil registry, and individual marital expectations. Mastery of Article 349 RPC is impossible without a firm grasp of the Family Code’s nullity and presumptive‑death rules, the procedural nuances of A.M. 02‑11‑10‑SC, and the rich body of Supreme Court doctrine. Whether advising clients, prosecuting offenders, or advocating reform, practitioners must weave these strands into a coherent strategy—mindful that behind every bigamy case lie human lives seeking legal closure.
Prepared April 18 2025. This article reflects legislation and jurisprudence up to Supreme Court decisions reported in A.C. No. 21‑24, March 11 2025. It is for educational purposes and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice.