Morigo v. People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 145226.

February 06, 2004]

LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Petitioner: Lucio Morigo y Cacho Respondent: People of the Philippines What: Non-existence of marriage for reason of the absence of a valid marriage ceremony. Summary: Morigo filed a petition against the People of the Philippines which is represented by a City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran that former is not guilty of bigamy for there was no first marriage to speak of in the first place. Nature of the case: Instant petition is a review on certoriari which seeks to reverse the affirmation of the CA of the RTC Bohol's decision declaring Morigo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy.

What are the facts of the case? 1. Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates for four years when they were at college. When the school year had ended, Lucio and Lucia lost contact with each other. Years later, Lucio received a letter from Lucia from abroad Singapore and the two became sweethearts after an exchange of letters. 2. When Lucia came back to the Philippines, she and Lucio agreed to get married. Lucia then again went abroad to work leaving Lucio behind. 3. For reasons unknown, Lucia obtained a divorce against petitioner at the Ontario court. A year later, Morigo married Maria Lumbago at Tagbilaran City. 4. Yet another year later after the marriage, Morigo filed a petition for the judicial declaration of the nullity of his marriage with Lucia as there was no marriage ceremony which actually took place.

5. Morigo was then charged with Bigamy punished under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code by the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran City at the RTC Bohol. 6. Morigo moved for the suspension of the arraignment on the ground that the civil case for judicial nullification of his marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. His motion was granted, but subsequently denied upon motion for reconsideration by the prosecution.

What are the issues of the case? 1. Whether the divorce obtained by Lucia on the Ontario court was recognized in the Philippines. 2. Whether petitioner's defense of good faith in relying on the divorce obtained by Lucia abroad was sufficient for him to be able to contract another marriage and not be guilty of bigamy. 3. Whether Lucio's marriage with Lucia was void ab initio for lack of a formal requisite which was a valid marriage ceremony. 4. Whether Lucio had committed bigamy by not declaring his first marriage as null and void first before contracting a subsequent marriage.

What are the rulings of the court? 1. No. The court ruled that in pursuant to Artice 15 of the New Civil Code, the Canadian divorce obtained by Lucia has no jurisdiction over the alleged spouses' marital status. Following the case of Ramirez v. Gmur (), the court of the country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and in which a party or parties only resort to for the purpose of obtaining a divorce should not be granted recognition everywhere, especially in the Philippines. 2. No. Petitioner's contention on his relying upon the divorce obtained by Lucia was belied by the fact that he had filed for a judicial decllaration of nullity on his marriage with Lucia a year after his subsequent marriage. His defense of good faith and lack of criminal intent does not render him innocent for everyone is presumed to know the law. However, the defense of good faith in the case became moot and academic for there was no first marriage to speak of. 3. Yes. The question of whether the marriage between the petitioner and Lucia Barrete was void ab initio for lack of marriage ceremony posed a

prejudicial question as to determine whether petitioner had in fact committed bigamy. It was later discovered that the two contracting parties merely signed a marriage contract on their own. In such case, two of the formal requisites were absent; a valid marriage ceremony and an authority of a solemnizing officer who should have performed the marriage ceremony. The court held that the mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, there is no need for the judicial declaration of the marriage being null and void for there was no marriage to begin with. 4. No. Under the law, a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted (Art. 40, FC). One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. However, reiterating the non-existence of a first marriage with Lucia, petitioner was not guilty of bigamy for there was no need for the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage which did not exist at all. Petitioner was, in the eyes of the law, never married, thus he cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. Held: Petitioner Lucio Morigo is found not guilty of committing bigamy. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. xxx The petitioner Lucio Morigo y Cacho is ACQUITTED from the charge of BIGAMY on the ground that his guilt has not been proven with moral certainty.

A Difficult Question of Law as a Defense of Good Faith Upon the declaration of the penalties to be imposed upon Morigo due to the charge of Bigamy, the petitioner moved for reconsideration contending that the doctrine in Mendiola v. People allows mistake upon a difficult question of law (such as the effect of a foreign divorce decree) to be a basis for good faith.

Everyone is Presumed to Know the Law The Latin maxim "Ignorantia juris neminem excusat" manifested in Article 3 of the New Civil Code which states that Ignorance of the Law excuses no one from compliance therewith is applicable to the case at bar. The Elements of Bigamy In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, the Supreme Court had laid down the elements of bigamy, to wit: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.

Significant Provisions to the Case at Bar Article 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon 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 by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. Article 15, NCC. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Article 17, NCC. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. Article 40, FC. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Article 3, FC. The formal requisites of marriage are: (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. Article 4, FC. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45. An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.