Bigamy Doctrine, 1935–2026
Ninety-one years of Supreme Court rulings on bigamy — a doctrine that reversed itself four times before Pulido v. People settled it in 2021, and what controls today.
FIG. 1 — Position of the Court on whether an accused may attack the validity of the prior marriage in the bigamy case itself. Four reversals: 1970, 1977, 1986 and 2021.
Where the law stands today
Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, 27 July 2021, En Banc, stands unmodified and was applied by the Court as recently as 26 February 2026. A marriage void ab initio is a valid defense in bigamy even without a judicial declaration of nullity, whenever obtained.
First marriage void ab initio — no licence, no ceremony, no authority of the solemnizing officer, Art. 36, incest. A valid defense, with or without a decree, obtained at any time, including during trial. Element (1) fails.Pulido (2021) · Lapira (2026)
No prior suit for nullity is needed. Nullity may be proved by testimonial or documentary evidence in the criminal case itself — a collateral attack.Pulido · Niñal v. Bayadog
Second marriage void ab initio for a reason other than being bigamous. A valid defense — element (3) fails, there being no second marriage to speak of.Pulido
Second marriage void because bigamous. Not a defense. On this narrow point the result in Tenebro survives.Pulido
Either marriage merely voidable (Art. 45). Not a defense; an annulment decree does not retroact for penal purposes.Pulido
Marriages celebrated before the Family Code. Same rule — no distinction any more between Civil Code and Family Code marriages.Pulido
Article 40 vis-à-vis Article 349. Article 40 governs remarriage only; it did not amend Article 349.Pulido
Pending petition for declaration of nullity. Not a prejudicial question. The criminal case proceeds and the trial court itself resolves validity.Natividad-Florentino (2025) · Marbella-Bobis survives on this point
Absent spouse. A judicial declaration of presumptive death under Art. 41 remains indispensable — the first marriage there is valid, not void, so Pulido does not reach it.Manuel v. People (2005)
Divorce obtained abroad. Must be pleaded and proved — the decree plus the foreign law. Art. 26(2) applies whether the alien or the Filipino spouse obtained it.Sarto (2018) · Republic v. Manalo (2018)
Proving the first marriage. The marriage certificate is only prima facie. A civil registrar's certification of no licence or no application, unrebutted, creates reasonable doubt.Cariaga · Genio · Lapira — displacing Vitangcol's stricter treatment
Prescription. Fifteen years from actual discovery by the offended party or the authorities — not from registration.Sermonia (1994) · Bonbon (2025)
Fallback offense. Article 350, RPC — contracting marriage knowing the legal requirements were not met or in disregard of a legal impediment.Pulido; applied in Genio (2024)
Who may sue to void a bigamous marriage. The injured spouse of either marriage — not the spouse who knowingly contracted it.Quirit-Figarido (2024, En Banc)
ELEMENTS OF BIGAMY (Capili v. People, 713 Phil. 256, 262 [2013]): (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he or she contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid but for the existence of the first.
People v. Mora Dumpo
62 Phil. 246
The accused was allowed to prove, in the criminal case itself, that the second marriage was void. Acquittal.
People v. Mendoza · People v. Lara · People v. Aragon
95 Phil. 845 · 51 O.G. 4079 (14 Feb. 1955) · 100 Phil. 1033
No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void prior marriage as a defense in bigamy — as distinguished from merely annullable marriages. The rule Pulido would return to sixty-seven years later.
Merced v. Diez · Zapanta v. Montesa
109 Phil. 155 · 114 Phil. 428
“[D]etermination of the validity of the second marriage is determinable in the civil action and must precede the criminal action for bigamy.”
An action to annul the second marriage was recognised as a prejudicial question; in Zapanta the bigamy proceedings were suspended outright.
Landicho v. Relova · Donato v. Luna
130 Phil. 745 · 243 Phil. 584
Narrows Zapanta: it must be the accused's own consent that was vitiated. Parties may not judge for themselves the nullity of their marriage — the sentence the Family Code drafters would later quote when writing Article 40.
Gomez v. Lipana · Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS
144 Phil. 514 · 147 Phil. 269
First deviation: a judicial declaration of nullity is necessary even for a second marriage presumed void because contracted during a subsisting first.
De la Cruz v. Judge Ejercito
160-A Phil. 669
Bigamy case dismissed as “moot and untenable” once the annulment of the second marriage became final.
Odayat v. Amante · Tolentino v. Paras
168 Phil. 1 · 207 Phil. 458
The Court reverts to Mendoza and Aragon.
Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy · Yap v. Court of Appeals
227 Phil. 457 · 229 Phil. 251
In the same year the Court held both ways: Wiegel required a declaration of nullity before entering another marriage; Yap held otherwise. Wiegel is the rule the Family Code would codify two years later.
Domingo v. Court of Appeals · Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr.
297 Phil. 642 · 312 Phil. 939
Article 40 codifies Landicho: parties “should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact.” Atienza then holds Article 40 procedural, and therefore retroactive under Article 256, “insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights” — the hinge on which pre-1988 marriages were pulled into the new regime.
Sermonia v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 109454, 14 June 1994
“The prescriptive period for the offense of bigamy should be counted only from the day on which the said crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agency.”
Registration of the second marriage is not constructive notice — bigamous marriages are contracted in secret, and the property-law doctrine does not transfer. Still controlling.
Apiag v. Cantero · Ty v. CA · Niñal v. Bayadog · Cariño v. Cariño
335 Phil. 511 · 399 Phil. 647 · 384 Phil. 661 · 403 Phil. 861
Two counter-currents that Pulido would later build on: Article 40 was not applied to pre-Family Code marriages, and Niñal held a void marriage open to collateral attack —
“[O]ther than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity… or a criminal case for that matter.”
Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis
G.R. No. 138509 · 391 Phil. 648
A pending petition for nullity of the first marriage does not suspend the bigamy case: “respondent cannot be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him.” This holding survives Pulido.
Mercado v. Tan
G.R. No. 137110 · 391 Phil. 809
“That he subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial. To repeat, the crime had already been consummated by then.”
The turn against the accused. Conviction affirmed although the first marriage was later declared void for want of a licence; Mendoza and Aragon treated as set aside by Article 40.
Morigo v. People
G.R. No. 145226 · 466 Phil. 1013
Acquittal on a narrow ground: no ceremony was ever performed — the parties merely signed a contract — so there was “no first marriage to speak of.” An anomaly beside Mercado for seventeen years; after 2021 its reasoning becomes the general rule.
Tenebro v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 150758 · 467 Phil. 723
“[A] declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of absolutely no moment insofar as the State's penal laws are concerned… [Article 349] penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.”
Criminal liability was treated as one of the surviving legal effects of a void marriage. Justice Carpio dissented on strict construction — and was vindicated in 2021.
Manuel v. People
G.R. No. 165842 · 512 Phil. 818
The present spouse must first obtain a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Article 41. A good-faith belief that the absentee is dead is no defense. Conviction affirmed, with P200,000 moral damages. Untouched by Pulido: the first marriage here is valid, not void.
Jarillo · Antone · Teves · Nollora · Montañez · Odtuhan · Capili · Lasanas
636 Phil. 25 · 652 Phil. 151 · 671 Phil. 825 · 672 Phil. 771 · G.R. No. 181089, 22 Oct. 2012 · 714 Phil. 349 · G.R. No. 183805, 3 July 2013 · 736 Phil. 735
Eight rulings in five years, all to the same effect: a decree obtained after the second marriage — of either marriage, on any ground including Article 36 — is no defense; the date of filing matters only for prescription; a pending nullity case is not a prejudicial question.
Santiago v. People
G.R. No. 200233
“It will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to escape criminal conviction.”
The accused could not invoke the nullity of the second marriage for want of a licence where she had procured it by a false affidavit of cohabitation. Convicted as an accomplice. Pulido did not list this case among those it abandoned — see the open questions below.
Vitangcol v. People
G.R. No. 207406 · 778 Phil. 326
High-water mark of the strict line. A registrar's certification that it could not locate the licence “does not prove that petitioner's first marriage was solemnized without a marriage license” — and absent a decree the accused remained liable in any case. Both halves of that holding have since given way.
Sarto v. People · Republic v. Manalo
G.R. No. 206284, 28 Feb. 2018 · G.R. No. 221029, 24 Apr. 2018, En Banc
An accused invoking a divorce obtained abroad must plead and prove both the decree and the foreign law — “Philippine courts cannot and could not be expected to take judicial notice of foreign laws.” Manalo then held Article 26(2) applies whether the alien or the Filipino spouse obtained the divorce.
Pulido v. People
G.R. No. 220149 · 908 Phil. 573
“[A] judicial declaration of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy case. Consequently, a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of the first and/or second marriages presented by the accused in the prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense, irrespective of the time within which they are secured.”
1. Scope of Article 40
Retroactive “but only for the purpose of remarriage”; it “did not amend Article 349 of the RPC, and thus, did not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage.” The rule “now applies to all marriages celebrated under the Civil Code and the Family Code.”
2. Elements
“Article 349 should be construed to pertain only to valid and voidable marriages.” A void first marriage means element (1) is absent — and nothing exists to be “dissolved” under element (2).
3. Void second marriage
“[W]hen the accused contracts a second or subsequent marriage that is void ab initio, other than it being bigamous, he/she cannot be held liable for bigamy.” Nullity because bigamous is no defense — which is why Pulido could not rely on the nullity of his marriage to Baleda.
4. Voidable marriages excluded
An annulment decree is no defense; “the voidable first marriage is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was contracted.”
5. Rule of lenity
Requiring a prior decree “interprets Article 349 too liberally in favor of the State and too strictly against the accused.” In dubio pro reo.
6. The safety valve
Deliberately contracting void marriages is “already penalized under Article 350 of the RPC.”
Abandoned
The Mercado · Marbella-Bobis · Abunado · Tenebro · Jarillo · Antone · Teves · Nollora · Montañez · Odtuhan · Capili · Lasanas · Vitangcol line, to the extent it required a prior decree or treated a later decree as immaterial.
Restored
Dumpo · Lara · Mendoza · Aragon · Odayat, together with Niñal's collateral-attack principle. Morigo ceases to be an anomaly.
Cariaga v. Republic
G.R. No. 248643 · 918-A Phil. 770
“[F]or a marriage to be considered void due to the lack of a marriage license, the absence of such license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties.”
Genio v. People
G.R. No. 261666 · 950 Phil. 311
The prima facie weight of a marriage certificate is rebuttable by substantial evidence; once rebutted, “the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove it with evidence beyond reasonable doubt.” The bigamy conviction was set aside — and the accused convicted instead under Article 350, exactly as Pulido contemplated.
Quirit-Figarido v. Figarido
G.R. No. 259520
The civil counterweight: only the injured spouse may sue to declare a bigamous marriage void. Otherwise “bigamy will be treated by the erring spouse as a matter of convenience.” The marriage nonetheless remains void for all other legal purposes, and criminal liability is unaffected.
Bonbon v. People
G.R. No. 272844
Fifteen years from actual discovery, not registration — dating it from registration “would make prosecution almost impossible.” Discovered 2020, filed 2021, second marriage 1999: within the period.
Justice Caguioa, concurring, proposes recalibration now that the PSA Civil Registry Database (R.A. No. 11909, operational 2022) makes multiple registrations detectable — discovery for pre-database marriages; the database's establishment for pre-database marriages discovered later; registration for marriages contracted after it.
Natividad-Florentino v. Florentino
G.R. Nos. 255335 & 255636
“Such defense… must be established through evidence in the criminal proceedings and shall be competently resolved by the trial court without awaiting the resolution of a pending civil case for declaration of nullity.”
The Court of Appeals had suspended the bigamy case; reversed. Justice Caguioa's concurrence supplies the reason: after Pulido the third requisite of a prejudicial question fails, because the criminal court itself has jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the marriages.
Lapira y Tungol v. Fariscal and People
G.R. No. 233512
The most recent application. A certification that the civil registrar “has no record of application for marriage license,” coupled with proof that that year's records were intact in the archives, rebutted the marriage certificate for the first marriage to a Japanese national.
“There being no other proof of the validity of the marriage between Takahiko and Imelda, then there is reasonable doubt as to the existence of a prior marriage, which is one of the elements of Bigamy.”
What actually changed
| Question | 2000–2021 | 2021 onwards |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the defense | Procedural — when did the accused get a decree? | Substantive — was the marriage void at all? A fact triable in the criminal case. |
| Decree obtained after the second marriage | Immaterial; the crime was already consummated. | A valid defense, irrespective of when secured. |
| Collateral attack in the criminal case | Barred by Article 40. | Allowed; Article 40 governs remarriage only. |
| Void second marriage (not bigamous) | Irrelevant to liability (Tenebro). | Element (3) fails — no liability. |
| Pre-Family Code marriages | Article 40 applied retroactively even in criminal cases. | Retroactive for remarriage only; one rule for all marriages. |
| Proving the first marriage | Marriage certificate practically conclusive (Vitangcol). | Prima facie only; a registrar's certification can raise reasonable doubt. |
| Deliberate abuse | Answered by refusing the defense. | Answered by charging Article 350. |
| Procedure | Parallel civil action, no suspension. | No suspension; the criminal court decides validity itself. |
WHAT DID NOT CHANGE — Where the first marriage is valid, Article 349 still requires no proof of criminal intent beyond contracting the second marriage. Article 41 declarations of presumptive death remain mandatory. Foreign divorces must still be recognised and the foreign law proved. Prescription still runs from discovery. And Article 40 still governs remarriage: an undeclared void marriage still cannot support a valid remarriage — Pulido changed the criminal consequence, not the civil rule.
Open questions
Does Santiago v. People (2015) survive?
Pulido did not list it among the cases abandoned. Santiago refused, on clean-hands grounds, to let an accused invoke the nullity of a second marriage she had procured by a false affidavit of cohabitation — which collides with Pulido's rule that a void second marriage, other than bigamous, is a defense. Expect prosecutors to invoke it wherever the accused authored the defect.
The evidentiary line between Vitangcol and Lapira
Vitangcol demanded a categorical certification that no licence exists; Lapira accepted a certification of “no record of application” plus proof that the year's records were intact. The difference may be evidentiary rather than doctrinal — so secure a certification that is categorical and proof that the archive is complete.
Acquittal is not capacity to remarry
A collateral finding of nullity in a criminal case produces no decree for civil purposes — property, legitimacy, remarriage. A separate Article 40 petition is still required.
Prescription may be recalibrated
If Justice Caguioa's Bonbon framework is adopted, second marriages contracted after 2022 would prescribe from registration — a significant shortening.
No absolute divorce law
As of late August 2026 divorce bills remain pending in Congress, so recognition of a foreign divorce and actions for nullity remain the only exits from a valid marriage — the practical driver of most bigamy cases.
Screening a bigamy complaint — complainant's side
- Secure PSA/LCR copies of both marriage certificates — and certifications on the licence and the application for the first marriage. The case now turns on proving the first marriage, not on the absence of a decree.
- Anticipate the void-marriage defense: the solemnizing officer's authority, the licence number and register entry, witnesses to the ceremony.
- Plead Article 350 in the alternative where the first marriage's validity is vulnerable.
- Fix and document the date of actual discovery.
Assessing exposure — respondent's side
- Classify each marriage: void, voidable or valid. Only void helps.
- Identify the ground — no licence, no ceremony, no authority, Article 36, Article 35(4). The last does not help if it is the second marriage.
- A decree obtained now is still worth having: evidence in the criminal case, and indispensable for any remarriage.
- Do not expect a suspension on prejudicial-question grounds.
- If the impediment was known, weigh Article 350 exposure even after acquittal under Article 349.