HELD: ABSOLUTE NULLITY; JUDICIAL DECLARATION Art. 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family ATIENZA VS. BRILLANTES Code in 1988 regardless of date of the first FACTS: marriage. Besides, Art. 256 of the Family Code said Art. 15 is given retroactive effect insofar This a complaint by Lupo Atienza for as it does prejudice or impair vested or acquired gross immorality and appearance of impropriety rights in accordance with Civil Code or other against Judge Brillantes. laws. The retroactive application of procedural Lupo Alleges that he has 2 children laws is not violative of any right of a person who with Yolanda de Castro, who are living together may feel that he is adversely affected. in a home purchased by him in 1987 in Manila. Respondent is the last person allowed to invoke On 1991, Lupo saw Brillantes sleeping on his good faith. He made a mockery of the institution bed. Upon inquiry, the houseboy told that of marriage and employed deceit to be able to Brillantes had been cohabiting with de Castro. cohabit with a woman. Lupo left the home without confronting DOMINGO VS. CA Brillantes. Thereafter, respondent prevented him from visiting his children and even alienated the A declaration of the absolute nullity of a affection of his children from him. Lupo claims marriage is now explicitly required either as a that Brillantes is married to Ongkiko with whom cause of action or a ground for defense. he has 5 children. Brillantes on his part, alleged FACTS: that Lupo was not married to de Castro and that he is not married to Ongkiko although he admits Private respondent Delia Soledad Domingo and having 5 children with her. Brillantes claims that petitioner Roberto Domingo got married while when he married de Castro in 1991 at California, the marriage of Roberto with one Emerlina dela he believed in all good faith and with all legal Paz was still subsisting. Hence, Emerlina sued intents and purposes, that he was single because Roberto for bigamy. Thereafter, Delia filed a her first marriage was solemnized without a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage license. marriage with Roberto and separation of property. Roberto filed a Motion to Dismiss on Brillantes argues that the provision of the ground that the marriage being void ab Art. 40 of the Family Code does not apply to initio, the petition for the declaration of its him considering that his first marriage took nullity is unnecessary. The trial court denied the place in 1965 and was governed by the Civil motion. Roberto then filed a special civil action Code of the Philippines while the second of certiorari and mandamus, which was marriage which took place in 1991 was dismissed by the CA. Roberto contended that governed by the Family Code. the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of ISSUE: marriage can be maintained only if it is for the purpose of remarriage. Whether or not Art. 40 of the Family Code does not apply to Brillantes. ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary for the recovery and the separation of properties. subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. RULING: Yes. The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A FACTS: declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage Vincent Mercado married Consuelo Tan while is now explicitly required either as a cause of his marriage with Ma. Thelma Oliva was still action or a ground for defense. In fact, the subsisting. Hence, Tan filed a complaint for requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity bigamy against Mercado. Subsequently, of a marriage is also for the protection of the Mercado filed a petition for Declaration of spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is Nullity of Marriage against Oliva. The petition illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial was granted and the marriage between Mercado declaration of the nullity of his or her first and Oliva was declared null and void. marriage, the person who marries again cannot Nevertheless, the RTC convicted Mercado of the be charged with bigamy. crime of bigamy. Article 40 of the Family Code denotes that such Mercado contended that since his previous final judgment declaring the previous marriage marriage had been declared null and void, he void need not be obtained only for purposes of cannot be convicted of the crime of bigamy as remarriage. Undoubtedly, one can conceive of there was no first marriage to speak of. other instances where a party might well invoke the absolute nullity of a previous marriage for ISSUE: purposes other than remarriage, such as in case of an action for liquidation, partition, Whether or not the element of previous legal distribution and separation of property between marriage is present in order to convict petitioner. the erstwhile spouses, as well as an action for RULING: the custody and support of their common children and the delivery of the latters' Yes. Article 40 of the Family Code expressly presumptive legitimes. In such cases, evidence requires a judicial declaration of nullity of the needs must be adduced, testimonial or previous marriage before that person can marry documentary, to prove the existence of grounds again; otherwise, the second marriage will also rendering such a previous marriage an absolute be void. It is now settled that the fact that the nullity. These need not be limited solely to an first marriage is void from the beginning is not a earlier final ju dgment of a court declaring such defense in a bigamy charge. One who enters previous marriage void. Hence, in the instance into a subsequent marriage without first where a party who has previously contracted a obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of marriage which remains subsisting desires to bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier enter into another marriage which is legally union is characterized by statute as void. unassailable, he is required by law to prove that In the instant case, petitioner contracted a the previous one was an absolute nullity. But this second marriage although there was yet no he may do on the basis solely of a final judicial declaration of nullity of his first judgment declaring such previous marriage void. marriage. In fact, he instituted the Petition to MERCADO VS. TAN have the first marriage declared void only after complainant had filed a letter-complaint A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous charging him with bigamy. By contracting a marriage is necessary before a subsequent one second marriage while the first was still can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsisting, he committed the acts punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Cario is valid, thereby entitling her to the entire That he subsequently obtained a judicial subject death benefits. declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial. To repeat, the crime had already been consummated by then. RULING: CARINO VS. CARINO No. Under the Civil Code, which was the law in force when the marriage of petitioner Susan Under Article 40 of the Family Code, for Nicdao and the deceased was solemnized in purposes of remarriage, there must first be a 1969, a valid marriage license is a requisite of prior judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage, and the absence thereof, subject to previous marriage, though void, before a party certain exceptions, renders the marriage void ab can enter into a second marriage, otherwise, the initio. The records reveal that the marriage second marriage would also be void. contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no FACTS: marriage license number and, as certified by the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro The late SPO4 Santiago S. Cario contracted Manila, their office has no record of such two marriages during his lifetime. The first was marriage license. It is beyond cavil, therefore, with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cario, and the that the marriage between petitioner Susan second was with respondent Susan Yee Cario. Nicdao and the deceased, having been SPO4 Cario passed away under the care of solemnized without the necessary marriage respondent, who spent for his medical and burial license, and not being one of the marriages expenses. Both petitioner and respondent filed exempt from the marriage license requirement, claims for monetary benefits and financial is undoubtedly void ab initio. assistance pertaining to the deceased from various government agencies. Respondent filed Under Article 40 of the Family Code, for a case for collection of sum of money against purposes of remarriage, there must first be a petitioner praying that petitioner be ordered to prior judicial declaration of the nullity of a return to her at least one-half of the P146,000.00 previous marriage, though void, before a party death benefits which petitioner received from can enter into a second marriage, otherwise, the various government agencies. Respondent second marriage would also be void. admitted that her marriage to the deceased took Accordingly, the declaration in the instant case place during the subsistence of, and without first of nullity of the previous marriage of the obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of the deceased and petitioner Susan Nicdao does not marriage between petitioner and the deceased. validate the second marriage of the deceased She, however, claimed to be in good faith since with respondent Susan Yee. The fact remains she had no knowledge of the previous marriage. that their marriage was solemnized without first To bolster her action for collection of sum of obtaining a judicial decree declaring the money, respondent contended that the marriage marriage of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the of petitioner and the deceased is void ab initio deceased void. Hence, the marriage of because the same was solemnized without the respondent Susan Yee and the deceased is, required marriage license. The trial court ruled likewise, void ab initio. in favor of respondent, which the CA affirmed. Considering that the marriage of respondent ISSUE: Susan Yee and the deceased is a bigamous marriage, having been solemnized during the Whether or not the marriage between SPO4 subsistence of a previous marriage then Santiago Cario and petitioner Susan Nicdao presumed to be valid (between petitioner and the deceased), the application of Article 148 of the being issued only on January 9, 1950. He Family Code is therefore in order. The disputed insisted that his being the surviving brother of P146,000.00 from MBAI [AFP Mutual Benefit Cresenciano who had died without any issue Association, Inc.], NAPOLCOM, Commutation, entitled him to one-half of the real properties Pag-ibig, and PCCUI, are clearly renumerations, acquired by Cresenciano before his death, incentives and benefits from governmental thereby making him a real party in interest; and agencies earned by the deceased as a police that any person, himself included, could impugn officer. Unless respondent Susan Yee presents the validity of the marriage between proof to the contrary, it could not be said that she Cresenciano and Leonila at any time, even after contributed money, property or industry in the the death of Cresenciano, due to the marriage acquisition of these monetary benefits. Hence, being void ab initio. they are not owned in common by respondent The RTC dismissed the petition for the and the deceased, but belong to the deceased following reasons: 1) petition is filed out of time alone and respondent has no right whatsoever to (action had long prescribed) and 2) petitioner is claim the same. not a party to the marriage. As to the property regime of petitioner Susan The CA affirmed the dismissal order of the RTC, Nicdao and the deceased, Article 147 of the thus: Family Code governs. Even if the disputed death benefits were earned by the deceased While an action to declare the nullity of a alone as a government employee, Article 147 marriage considered void from the beginning creates a co-ownership in respect thereto, does not prescribe, the law nonetheless requires entitling the petitioner to share one-half thereof. that the same action must be filed by the proper As there is no allegation of bad faith in the party, which in this case should be filed by any present case, both parties of the first marriage of the parties to the marriage. xxxx are presumed to be in good faith. Thus, one-half of the subject death benefits under scrutiny Certainly, a surviving brother of the shall go to the petitioner as her share in the deceased spouse is not the proper party to file property regime, and the other half pertaining to the subject petition. More so that the surviving the deceased shall pass by, intestate succession, wife, who stands to be prejudiced, was not even to his legal heirs, namely, his children with impleaded as a party to said case. Susan Nicdao. ISSUE: JARILLO VS. PEOPLE Whether the petitioner is a real party-in-interest (601 SCRA 236)- FULL CASE in the action to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage of his deceased brother solemnized ABLAZA VS. REPUBLIC under the regime of the old Civil Code FACTS: HELD: YES On October 17, 2000, the petitioner filed in RTC A valid marriage is essential in order to create Cataingan, Masbate a petition for the declaration the relation of husband and wife and to give rise of the absolute nullity of the marriage contracted to the mutual rights, duties, and liabilities arising on December 26, 1949 between his late brother out of such relation. The law prescribes the Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Honato. requisites of a valid marriage. Hence, the The petitioner alleged that the marriage between validity of a marriage is tested according to the Cresenciano and Leonila had been celebrated law in force at the time the marriage is without a marriage license, due to such license contracted. As a general rule, the nature of the marriage already celebrated cannot be changed declaration of nullity of the marriage under AM by a subsequent amendment of the governing 02-11-10-SC had absolutely no application to law. Thus, a Civil Code marriage remains void, the petitioner. considering that the validity of a marriage is The old and new Civil Codes contain no governed by the law in force at the time of the provision on who can file a petition to declare marriage ceremony. the nullity of a marriage, and when. Before anything more, the Court has to clarify Accordingly, in Nial v. Bayadog, the children the impact to the issue posed herein of were allowed to file after the death of their Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 02-11-10-SC father a petition for the declaration of the nullity (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void of their fathers marriage to their stepmother Marriages and Annulment of Voidable contracted on December 11, 1986 due to lack of Marriages), which took effect on March 15, a marriage license. There, the Court 2003. distinguished between a void marriage and a voidable one, and explained how and when each Section 2 (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC might be impugned, thus wise: explicitly provides the limitation that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no marriage may be filed solely by the husband or judicial decree is necessary in order to establish wife. Such limitation demarcates a line to the nullity of a marriage. Under ordinary distinguish between marriages covered by the circumstances, the effect of a void Family Code and those solemnized under the marriage.......is as though no marriage had regime of the Civil Code. Specifically, A.M. No. ever taken place. And therefore, being good 02-11-10-SC extends only to marriages covered for no legal purpose, its invalidity can be by the Family Code, which took effect on maintained in any proceeding in which the August 3, 1988, but, being a procedural rule that fact of marriage may be material, either is prospective in application, is confined only to direct or collateral. xxx proceedings commenced after March 15, 2003. It is not like a voidable marriage which cannot Based on Carlos v. Sandoval the following be collaterally attacked except in direct actions for declaration of absolute nullity of a proceeding instituted during the lifetime of the marriage are excepted from the limitation, to parties so that on the death of either, the wit: marriage cannot be impeached, and is made good ab initio. But Article 40 of the Family 1) Those commenced before March 15, 2003, Code expressly provides that there must be a the effectivity date of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous and marriage, though void, before a party can enter 2) Those filed in relation to marriages celebrated into a second marriage and such absolute nullity during the effectivity of the Civil Code and, can be based only on a final judgment to that those celebrated under the regime of the Family effect. For the same reason, the law makes either Code prior to March 15, 2003. the action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage imprescriptible. Considering that the marriage between Corollarily, if the death of either party would Cresenciano and Leonila was contracted on extinguish the cause of action or the ground for December 26, 1949, the applicable law was the defense, then the same cannot be considered old Civil Code, the law in effect at the time of imprescriptible. the celebration of the marriage. Hence, the rule on the exclusivity of the parties to the marriage However, other than for purposes of remarriage, as having the right to initiate the action for no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to purposes......the court may pass upon the validity the entire estate of the deceased in accordance of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted with the following articles. to question the same so long as it is essential to Necessarily, therefore, the right of the petitioner the determination of the case. to bring the action hinges upon a prior determination of whether Cresenciano had any descendants, ascendants, or children (legitimate However, that the absence of a provision in the or illegitimate), and of whether the petitioner old and new Civil Codes cannot be construed as was the late Cresencianos surviving heir. Such giving a license to just any person to bring an prior determination must be made by the trial action to declare the absolute nullity of a court, for the inquiry thereon involves questions marriage. According to Carlos v. Sandoval, the of fact. plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit, or the party entitled to the Nevertheless, we note that the petitioner did not avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law implead Leonila, who, as the late Cresencianos that every action must be prosecuted and surviving wife, stood to be benefited or defended in the name of the real party in prejudiced by the nullification of her own interest. Thus, only the party who can marriage. She was truly an indispensable party demonstrate a proper interest can file the who must be joined herein. We take note, too, action. Interest within the meaning of the rule that the petitioner and Leonila were parties in means material interest, or an interest in issue to Heirs of Cresenciano Ablaza, namely: Leonila be affected by the decree or judgment of the G. Ablaza, and Leila Ablaza Jasul v. Spouses case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about Isidro and Casilda Ablaza, an action to the question involved or a mere incidental determine who between the parties were the interest. legal owners of the property involved therein. As a defendant in that action, the petitioner is reasonably presumed to have knowledge that the Here, the petitioner alleged himself to be the late therein plaintiffs, Leonila and Leila, were the Cresencianos brother and surviving heir. wife and daughter, respectively, of the late Assuming that the petitioner was as he claimed Cresenciano. As such, Leila was another himself to be, then he has a material interest in indispensable party whose substantial right any the estate of Cresenciano that will be adversely judgment in this action will definitely affect. The affected by any judgment in the suit. Indeed, a petitioner should likewise implead Leila. brother like the petitioner, albeit not a WHEREFORE, the case is reinstated, and its compulsory heir under the laws of succession, records are returned to RTC Masbate, for further has the right to succeed to the estate of a proceedings, with instructions to first require the deceased brother under the conditions stated in petitioner to amend his initiatory pleading in Article 1001 and Article 1003 of the Civil Code, order to implead Leonila Honato and her as follows: daughter Leila Ablaza Jasul as parties- Article 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their defendants. children survive with the widow or widower, the JARILLO VS PEOPLE latter shall be entitled to one half of the (622 SCRA 24)- FULL CASE inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their CHAN-TAN VS. TAN- FULL CASE children to the other half. LASANAS VS. PEOPLE Article 1003. If there are no descendants, THE FACTS: ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving Noel Lasanas (petitioner), and Socorro were Article 52 of the Family Code; that, married by Judge Carlos Salazar in 1968, consequently, an essential element of the crime without the benefit of a marriage license or an of bigamy, i.e. that the subsequent marriage be affidavit of cohabitation. They renewed their valid, was lacking; and that his good faith and marriage vows in a religious ceremony before lack of criminal intent were sufficient to relieve Fr. Rodolfo Tamayo in Iloilo City, again without him of criminal liability. attaching a marriage license or an affidavit of cohabitation. They separated in 1982, however, due to irreconcilable differences. Noel then THE ISSUE: married Josefa Esteban in a religious ceremony solemnized by Fr. Ramon Sequito in Iloilo City. Whether or not Noel should be held liable for Noels marriage status was indicated in the bigamy. marriage certificate as single. On July 26, 1996, Noel filed a complaint for annulment of marriages and damages against Socorro, alleging THE RULING: that the latter employed deceit, The appeal lacks merit. misrepresentation and fraud in securing his consent to their marriage. Soccoro then filed a The law on bigamy is found in Article 349 of the criminal case for bigamy against Noel, and the Revised Penal Code, which provides: corresponding information filed against him. His complaint for declaration of nullity was Article 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision dismissed on November 24, 1998. Meanwhile, mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in the criminal case for bigamy, Noel was shall contract a second or subsequent marriage convicted by the Regional Trial Court as before the former marriage has been legally charged. He appealed to the CA, but the latter dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been affirmed the RTC judgment. Thus, Noel filed declared presumptively dead by means of a the instant petition for review on certiorari with judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. the Supreme Court. He argues that the first The elements of the crime of bigamy are as element of bigamy was not duly proved, as his follows: (1) that the offender has been legally marriage to Socorro was null and void for lack married; (2) that the marriage has not been of marriage license or affidavit of cohabitation; legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is he acted in good faith; and had the honest belief absent, the absent spouse could not yet be that there was no need for a judicial declaration presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) of nullity of the first marriage before he could that he or she contracts a second or subsequent contract a subsequent marriage. He argues that marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent the RTC and the CA incorrectly applied the marriage has all the essential requisites for provisions of Article 349 of the Revised Penal validity.1 Code, asserting that the civil law rule embodied in Article 40 of the Family Code requiring a The CA specifically observed: judicial declaration of nullity before one could This Court concedes that the marriage between contract a subsequent marriage should not apply accused-appellant Lasanas and private in this purely criminal prosecution; that even if complainant Patingo was void because of the Article 40 of the Family Code was applicable, absence of a marriage license or of an affidavit he should still be acquitted because his of cohabitation. The ratificatory religious subsequent marriage was null and void for being wedding ceremony could not have validated the without a recorded judgment of nullity of void marriage. Neither can the church wedding marriage, as provided in Article 53 in relation to be treated as a marriage in itself for to do so, all the essential and formal requisites of a valid Article 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage should be present. One of these marriage may be invoked for purposes of requisites is a valid marriage license except in remarriage on the basis solely of a final those instances when this requirement may be judgment declaring such previous marriage void. excused. There having been no marriage license (n) nor affidavit of cohabitation presented to the The reason for the provision was aptly discussed priest who presided over the religious rites, the in Teves v. People:3 religious wedding cannot be treated as a valid marriage in itself. x x x The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A But then, as the law and jurisprudence say, declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage petitioner should have first secured a judicial is now explicitly required either as a cause of declaration of the nullity of his void marriage to action or a ground for defense. Where the private complainant Patingo before marrying absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought Josefa Eslaban. Actually, he did just that but to be invoked for purposes of contracting a after his marriage to Josefa Eslaban. second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law Consequently, he violated the law on bigamy. for said projected marriage to be free from legal Accuseds reliance on the cases of People v. infirmity is a final judgment declaring the Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 and People v. Aragon, previous marriage void. 100 Phil. 1033 is misplaced because the ruling The Family Law Revision Committee and the in these cases have already been abandoned per Civil Code Revision Committee which drafted Relova v. Landico, supra, and Wiegel v. Sempio- what is now the Family Code of the Philippines Diy, 143 SCRA 499. The petitioner also cited took the position that parties to a marriage Yap v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 229 which should not be allowed to assume that their resurrected the Aragon and Mendoza doctrine marriage is void even if such be the fact but but Yaps ruling too had been overtaken by Art. must first secure a judicial declaration of the 40 of the Family Code and by Domingo v. Court nullity of their marriage before they can be of Appeals and Te v. Court of Appeals, supra. allowed to marry again. Regarding accused-appellants defense of good In fact, the requirement for a declaration of faith, the same is unavailing pursuant to absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the Maozca v. Domagas, 248 SCRA 625. protection of the spouse who, believing that his This Court, therefore concludes that the or her marriage is illegal and void, marries appealed Decision is correct in all respect.2 again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage, the person who marries Based on the findings of the CA, this case has again cannot be charged with bigamy. all the foregoing elements attendant. In numerous cases, this Court has consistently The first and second elements of bigamy were held that a judicial declaration of nullity is present in view of the absence of a judicial required before a valid subsequent marriage can declaration of nullity of marriage between the be contracted; or else, what transpires is a accused and Socorro. The requirement of bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral. securing a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage prior to contracting a subsequent If petitioners contention would be allowed, a marriage is found in Article 40 of the Family person who commits bigamy can simply evade Code, to wit: prosecution by immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint the records show that he had filed a complaint against him. We note that in petitioners case the for the annulment of his marriage with Socorro complaint was filed before the first marriage prior to the institution of the criminal complaint was declared a nullity. It was only the filing of against him but after he had already contracted the Information that was overtaken by the his second marriage with Josefa. But even such declaration of nullity of his first marriage. defense would abandon him because the RTC Following petitioners argument, even assuming (Branch 39) dismissed his complaint for that a complaint has been instituted, such as in annulment of marriage after the information for this case, the offender can still escape liability bigamy had already been filed against him, thus provided that a decision nullifying his earlier confirming the validity of his marriage to marriage precedes the filing of the Information Socorro. in court. Such cannot be allowed. To do so Considering that the accuseds subsequent would make the crime of bigamy dependent marriage to Josefa was an undisputed fact, the upon the ability or inability of the Office of the third element of bigamy was established. Public Prosecutor to immediately act on Nonetheless, he submits that his marriage to complaints and eventually file Informations in Josefa was invalid because of lack of a recorded court. Plainly, petitioners strained reading of the judgment of nullity of marriage. Such argument law is against its simple letter. had no worth, however, because it was he Pursuant to Teves, the accuseds conviction for himself who failed to secure a judicial bigamy is affirmed. The crime of bigamy was declaration of nullity of his previous marriage consummated from the moment he contracted prior to contracting his subsequent marriage. In the second marriage without his marriage to Tenebro v. Court of Appeals6, the Court has Socorro being first judicially declared null and explained that [s]ince a marriage contracted void, because at the time of the celebration of during the subsistence of a valid marriage is the second marriage, his marriage to Socorro automatically void, the nullity of this second was still deemed valid and subsisting due to marriage is not per se an argument for the such marriage not being yet declared null and avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. x x x void by a court of competent jurisdiction.4 A plain reading of [Article 349 of the Revised What makes a person criminally liable for Penal Code], therefore, would indicate that the bigamy, according to People v. Odtuhan:5 provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the x x x is when he contracts a second or subsistence of a valid marriage.7 The Court has subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a further observed in Nollora, Jr. v. People:8 valid marriage. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its x x x Nollora may not impugn his [subsequent] nullity, for the same must be submitted to the marriage to Geraldino in order to extricate judgment of competent courts and only when the himself from criminal liability; otherwise, we nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be would be opening the doors to allowing the held as void, and so long as there is no such solemnization of multiple flawed marriage declaration, the presumption is that the marriage ceremonies. As we stated in Tenebro v. Court of exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second Appeals: marriage before the judicial declaration of There is therefore a recognition written into the nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of law itself that such a marriage, although void ab being prosecuted for bigamy. initio, may still produce legal consequences. The accuseds defense of acting in good faith Among these legal consequences is incurring deserves scant consideration especially because criminal liability for bigamy. To hold otherwise would render the States penal laws on bigamy of the indeterminate sentence should be within completely nugatory, and allow individuals to the range of prision correccional, the penalty deliberately ensure that each marital contract be next lower than that prescribed for the offense, flawed in some manner, and to thus escape the which is from six months and one day to six consequences of contracting multiple marriages, years. Accordingly, the indeterminate sentence while beguiling throngs of hapless women with of two years and four months of prision the promise of futurity and commitment. correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, as Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, imposed by the RTC, was proper. the penalty for bigamy is prision mayor. With neither an aggravating nor a mitigating WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the circumstance attendant in the commission of the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on crime, the imposable penalty is the medium August 29, 2002; and ORDERS the petitioner to period of prision mayor,9 which ranges from pay the costs of suit. eight years and one day to 10 years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum