28 August 2016

Dear Ms. Curtis:

The Facts

Per our discussion and the documents you have presented, the following are the pertinent facts:

You and Adam have been married a long time ago.

In Adams pursuit of greener pastures, he worked in a New York based law firm as an Associate
Lawyer for 3 years.

During his stay, Adam was romantically involved with a certain Rachel Zane, a paralegal in the
same firm, in which he further married her when they were on a stupendous vacation in Las Vegas.
Thereafter, both decided to celebrate their honeymoon in Cebu City.

Query/Issue

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to (1) whether the marriage of your husband, Adam
with a certain Rachel Zane is valid and (2) whether your husband can be prosecuted with bigamy.

The Applicable Law

The first applicable law pertaining to the validity of Adams marriage with Rachel Zane is
Paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Family Code. It provides that:

All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they are solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except
those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37, and 38.

Your case falls in one of the exceptions, specifically, under Paragraph 4 of Article 35 regarding
void ab initio marriages by reason of bigamous or polygamous marriages. Clearly, even if the marriage
contracted by Adam and Rachel Zane was valid in the country where it was celebrated, the same cannot
be recognized as valid in the Philippines as it is one of the void marriages under Articles 35(1), (4), (5)
and (6), 36, 37, and 38. Thus, considering that Adam has a valid and subsisting marriage with Anne
Curtis, his subsequent marriage with Rachel Zane is not valid.

Second applicable law is Article 15 of the Civil Code which provides that:

Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to status, condition and legal capacity of persons
are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

In the instant case, even if Adam is already situated in New York, he is still governed by the laws
of the Philippines relating to his family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity. Apparently,
Adam who is married with Anne Curtis shall continue to be married wherever he may go. Thus, his
marriage with Rachel Zane is not valid as he still has a valid subsisting marriage with Anne Curtis.

Third applicable law pertaining to the second issue on whether Adam could be persecuted for
Bigamy can be found in Article 14 of the Civil Code which provides that:
 Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.

In the instant case, Adam could not be persecuted for Bigamy since at the time when they
contracted the second marriage it was not celebrated within the Philippine territory as it was celebrated
abroad. It must be noted that penal laws are territorial, only those who live or sojourn in a certain
territory could be subjected for the said penal laws. Thus, Adam could not be persecuted for Bigamy as
his second marriage was contracted outside the Philippines.

The Applicable Jurisprudence

Our laws and jurisprudence of the Honorable Supreme Court made it clear that marriages
contracted despite a valid subsisting marriage is invalid to wit:

Finally, it is a settled rule that the criminal culpability attaches to the offender upon the
commission of the offense, and from that instant, liability appends to him until
extinguished as provided by law. It is clear then that the crime of bigamy was committed
by petitioner from the time he contracted the second marriage with private
respondent.

Capili vs People
G.R. No. 183805. July 3, 2013

Further, the Honorable Supreme Court said:

A marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void;

the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of
criminal liability for bigamy; Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the mere act
of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid
marriage.

Tenebro vs Court of Appeals, 423 (SCRA 272)

G.R. No. 150758. Feburary 12, 2014

Finally, the Honorable Supreme Court said:

A judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is now expressly required where

the nullity of a previous marriage is invoked for purposes of contracting a second
marriage. A second marriage contracted prior to the issuance of this declaration of
nullity is thus considered bigamous and void.

Castillo vs De leon Castillo

G.R. No. 189607. April 18, 2016
Analysis/Conclusion

In view of the foregoing applicable laws and jurisprudential discussion, we opine that:

On the issue of validity of subsequent marriage

Adams subsequent marriage with Rachel Zane is not valid. Your husband, Adam, who is a
Filipino citizen, is bound by Philippine laws in so far as his legal capacity to marry or remarry for that
matter. Philippine laws consider void those marriages that are bigamous, which is the case of Adams
marriage with Rachel. Since your marriage with Adam is still subsisting when the subsequent marriage
was contracted, the latter is void for being bigamous.

Moreover, Philippine laws and jurisprudence, as cited above, have established that for purposes
of remarriage, a judicial declaration of nullity must first be obtained, without which the subsequent
marriage is considered null and void. In your case, no such judicial declaration of nullity was obtained by
Adam before contracting the subsequent marriage with Rachel. Hence, the said subsequent marriage is
void for failing to conform with the requirement by law.

On the issue of prosecution for bigamy

Although it has been established that Adams marriage with Rachel is bigamous, the issue of
whether or not Adam could be prosecuted for bigamy is another matter. Bigamy is a criminal case which
generally follows the territoriality principle. This means that our penal laws are only applicable to those
crimes perpetrated within the Philippine territory save for some exceptions. In the case at bar, however,
your husbands subsequent marriage was contracted in Las Vegas which is outside the jurisdiction of
Philippine authorities to prosecute. Following this principle, you cannot file a case of bigamy against
your husband in Philippine courts as the crime was committed outside of our territorial jurisdiction. This
is without prejudice to other cases that may be filed in the future.