October 16, 2017

Mike Angelo P. Joe

123 Madison Ave.
Albany, New York City
United States of America

Dear Mr. Joe,

I have read your letter. From the facts you’ve stated in your situation, you have
contracted marriage with sonny. You just knew that he was married with kids here in the
Philippines. You are now asking if your marriage is valid here in the Philippines and can
Sonny be liable for bigamy. I will answer you query.

First, your marriage is NOT valid here in the Philippines.

The Philippines does not recognize gay marriages celebrated in our country, since
it is contrary to our Family Code, which defines marriage as:

“A special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered

into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family
life.”1

And that the necessary requirements for a valid marriage is:

1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female,
and;
2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer. 2

In your case, your marriage was celebrated OUTSIDE the country. In this case, Article
26 of the Family Code, which provides that:

All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in
force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall

1
Art. 1, Family Code Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the
family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and
not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage
within the limits provided by this Code.

2
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4),
(5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. X x x3

Those articles mentioned in Art. 26 consider the following marriages as null and void:

(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the
consent of parents or guardians;
(2) Bigamous or polygamous marriages;
(3) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of
the other;
(4) A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage
(5) Incestuous marriages;

What this means, Mr. Joe, is that the Philippines is obliged to recognize the validity of
a gay marriage celebrated in New York, where such marriage is considered valid and
binding. Unfortunately, your marriage with Sonny is considered null and void, not because
it’s a gay marriage, but because it’s a bigamous marriage, since Sonny was previously
married here in the Philippines.

Second, as to your question whether Sonny will be answerable for bigamy, the answer is
Yes.

Notwithstanding the fact that Sonny’s second marriage is void in the Philippines,
he did however contract a second marriage, which makes him liable for the crime of
bigamy. The Revised Penal Code defines bigamy as:

“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.” 4

The fact that gay marriages celebrated in the Philippines are considered void, I
believe, has no bearing on the prosecution of the second case. This is supported by the
Supreme Court, in the case of Jarillo vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 164435,
September 29, 2009), where it was ruled that:

“For the very same reasons elucidated in the above-quoted cases, petitioner’s
conviction of the crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The subsequent judicial declaration
of nullity of petitioner’s two marriages to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in
the crime of bigamy. The moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the
previous one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was already
consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage, petitioner’s
marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent
jurisdiction, was deemed valid and subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of

3
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country
where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those
prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38.
4
Art. 349, RPC 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.
the nullity of petitioner’s marriage to Uy make any difference. As held in Tenebro,
“[s]ince 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. x x x A plain reading of
[Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code], therefore, would indicate that the
provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage
during the subsistence of a valid marriage.” (Emboldened and underscored for
emphasis)”5

I hope that I answered your question. Thank you for your query, Mr. Joe, and I
hope you will still find love, even when you look in all the wrong places.

Yours Truly,

ATTY. REALITY MAE S. TABERNERO

5
G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009