ISSUES:

1) Whether or not the first marriage between Lucia and Lucio is valid.
The marriage is void ab initio since there is no marriage ceremony by a solemnizing
officer that actually took place. Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code provide:

Article 3. 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. (53a, 55a)

Article 4. 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.

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.

Absence of marriage ceremony which is a formal requisite for a valid marriage

makes it void ab initio. So there is no marriage that actually transpired. Under the
principle of retroactivity of marriage declared void ab initio, the couple were never
married from the beginning. Under the eyes of the law there is no actual marriage
between Lucio and Lucia. The contract is deemed null and bears no legal effect.

2) Whether or not Lucia was capacitated to remarry by virtue of the divorce decree obtained in
Canada.

No. The divorce decree obtained by Lucia from the Canadian Court is not valid or cannot
be recognized in the Philippines pursuant to Article 15 of the Civil Code which states that,
“Laws relating to family rights and duties or the status, conditions, and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad” and also
given the fact that the divorce is contrary to public policy in our jurisdiction. Furthermore,
according to Article 17 of the Civil Code a declaration of public policy cannot be rendered
 ineffectual by a judgment promulgated in a foreign jurisdiction. Thus, in the case wherein
the Filipina wife, Lucia obtained a divorce decree abroad will remain in the eyes of
Philippine law as not having been divorced.

3) Whether or not Lucio can be charged with bigamy as result of his second marriage
 Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Family Code states that :
“The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void
ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2)”
 Thus, the absence of a marriage ceremony and consent freely given in the presence of a
solemnizing officer which are formal and essential requisites respectively shall render
the marriage void ab initio. Hence, when a marriage is void from the beginning, there is
no marriage to speak of in reference to the crime of bigamy. Thus, Lucio cannot be
charged with such crime.

The Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime bigamy as:

“The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second
marriage 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.”

Furthermore, it has been enunciated that the requisites of bigamy are the following:

1. The offender has been legally married.

2. The first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case of his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead
3. He contracts a second or a subsequent marriage.
4. The subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the
first.

4) Whether or not the declaration of the nullity of the first marriage posed a prejudicial question in
the latter case of bigamy

The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally
married. But in this case