In 1994, Maria Lina Quirit married Ho Kar Wai, a Chinese, in Parañaque. When her marriage with Ho Kar Wai was on the rocks, she was courted by Edwin Figarido. In 2003, without her first marriage being annulled, she married Edwin in Quezon City. In 2007, Ho Kar Wai obtained a divorce decree of his marriage with Maria Lina in Hong Kong. In 2009, Maria Lina was able to have the divorce decree judicially recognized in the Philippines.
In 2017, Maria Lina sought the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Edwin on the ground that it is bigamous. The RTC denied her petition. The CA affirmed the denial.
Maria Lina is now questioning the denial of her petition on the grounds that a) no one will get hurt, b) there is no longer a first marriage to protect, c) equity, and d) denying her petition is seemingly legitimizing bigamy.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maria Lina may be allowed to seek the nullity of her second marriage.
HELD: No. A spouse who knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage cannot later on question such second marriage for being bigamous. Only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either marriage may petition to declare the nullity of the subsequent marriage. Inasmuch as Maria Lina is not the aggrieved or injured spouse in her prior marriage, she lacks the legal capacity to petition the declaration of nullity of her subsequent marriage.
As to Maria Lina’s invocations:
a. Maria Lina’s claim that no one will get hurt is bereft of merit. On the contrary, yielding to her position, and allowing the offending spouse to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of the bigamous marriage, even when the latter intentionally caused such illegitimacy and benefited from its convenience for a considerable length of time, will inevitably bastardize the institution of marriage to the prejudice of the State.
b. Filing a petition to declare a bigamous marriage void is meant to protect the first marriage. However, Maria Lina failed to realize that in the absence of such legal union as an object of protection, there exists no compelling reason for the State to dissolve her illegitimate marriage with Edwin.
c. Equity is not applicable to Maria Lina’s case. The rule is he or she who comes to court must come with clean hands.
d. Denying Maria Lina’s petition is not tantamount to legalizing bigamous marriages, considering that erring and offending parties may still be held civilly and criminally liable for bigamy. In addition, it should be restated that other legal incidents related to the nullity of the marriage, such as the determination of heirship; legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child; settlement of estate; and dissolution of property regime, among others, may still proceed independently and in the absence of a declaration as to the invalidity of the bigamous union.
May Edwin, instead, file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on bigamy?
No. He is likewise considered not an aggrieved party because he was aware of Maria Lina’s marriage with Ho Kar Wai when he married her.
