Morigo vs. People RENE RONULO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

GR No. 145226, February 6, 2004

BRION, J.:

FACTS:

Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on 29 March 2003 at
the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on the day of the
Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol. They lost contacts wedding, the church's officiating priest refused to solemnize the marriage
for a while but after receiving a card from Barrete and various exchanges of because of lack of a marriage license.
letters, they became sweethearts. They got married in 1990. Barrete went
back to Canada for work and in 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario
With the couple and the guests already dressed for the wedding, they headed to
Canada, which was granted. In 1992, Morigo married Lumbago. He
an Aglipayan Church. The Aglipayan priest, herein petitioner Ronulo, conducted a
subsequently filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity on the ground ceremony on the same day where the couple took each other as husband and
that there was no marriage ceremony. Morigo was then charged with bigamy wife in front of the guests. This was despite Petitioner's knowledge of the
and moved for a suspension of arraignment since the civil case pending posed a couple's lack of marriage license.
prejudicial question in the bigamy case. Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that
his marriage with Barrete was void ab initio. Petitioner contented he contracted Petitioner was eventually charged of violating Article 352 of the RPC for
second marriage in good faith. performing an illegal marriage ceremony.

ISSUE: Whether Morigo must have filed declaration for the nullity of his marriage The MTC did not believe Petitioner's defense that what he did was an act of
with Barrete before his second marriage in order to be free from the bigamy blessing and was not tantamount to solemnization of marriage and was found
guilty.
case.

The decision was affirmed by both the RTC and the CA.
HELD: Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there was
no actual marriage ceremony performed between them by a solemnizing officer
instead they just merely signed a marriage contract. The petitioner does not ISSUE: W/N Petitioner committed an illegal marriage.
need to file declaration of the nullity of his marriage when he contracted his
second marriage with Lumbago. Hence, he did not commit bigamy and is
RULING: Yes.
acquitted in the case filed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with Leticia Ancajas in 1990. The two lived
perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime together continuously and without interruption until the later part of 1991, when
are: authority of the solemnizing officer; and his performance of an illegal Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to a certain Hilda
marriage ceremony. The first element is present since Petitioner himself Villareyes in 1986. Petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he
admitted that he has authority to solemnize a marriage. shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes. In 1993,
petitioner contracted yet another marriage with a certain Nilda Villegas. Ancajas
thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner. Villegas countered that
The second element is present since the alleged "blessing" by Petitioner is his marriage with Villareyes cannot be proven as a fact there being no record of
tantamount to the performance of an illegal marriage ceremony. such. He further argued that his second marriage, with Ancajas, has been
declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity. Hence he cannot be
charged for bigamy.
There is no prescribed form or rite for the solemnization of a marriage. However,
Article 6 of the Family Code provides that it shall be necessary: for the
contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer; and ISSUE: Whether or not Tenebro is guilty of bigamy.
declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take
each other as husband and wife. The first requirement is present since petitioner
admitted to it. The second requirement is likewise present since the prosecution, HELD: The prosecution was able to establish the validity of the first marriage. As a
through the testimony of its witnesses, proved that the contracting parties second or subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of petitioner’s
personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife. valid marriage to Villareyes, petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas would be null and
void ab initio completely regardless of petitioner’s psychological capacity or
incapacity. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage
The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is in accordance with the is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an
provision of the Marriage Law, specifically Article 44, which states that: argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. Pertinently, Article
349 of the Revised Penal Code criminalizes “any person who shall contract a
Section 44. General Penal Clause – Any violation of any provision of this Act not second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally
specifically penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by
authorities, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings”. A plain reading of the
imprisonment for not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the law, therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of
court. contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid
As such, Petitioner was held guilty of violating Article 352 and was fined P200 as marriage.
penalty. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Delgado Vda rosa vs Heirs of Damian
Tenebro vs CA

In this case, several circumstances give rise to the presumption that a valid
marriage existed between Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado. Their
cohabitation of more than 50 years cannot be doubted. Their family and friends
knew them to be married. Their reputed status as husband and wife was such Third, the baptismal certificate45 was conclusive proof only of the baptism
that even the original petition for letters of administration filed by Luisa Delgado administered by the priest who baptized the child. It was no proof of the veracity
vda. de Danao in 1975 referred to them as "spouses." of the declarations and statements contained therein,46 such as the alleged
single or unmarried ("Señorita") civil status of Josefa Delgado who had no hand in
its preparation.
Yet, petitioners maintain that Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia had simply
lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. They make
much of the absence of a record of the contested marriage, the testimony of a Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of marriage of Guillermo Rustia and
witness38 attesting that they were not married, and a baptismal certificate which Josefa Delgado. In this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law leans toward
referred to Josefa Delgado as "Señorita" or unmarried woman.39 legitimizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together apparently in marriage are
presumed to be in fact married. This is the usual order of things in society and, if
the parties are not what they hold themselves out to be, they would be living in
We are not persuaded. constant violation of the common rules of law and propriety. Semper
praesumitur pro matrimonio. Always presume marriage.47

First, although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage,

its absence is not always proof that no marriage in fact took place.40 Once the
presumption of marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in support
thereof. The evidence need not necessarily or directly establish the marriage but
must at least be enough to strengthen the presumption of marriage. Here, the
certificate of identity issued to Josefa Delgado as Mrs. Guillermo Rustia,41 the
passport issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia,42 the declaration under oath of no less
than Guillermo Rustia that he was married to Josefa Delgado43 and the titles to
the properties in the name of "Guillermo Rustia married to Josefa Delgado,"
more than adequately support the presumption of marriage. These are public
documents which are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.44 No clear
and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of
the recitals therein was presented by petitioners.

Second, Elisa vda. de Anson, petitioners’ own witness whose testimony they
primarily relied upon to support their position, confirmed that Guillermo Rustia
had proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado and that eventually, the two had "lived
together as husband and wife." This again could not but strengthen the
presumption of marriage.