Inside the 1990, Lucia returned to the Philippines and you can recommended to petition appellant to become listed on the lady into the Canada

MORIGO Versus. People

FACTS: One another accessible to get married, thus they were married on August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacionalat Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.

On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed into the Ontario Court (Standard Department) a beneficial petition for divorce proceedings against appellant which had been supplied because of the courtroom on January 17, 1992 and to take effect on February 17, 1992.

On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo partnered Maria Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

Taking it argument so you can its logical achievement, to possess judge intentions, petitioner wasn’t married so you can Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with Maria Jececha

On September 21, 1993, implicated filed a grievance to own official report from nullity off wedding throughout the Regional Demo Judge from Bohol, docketed given that Municipal Instance No. 6020. This new problem seek (sic) yet others, brand new report off nullity out of accused’s relationship having Lucia, on to the ground you to no wedding party in fact taken place.

ISSUE: Acquired Morigo need recorded statement towards nullity off their wedding that have Barrete ahead of his 2nd y situation.

RATIO: Under the concept from retroactivity out-of a married relationship getting declared emptiness abdominal initio, the two were never ever partnered from the beginning. The fresh price of wedding try null; it holds zero judge impression. The brand new life and the authenticity of your own first matrimony getting a keen extremely important section of the newest crime out of bigamy, it is but logical you to definitely a belief getting said offense you should never end up being sustained in which there’s no very first relationship to speak regarding. The brand new petitioner, have to, perforce end up being acquitted of your own immediate charges.

The present case is analogous to, but must be distinguished from Mercado v. Tan . . In the latter case, the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage was likewise obtained after the second marriage was already celebrated. We held therein that:

An official report away from nullity out of a past relationship is necessary just before a subsequent you can become legitimately developed. Person who switches into a subsequent wedding instead basic getting instance judicial y. This concept can be applied even when the prior to partnership try characterized by legislation while the void.

It contains worrying even though that in the Negocio, the initial relationships got solemnized not simply immediately after, but twice: first just before a court where a wedding certification is actually properly provided right after which once more six months afterwards in advance of an effective priest in the spiritual rites. Fundamentally, at least, the first marriage did actually keeps took place, even in the event later on stated gap abdominal initio.

On instantaneous instance, yet not, zero wedding party at all try performed from the a duly subscribed solemnizing manager. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete simply closed a wedding offer to their individual. New mere individual operate off finalizing a married relationship package bears zero semblance to help you a valid wedding meaning that, means zero judicial report out-of nullity. For example work by yourself, instead of a lot more, cannot be deemed in order to make up an ostensibly legitimate relationship in which petitioner might be kept liable for bigamy unless the guy very first protects an official statement of nullity before the guy contracts a subsequent marriage.

The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that https://datingranking.net/local-hookup/tulsa justice is done. Underneath the things of your introduce case, i stored you to petitioner hasn’t enough time bigamy. Further, we also find that we need not tarry on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent, which is now moot and academic.