NOLLORA VS REPUBLIC

G.R. No. 191425 September 7, 2011 [Article 349 Revised Penal Code Bigamy; Article 35 - Marriage void ab initio]
FACTS:
While Jesusa Pinat Nollora was still in Saudi Arabia, she heard rumors
that her husband of two years has another wife. She returned to the
Philippines and learned that indeed, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., contracted
second marriage with a certain Rowena Geraldino on December 8,
2001.
Jesusa filed an instant case against Atilano and Rowena for bigamy.
When asked about the moral damages she suffered, she declared that
money is not enough to assuage her sufferings. Instead, she just asked
for return of her money in the amount of P 50,000.
Atilano admitted having contracted 2 marriages, however, he claimed
that he was a Muslim convert way back to 1992. He presented
Certificate of Conversion and Pledge of Conversion, proving that he
allegedly converted as a Muslim in January 1992. And as a Muslim
convert, he is allegedly entitled to marry wives as allowed under the
Islam belief.
Accused Rowena alleged that she was a victim of bigamous marriage.
She claimed that she does not know Jesusa and only came to know her
when the case was filed. She insisted that she is the one lawfully
married to Nollora because she believed him to be single and a
Catholic, as he told her so prior to their marriage. After she learned of
the first marriage of her husband, she learned that he is a Muslim
convert. After learning that Nollora was a Muslim convert, she and he
also got married in accordance with the Muslim rites.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the second marriage is bigamous.

RULING:
Yes, the marriage between the Nollora and Geraldino is bigamous
under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and as such, the second
marriage is considered null and void ab initio under Article 35 of the
Family Code.

The elements of the crime of bigamy are all present in the case: that 1)
Atilano is legally married to Jesusa; 2) that their marriage has not been
legally dissolved prior to the date of the second marriage; 3)that
Atilano admitted the existence of his second marriage to Rowena; and
4) the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity
except for the lack of capacity of Atilano due to his prior marriage.

Before the trial and appellate courts, Atilano put up his Muslim religion
as his sole defense. Granting arguendo that he is indeed of Muslim
faith at the time of celebration of both marriages, he cannot deny that
both marriage ceremonies were not conducted in accordance with
Articles 14, 15, 17 up to 20 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws .
In Article 13 (2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws states that any
marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim solemnized not in
accordance with the Muslim law, hence the Family Code of the
Philippines shall apply. Nollora's religious affiliation or his claim that his
marriages were solemnized according to Muslim law. Thus, regardless
of his professed religion, he cannot claim exemption from liability for
the crime of bigamy.
His second marriage did not comply with the Article 27 of the Muslim
Personal Laws of the Philippines providing: "[N]o Muslim male can have
more than one wife unless he can deal with them in equal
companionship and just treatment as enjoined by Islamic Law and only
in exceptional cases." Only with the permission of the Shari'a Circuit
Court can a Muslim be permitted to have a second, third or fourth wife.
The clerk of court shall serve a copy to the wife or wives, and should
any of them objects, an Agama Arbitration Council shall be constituted.
If the said council fails to secure the wife's consent to the proposed
marriage, the Court shall subject to Article 27, decide whether on not
to sustain her objection (Art. 162, Muslim Personal Laws)
Atilano asserted in his marriage certificate with Rowena that his civil
status is "single." Both of his marriage contracts do not state that he is
a Muslim. Although the truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's
religion in the marriage is not an essential requirement for marriage,
his omissions are sufficient proofs of his liability for bigamy. His false
declaration about his civil status is thus further compounded by these
omissions.
It is not for him to interpret the Shari'a law, and in apparent attempt to
escape criminal liability, he recelebrated their marriage in accordance

with the Muslim rites. However, this can no longer cure the criminal
liability that has already been violated.