NOLLORA VS REPUBLIC

Posted by kaye lee on 7:00 PM

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.