G.R. No. 259520 , November 5, 2024
MARIA LINA P. QUIRIT-FIGARIDO, PETITIONER, VS. EDWIN L. FIGARIDO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case stems from a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Maria Lina P. Quirit-Figarido (Maria Lina) against her spouse, Edwin L. Figarido (Edwin), on the ground that their marriage is bigamous. Maria Lina first married Ho Kar Wai in Hong Kong in 1989, and they remarried in the Philippines in 1994. They later separated in fact. In 2003, despite her subsisting marriage with Ho Kar Wai, Maria Lina entered into a second marriage with Edwin. In 2007, Ho Kar Wai obtained a Divorce Decree against Maria Lina in Hong Kong. In 2009, a Philippine Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Maria Lina’s petition for recognition/enforcement of this foreign judgment, officially recognizing her divorce from Ho Kar Wai. Maria Lina and Edwin separated in 2014. In 2017, Maria Lina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Edwin. The RTC denied the petition, and the Court of Appeals likewise denied her appeal. Maria Lina then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The ponencia (main opinion) denies the petition, citing rules that only the aggrieved or injured spouse may file such petitions, and that Maria Lina is not the injured spouse as she knowingly entered the subsequent bigamous marriage. The ponencia also declares the State has no mandatory obligation to dissolve bigamous marriages.

ISSUE

Whether Maria Lina, who knowingly and willingly entered into a bigamous marriage, should be allowed to file a petition for declaration of its absolute nullity.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Gesmundo agrees with the ponencia’s denial of the petition. The ruling is that persons guilty of knowingly and willingly entering bigamous marriages should be refused standing to file petitions for declaration of nullity of their own bigamous marriages. The opinion holds that Section 2(a) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages should be interpreted to exclude such persons from filing a petition. This position is grounded on the principles that one who seeks equity must come to court with clean hands and the maxim ex dolo malo non oritur actio (no man can be allowed to found a claim upon his own wrongdoing). It is consistent with the ruling in Juliano-Llave v. Republic, which identified the aggrieved spouse as the one in the subsisting previous marriage, not the subsequent spouse who benefited from the bigamous union. Granting relief to Maria Lina would reward her for committing a crime (bigamy), make a mockery of the institution of marriage, and could encourage bigamy. Therefore, for reasons of equity and public policy, Maria Lina’s petition should be denied.