G.R. No. L-4139
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN SAN LUIS, defendant-appellant.
February 18, 1908

FACTS:
Juan San Luis (the accused) married Justina Aviner Santos in 1891 or 1892. While Justina was still alive, Juan contracted a second marriage with Maria Bundoc in January 1907. He was charged with and convicted of illegal marriage (bigamy), receiving a sentence of nine years and one day of imprisonment with hard labor.

The accused appealed, arguing that his first wife had been absent for more than seven successive years, her whereabouts unknown, and thus, he lawfully contracted the second marriage under Section 3, paragraph 2 of General Orders No. 68. This provision states that a subsequent marriage is valid if the former spouse “was absent and not known to such person to be living for the space of seven successive years immediately preceding such subsequent marriage, or was generally reputed and was believed by such person to be dead.”

Evidence showed that Juan San Luis himself absented from Navotas (where he lived with his first wife) in 1896 or 1897 to avoid arrest for political reasons and did not return. His first wife, Justina, continued to reside in Navotas, searched for him for some time, and was still living in Navotas in January 1907 when Juan contracted his second marriage in Manila. Manila was a very short distance from Navotas. The accused also informed the minister solemnizing his second marriage that he was a bachelor.

ISSUE:
Did the accused’s first wife qualify as “absent and not known to such person to be living for the space of seven successive years” under Section 3, paragraph 2 of General Orders No. 68, thereby rendering his second marriage valid and exculpating him from the charge of illegal marriage?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but modified the penalty by removing the “hard labor” component.

The Court ruled that the accused could not invoke the exception provided in General Orders No. 68. The “absent” consort contemplated by the law is the spouse whose whereabouts and existence are unknown, forming the basis for a presumption of death. In this case, it was the accused who was absent from their marital home and his wife, not the other way around. His wife, Justina, remained in Navotas, where he had left her, and her whereabouts were either known to him or easily ascertainable, as Navotas was a short distance from Manila where he remarried.

The Court found that the essential condition for the legal provision that the former spouse’s existence and whereabouts remained unknown for seven successive years was lacking. The accused did not act in good faith, as it would have been extremely easy for him to obtain news regarding his first wife. He also failed to present any proof that his first wife was generally reputed to be dead and that he believed her to be so. His declaration to the minister solemnizing his second marriage that he was a bachelor further evinced his bad faith.

The Court thus affirmed the judgment of conviction for illegal marriage but corrected the penalty to imprisonment (prision mayor) without hard labor, as the Penal Code did not prescribe hard labor for such imprisonment.