BIGAMY

1) M married F here in the Philippines. Both are Filipino citizens. M went abroad and contracted a second marriage in a foreign country. Is there a valid marriage with regards to the subsequent marriage contracted by M in the foreign country? Is M liable of bigamy?

Yes, the subsequent marriage contracted by M in foreign country is void. Though the marriage was solemnized in a foreign country still M is bound by Philippine law as this is provided in Art. 15 of New Civil Code of the Philippines (NCC) which states that "laws relating to the family rights and duties, or status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad". It is true that Philippines recognize the principle of Lex Loci Celebrationis as manifested in Art. 17 of the NCC but it is subject to certain exceptions as may be provided by laws. Article 26 of the Family Code provides that "all marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Art. 35 (1), (4), (5), and (6) and 36, 37, and 38." Art. 35 (4) provides "those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Art. 41".

In the instant case, M is bound by laws of his nationality with regards to his family rights and duties, or status, condition and legal capacity thus his subsequent marriage though may be valid in the the foreign country, it is void here in the Philippines on the ground of bigamous marriage since the subsequent marriage was contacted before the former marriage has been legally dissolved. It is evident in the case that M is legally married to F when he contracted the subsequent marriage.

Yes, M is liable for bigamy. Bigamy is committed according to Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. In the case at bar, M contacted a second marriage in the foreign country before his marriage to F has been dissolved thus he is guilty of bigamy.

2) M married F here in the Philippines. Both are Filipino citizens. M and F went abroad and obtain a divorce therein. Thereafter, M married C a citizen of such foreign country. Is there a valid divorce? Is there a bigamy?

No, the divorce obtained by M and F in the foreign country is void. A foreign divorce sought by Filipino citizens is not entitled to recognition as valid in the Philippines and neither is the marriage contracted with another party subsequent to the foreign decree of divorce entitled to validity ( Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 355) except a divorce sought under Art. 26 (2) 0f the Family Code. Since the law of the nationality of the concerned party shall govern his family rights and duties, or status, condition and legal capacity as provide by Art. 15 of NCC, the divorce obtained by M and F in a foreign country is void because the Philippines does not recognized absolute divorce.

Yes, there is a bigamy. Bigamy is committed according to Art. 349 of the RPC when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. All the elements of bigamy are found in the instant case such as (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) that he contracts a subsequent marriage; (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first. [People v. Dumpo, 62 Phil. 246 (1935)]. In the instant case, M is validly married to F, their marriage was not legally dissolved because of void divorce, he contracted another marriage and that subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first marriage, thus M is liable for bigamy.