This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-12-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| After a hearing on the motion,[14] the court quashed the Information.[15] Applying Morigo v. People,[16] it ruled: Hence, contrary to what was stated in the Information, accused Beronilla was actually never legally married to Myrna Antone. On this score alone, the first element appears to be missing. Furthermore, the statement in the definition of Bigamy which reads "before the first marriage has been legally dissolved" clearly contemplates that the first marriage must at least be annullable or voidable but definitely not void, as in this case. xxx [I]n a similar case, [the Supreme Court] had the occasion to state: | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In a catena of cases,[43] the Court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral. Article 40 of the Family Code expressly requires a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage, thus: Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. | |||||