University of the Philippines College of Law | Civil Law Review | Prof.

Rabuya

Topic in Civil Formal requisite (valid marriage license); Art. 34 exception (5 years cohabitation requirement)
Law / Subtopic
Case Name Santiago v. People
Case No. & Date G.R. No. 200233 / July 15, 2015
Ponente Sereno, CJ

Summary (recit- Leonila Santiago married Nicanor Santos with knowledge of his prior subsisting marriage. They also
friendly) misrepresented to the solemnizing officer that they were cohabiting exclusively as husband and
wife for at least five years before marriage, hence Art. 34 exception to a valid marriage license
applied. They were charged of the crime of bigamy. Santiago’s defense was: (1) ignorance of prior
marriage and (2) second marriage was void hence she could not be guilty of bigamy. On #2, she
averred that she and Santos knew each other for only four years, hence Art. 34 could not apply. She
argued that not falling under Art. 34 exception, and without valid marriage license, their marriage
was void ab initio. RTC convicted her; CA affirmed conviction. On petition for review, SC affirmed
conviction of Santiago due to: (1) her knowledge of prior subsisting marriage; and (2) she cannot
put up as defense that her marriage to Santos was void because she participated in the
misrepresentation that she and Santos cohabited for at least five years when they were married.
SC: it will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to
escape criminal conviction.
Doctrine/s 1. Five-year cohabitation period before celebration of marriage under Art. 34 (exception to
obtaining a valid marriage license) is required.
2. If parties misrepresented compliance with this period, and they were married on this basis, the
party misrepresenting is estopped from claiming as defense in a bigamy case void subsequent
marriage.
3. Penalty for a spouse who does not have a subsisting marriage but is guilty of crime of bigamy
must be that of an accomplice, not principal, to a crime.

RELEVANT FACTS

1. Petitioner Leonila Santiago and Nicanor Santos were married on July 29, 1997.
2. They were married without a valid marriage license based on their representation (which was later established
to be false) that they have been previously cohabiting exclusively as husband and wife for at least five years
prior to the celebration of marriage, hence Art. 34 (exception to the necessity of a valid marriage license)
applied. This fact is reflected in their Certificate of Marriage.
3. Four months into marriage, she and Santos were charged with the crime of bigamy for which Santiago pleaded
not guilty, while Santos ‘escaped the criminal suit’.
4. During trial, it was established that Santos was previously married to one Estela Galang in 1974, and that
petitioner Santiago knew of this fact before she married Santos.
5. Santiago’s defenses mainly anchored on: (1) her alleged ignorance of prior marriage of Santos and Galang; and
(2) no valid second marriage due to lack of valid marriage license.
6. She testified during trial that they have been cohabiting less than the required five years, hence Art. 34 could
not apply. She said that they had met only in 1993. Since a formal requisite is absent, the marriage was void ab
initio.
7. The first wife Galang testified as to the knowledge of Santiago of prior marriage of Santos with her (Galang). RTC
gave more credence to Galang’s testimony.
8. RTC convicted Santiago based on her knowledge of prior marriage; a subsequent MR was denied. RTC did not
pass judgment on the issue of validity of Santiago’s marriage to Santos.
9. CA affirmed RTC decision. Also did not pass judgment on the validity of second marriage.
 University of the Philippines College of Law | Civil Law Review | Prof. Rabuya
10. Before the SC, she argued that before conviction of bigamy could be made, there must be a valid second
marriage. Since second marriage was void for lack of a valid marriage license, she could not be held guilty of
bigamy, citing People v. De Lara. She also reiterated her ignorance of prior marriage of Santos and Galang.

Issue Ratio
1. W/N YES.
Santiago
was 1. She has knowledge of the prior subsisting marriage of Santos and Galang, as shown by the
guilty of totality of the following circumstances: when Santos was courting and visiting petitioner in the
Bigamy house of her in-laws, they openly showed their disapproval of him; (2) it was incredible for a
learned person like petitioner to not know of his true civil status; and (3) Galang, who was the
more credible witness compared with petitioner who had various inconsistent testimonies,
straightforwardly testified that she had already told petitioner on two occasions that the former
was the legal wife of Santos.

2. [RELEVANT] She could not now claim that their marriage was void. Even though the evidence
show that they knew each other only for four years and could not have possibly satisfied the
requirement of Art. 34 exception (five-year cohabitation prior to celebration of marriage),
Santiago and Santos misrepresented this fact before the solemnizing officer, saying that they
cohabited for at least five years. She is now estopped from claiming as defense that the
subsequent marriage was void. To use SC’s words:

“Here, [xxx] her affirmative defense in this criminal case of bigamy, is that her marriage with
Santos was void for having been secured without a marriage license. But [xxx], they themselves
perpetrated a false Certificate of Marriage by misrepresenting that they were exempted from the
license requirement based on their fabricated claim that they had already cohabited as husband
and wife for at least five years prior their marriage. In violation of our law against illegal
marriages, petitioner married Santos while knowing fully well that they had not yet complied
with the five-year cohabitation requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code. Consequently, it
will be the height of absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to escape
criminal conviction.”

2. W/N Pp. NO.

v. De Lara
applies Different circumstance: De Lara was in good faith. He did not cause the falsification of public
documents in order to contract a second marriage. In contrast, petitioner and Santos fraudulently
secured a Certificate of Marriage, and petitioner later used this blatantly illicit act as basis for
seeking her exculpation.

Ruling / Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is DENIED. The
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33566 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
As modified, petitioner Leonila G. Santiago is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
bigamy as an accomplice. She is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor
as minimum to four years of prision correccional as maximum plus accessory penalties provided by law. SO
ORDERED.

Summary of Separate Opinion, if any:

No separate opinion.