GR259520 Maria Lina Quirit-Figarido vs Edwin Figarido

FACTS:

In 1994, Maria Lina Quirit married Ho Kar Wai, a Chinese, in Parañaque. When her
marriage with Ho Kar Wai was on the rocks, she was courted by Edwin Figarido. In 2003,
without her first marriage being annulled, she married Edwin in Quezon City. In 2007, Ho Kar
Wai obtained a divorce decree of his marriage with Maria Lina in Hong Kong. In 2009, Maria
Lina was able to have the divorce decree judicially recognized in the Philippines.

In 2017, Maria Lina sought the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Edwin on the
ground that it is bigamous. The RTC denied her petition. The CA affirmed the denial.

Maria Lina is now questioning the denial of her petition on the grounds that a) no one
will get hurt, b) there is no longer a first marriage to protect, c) equity, and d) denying her
petition is seemingly legitimizing bigamy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Maria Lina may be allowed to seek the nullity of her second marriage.

RULING:

No. A spouse who knowingly entered into a bigamous marriage cannot later on question
such second marriage for being bigamous. Only the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of
either marriage may petition to declare the nullity of the subsequent marriage. Inasmuch as
Maria Lina is not the aggrieved or injured spouse in her prior marriage, she lacks the legal
capacity to petition the declaration of nullity of her subsequent marriage.

As to Maria Lina’s invocations:

a. Maria Lina’s claim that no one will get hurt is bereft of merit. On the contrary, yielding to her
position, and allowing the offending spouse to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of the
bigamous marriage, even when the latter intentionally caused such illegitimacy and benefited
from its convenience for a considerable length of time, will inevitably bastardize the institution
of marriage to the prejudice of the State.

b. Filing a petition to declare a bigamous marriage void is meant to protect the first marriage.
However, Maria Lina failed to realize that in the absence of such legal union as an object of
protection, there exists no compelling reason for the State to dissolve her illegitimate marriage
with Edwin.

c. Equity is not applicable to Maria Lina’s case. The rule is he or she who comes to court must
come with clean hands.
d. Denying Maria Lina’s petition is not tantamount to legalizing bigamous marriages,
considering that erring and offending parties may still be held civilly and criminally liable for
bigamy. In addition, it should be restated that other legal incidents related to the nullity of the
marriage, such as the determination of heirship; legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child; settlement
of estate; and dissolution of property regime, among others, may still proceed independently and
in the absence of a declaration as to the invalidity of the bigamous union.

May Edwin, instead, file the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on bigamy?

No. He is likewise considered not an aggrieved party because he was aware of Maria Lina’s
marriage with Ho Kar Wai when he married her.

GR250627 Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto v. Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts

FACTS:
The case originates from an altercation between Sandra Jane Gagui Jacinto (petitioner)
and her former live-in partner, Maria Eloisa Sarmiento Fouts (respondent), which led to the
prosecution of the petitioner under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
(Republic Act No. 9262). The couple was in a same-sex relationship for 16 years, but tensions
arose after they broke up during the 2017 Christmas season in Hong Kong. The petitioner would
occasionally visit their shared home to retrieve her belongings. Subsequently, disagreements
over financial matters and property possession emerged, which allegedly escalated to the
petitioner attacking the respondent, leading to physical injuries that required medical attention.
The petitioner moved to quash the Information on the ground that RA 9262 does not
apply to lesbian relationships, considering her position that the law was designed to protect
victims of heterosexual relationships from violence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Antipolo
City denied this motion, prompting the petitioner to take her case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the RTC erred in denying the
motion to quash filed by the petitioner on the ground that RA 9262 applies to lesbian
relationships.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition, stating the remedy taken by the petitioner was improper
since a denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and not appealable. Additionally, it
lacked merit because the issue of whether RA 9262 applied to lesbian relationships was already
resolved affirmatively in the case of Garcia v. Drilon.
G.R. No. 168852. September 30, 2008 (Case Brief / Digest) 2024 - batas.org | 1
Title: Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan vs. Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan
Doctrine:
The principle of conspiracy as stipulated in the Revised Penal Code can be applied
suppletorily to cases under the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004” (R.A. No. 9262), even if the alleged perpetrator is not the partner but a close relative
such as the parents-in-law.
FACTS:
Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, herein petitioner, married Steven L. Tan on April 18, 1999,
from
which union, two children were born.
On January 12, 2005, due to alleged verbal, psychological, and economic abuses by Steven
and his parents (respondents), Sharica filed a petition for the issuance of a Temporary
Protective Order (TPO) under the “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004” (R.A. No. 9262).
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, initially granted a TPO on
January 25, 2005.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 7, 2005, arguing that R.A. No. 9262
does not apply to them as they are not the woman’s husband.
Sharica opposed this motion, arguing for a liberal interpretation of R.A. No. 9262.
On March 7, 2005, the RTC dismissed the petition against the respondents, interpreting
R.A. No. 9262 narrowly to exclude parents-in-law.
A Verified Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC on July 11, 2005.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents-spouses, as parents-in-law, may be included in the
petitionfor the issuance of a protective order, under R.A. No. 9262.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing and setting aside the RTC’s
resolutions.
The Court highlighted that Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly allows for the
supplemental application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), including the principle of
conspiracy.
Considering this, and given the law’s intent for liberal construction to protect victims, the
Court found that parents-in-law could be involved in perpetrating violence and thus could be
covered under R.A. No. 9262 via the principle of conspiracy.