91.

NOLLORA VS REPUBLIC

FACTS:

While Jesusa Pinat Nollora was still in Saudi Arabia, she heard rumors that her husband of two years has another wife.
She returned to the Philippines and learned that indeed, Atilano O. Nollora, Jr., contracted second marriage with a certain
Rowena Geraldino on December 8, 2001.

Jesusa filed an instant case against Atilano and Rowena for bigamy. When asked about the moral damages she
suffered, she declared that money is not enough to assuage her sufferings. Instead, she just asked for return of her
money in the amount of P 50,000.

Atilano admitted having contracted 2 marriages, however, he claimed that he was a Muslim convert way back to 1992. He
presented Certificate of Conversion and Pledge of Conversion, proving that he allegedly converted as a Muslim in
January 1992. And as a Muslim convert, he is allegedly entitled to marry wives as allowed under the Islam belief.

Accused Rowena alleged that she was a victim of bigamous marriage. She claimed that she does not know Jesusa and
only came to know her when the case was filed. She insisted that she is the one lawfully married to Nollora because she
believed him to be single and a Catholic, as he told her so prior to their marriage. After she learned of the first marriage of
her husband, she learned that he is a Muslim convert. After learning that Nollora was a Muslim convert, she and he also
got married in accordance with the Muslim rites.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the second marriage is bigamous.

RULING:

Yes, the marriage between the Nollora and Geraldino is bigamous under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, and as
such, the second marriage is considered null and void ab initio under Article 35 of the Family Code.

The elements of the crime of bigamy are all present in the case: that 1) Atilano is legally married to Jesusa; 2) that their
marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to the date of the second marriage; 3)that Atilano admitted the existence of
his second marriage to Rowena; and 4) the second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity except for the lack
of capacity of Atilano due to his prior marriage.

Before the trial and appellate courts, Atilano put up his Muslim religion as his sole defense. Granting arguendo that he is
indeed of Muslim faith at the time of celebration of both marriages, he cannot deny that both marriage ceremonies were
not conducted in accordance with Articles 14, 15, 17 up to 20 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws .

In Article 13 (2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws states that any marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim
solemnized not in accordance with the Muslim law, hence the Family Code of the Philippines shall apply. Nollora's
religious affiliation or his claim that his marriages were solemnized according to Muslim law. Thus, regardless of his
professed religion, he cannot claim exemption from liability for the crime of bigamy.

His second marriage did not comply with the Article 27 of the Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines providing: "[N]o
Muslim male can have more than one wife unless he can deal with them in equal companionship and just treatment as
enjoined by Islamic Law and only in exceptional cases." Only with the permission of the Shari'a Circuit Court can a Muslim
be permitted to have a second, third or fourth wife. The clerk of court shall serve a copy to the wife or wives, and should
any of them objects, an Agama Arbitration Council shall be constituted. If the said council fails to secure the wife's consent
to the proposed marriage, the Court shall subject to Article 27, decide whether on not to sustain her objection (Art. 162,
Muslim Personal Laws)

Atilano asserted in his marriage certificate with Rowena that his civil status is "single." Both of his marriage contracts do
not state that he is a Muslim. Although the truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage is not an
essential requirement for marriage, his omissions are sufficient proofs of his liability for bigamy. His false declaration
about his civil status is thus further compounded by these omissions.

It is not for him to interpret the Shari'a law, and in apparent attempt to escape criminal liability, he recelebrated their
marriage in accordance with the Muslim rites. However, this can no longer cure the criminal liability that has already been
violated.
Categories

Nollora v. People, G.R.No. 191425, September 7, 2011

FACTS: Atilano Nollora Jr was married to Jesus Nollora. Their marriage was still subsisting when he contracted a 2nd
marriage with Rowena Geraldino, who is herself aware of his marriage with Jesusa but still agreed and contracted marriage
with him.

ISSUE: W/N the 2nd marriage is bigamous and null and void ab initio.

HELD: Yes. Under Art 349 of the RPC, the marriage is bigamous and pursuant to Art 35 of the Family Code, it is void ab
initio. Nolloras religious affiliation is inapplicable here. Neither of his marriages were solemnized under the Muslim Law.
The SC ruled that his two marriages were not conducted according to the Code of Muslim. Hence, his religious affiliation
may not be used as a defense.