see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/july2013/201061.pdf
"x x x.
We see no inconsistency in finding the marriage between Benjamin and Sally null and void ab initio and, at the same time, non-existent. Under Article 35 of the Family Code, a marriage solemnized without a license,
except those covered by Article 34 where no license is necessary, “shall be
void from the beginning.” In this case, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was solemnized without a license. It was duly established that no marriage license was issued to them and that Marriage License No. N-07568 did not match the marriage license numbers issued by the local civil registrar of Pasig City for the month of February 1982. The case clearly falls under Section 3 of Article 3520 which made their marriage void ab initio. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was also non-existent. Applying the general rules on void or inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious are “inexistent and void from the beginning.”21 Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the trial court’s ruling that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was null and void ab initio and non-existent.
Except for the modification in the distribution of properties, the Court of Appeals affirmed in all aspects the trial court’s decision and ruled that “[t]he rest of the decision stands.”22 While the Court of Appeals did not
discuss bigamous marriages, it can be gleaned from the dispositive portion of the decision declaring that “[t]he rest of the decision stands” that the
Court of Appeals adopted the trial court’s discussion that the marriage
between Benjamin and Sally is not bigamous. The trial court stated:
On whether or not the parties’ marriage is bigamous under the concept of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the marriage is not bigamous. It is required that the first or former marriage shall not be null and void. The marriage of the petitioner to Azucena shall be assumed as the one that is valid, there being no evidence to the contrary and there is no trace of invalidity or irregularity on the face of their marriage contract.
However, if the second marriage was void not because of the existence of
the first marriage but for other causes such as lack of license, the crime of
bigamy was not committed. In People v. De Lara [CA, 51 O.G., 4079], it was held that what was committed was contracting marriage against the provisions of laws not under Article 349 but Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code. Concluding, the marriage of the parties is therefore not
bigamous because there was no marriage license. The daring and repeated
stand of respondent that she is legally married to petitioner cannot, in any
instance, be sustained. Assuming that her marriage to petitioner has the
marriage license, yet the same would be bigamous, civilly or criminally as
it would be invalidated by a prior existing valid marriage of petitioner and
Azucena.23
For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent marriage must have all
the essential requisites for validity except for the existence of a prior
marriage.24 In this case, there was really no subsequent marriage. Benjamin and Sally just signed a purported marriage contract without a marriage license. The supposed marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office. In short, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally did not exist. They lived together and represented themselves as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage."
