Montanez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012

FACTS: On April 8, 1976, respondent married Socrates Flores. On January 24, 1983, during the subsistence of the said marriage, respondent married Silverio V. Cipriano. In 2001, respondent filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa a Petition for the Annulment of her marriage with Socrates on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity as defined under Article 36 of the Family Code. On July 18, 2003, the RTC of Muntinlupa, declared the marriage of respondent with Socrates null and void. Said decision became final and executory on October 13, 2003. On May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Cipriano Montañez, Silverio’s daughter from the first marriage, filed with the MTC of San Pedro, Laguna, a Complaint for Bigamy against respondent. Lourdes Cipriano alleged that her first marriage was already declared void ab initio in 2003. Thus, there was no more marriage to speak of prior to her marriage to Silverio on January 24, 1983. The prosecution argued that the crime of bigamy had already been consummated when respondent filed her petition for declaration of nullity. RTC ruled in favor of respondent on the ground that both wedding were governed by the Civil Code, and not the Family Code, hence, no judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage.

ISSUE: Whether the declaration of nullity of respondent's first marriage in 2003 justifies the dismissal of the Information for bigamy filed against her.

HELD: NO. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws. In the case at bar, the respondent’s clear intent was to obtain judicial declaration of nullity to escape from the bigamy charges against her.