4/29/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouse of a subsisting marriage to question the validity of a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On the contrary, when Section 2(a) states that “[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife”[75]—it refers to the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage. Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages are void from the beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the wife under the law. The husband or the wife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has the personality to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which declares bigamous marriages void from the beginning, is the civil aspect of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code,[76] which penalizes bigamy. Bigamy is a public crime. Thus, anyone can initiate prosecution for bigamy because any citizen has an interest in the prosecution and prevention of crimes. [77] If anyone can file a criminal action which leads to the declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage,[78] there is more reason to confer personality to sue on the husband or the wife of a subsisting marriage. The prior spouse does not only share in the public interest of prosecuting and preventing crimes, he is also personally interested in the purely civil aspect of protecting his marriage. When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated, the spouse is clearly an injured party and is therefore interested in the judgment of the suit.[79] JulianoLlave ruled that the prior spouse “is clearly the aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only threatens the financial and the property ownership aspect of the prior marriage but most of all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse.”[80] Being a real party in interest, the prior spouse is entitled to sue in order to declare a bigamous marriage void. For this purpose, he can petition a court to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the bigamous marriage and judicially declare as a fact that such judgment is effective in the Philippines. Once established, there should be no more impediment to cancel the entry of the bigamous marriage in the civil registry. III. In Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, this Court held that a “trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages” in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.[81] Thus, the “validity of marriage[] x x x can be questioned only in a direct action” to nullify the marriage.[82] The RTC relied on Braza in dismissing the petition for recognition of foreign judgment as a collateral attack on the marriage between Marinay and Maekara. Braza is not applicable because Braza does not involve a recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country. To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55916 9/22