Philippines High Court denies former HK resident’s attempt to cancel big marriage

EC’s majority results that only an innocent life companion seeks to cancel the big marriage

The Philippines Supreme Court, which voted from 11 to 4, has ruled my bank, knowingly, a wife who entered a big marriage cannot be asked to cancel it.

Nov. Edwin announced his marriage to Figerrito.

Maria Lena first married Ho Kar Wayi from China, who lives in Hong Kong, and a baby with her. While working as a bank veteran here, he met Edwin and had a affair. He then returned to the Philippines and married Edwin. They had two children together.

A few years later, Ho was divorced in Hong Kong, recognizing it by a paragraph court.

Maria Lena married Edwin for 14 years, but later decided to file a petition to cancel their marriage with the intention of remarriage. He argued before the regional trial court, and his marriage with Edwin was void from the beginning.

The RDC denied his petition, which was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. This prompted Maria Lina to the Supreme Court.

At the end of the majority, SC ruled that the offended life companion, not the guilty, could ask the court to cancel a big marriage. In this case, the first husband of the petitioner kept the right, but she lost it after divorce. This right has not been transferred to the petitioner who is considered the culprit.

But the refusal of Maria Lina’s plea is not legal to legalize big marriages, as parties in such marriage may face more and more criminal charges.

SC did not qualify for Maria Lena’s claim that it would not hurt anyone if the court submits her petition.

At the end of a written majority Joint Justice Ricardo Rosario said that SC allows The party that benefited from its comfort in intentionally entered into a large wedding
“He will inevitably paste the wedding company to the state’s prejudice.”

Four judges, ie senior co-judge Marvik Lionen, co-judges Amy Lazaro-Javier, Road Salameda, and Ramon Paul Hernando.

“To be clearly clear, even the unwavering wives who deceive their husbands have the right to the full extent of the law, and are morally objectionable as their betrayal,” Lazaro-Javier said in his disagreement.

The Jalameda Court “The only way to correct its fierce mistake is that the petition should have been issued because it is openly concluded for a vacuum marriage. ”