Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Ignorance of law excuses no one)

Can we be excused from our ignorance of the law?

Article 3 of the Civil Code of the Philippines explicitly provides that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, where the Respondent did not obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage before contracting his second marriage. Thus, when an information for bigamy was filed against him, he initiated a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage. Consequently, the proceeding for bigamy was suspended due to pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage being a prejudicial question to the criminal case.

Hence, can the Respondent be excused from not knowing the requirement of the law before contracting another marriage?

The Supreme Court held that ignorance of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot be successfully invoked. Considering that the legality of a marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to know the law. Since, the Respondent did not obtain the required judicial before he entered into his second marriage, why should he be allowed to belatedly obtain the same in order to delay his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by his own disobedience of the law?

It must be noted that a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of nullity before any party can remarry, otherwise the second marriage will also be void because the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting without a judicial declaration of its nullity.

CASE: Bobis v. Bobis; G.R. No. 138509; 31 July 2000; Ynares-Santiago, J.

However, is this rule absolute?

The application of Article 3 of the Civil Code is limited to mandatory and prohibitory laws only. It may be deduced from the language of the said provision that notwithstanding a person’s ignorance, it does not excuse his compliance with the laws.

In the case of Consunji v. Court of Appeals, the private respondent filed a claim for damages against the petitioner after receiving the Police Report pertaining to the death of her husband. But the petitioner argued that she can no longer file an action for damages considering that she availed already the benefits from the State Fund Insurance. Moreover, petitioner averred that she cannot claim ignorance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Floresca case when in allowed a choice of remedies to the heirs of deceased miners.

Consequently, the Supreme Court held that rule in Floresca which allowed the private respondent a choice of remedies is neither mandatory nor prohibitory. Hence, herein private respondent’s ignorance of the said ruling cannot be held against her.

CASE: Consunji v. Court of Appeals; G.R. No. G.R. No. 137873; 20 April 2001; Kapunan, J.