Is Premature Marriage Still a Crime in the Philippines?
Introduction
Philippine law formerly imposed criminal liability on a widow or a woman whose marriage had been annulled or dissolved if she remarried before the expiration of a prescribed waiting period. The rule was intended to avoid uncertainty concerning the paternity of a child conceived during the prior marriage.
That offense, however, is no longer part of Philippine criminal law. Article 351 of the Revised Penal Code was expressly repealed by Republic Act No. 10655. Accordingly, a widow or a woman whose marriage has been annulled or dissolved does not incur criminal liability under Article 351 merely because she remarries before 301 days have elapsed.
What Did Article 351 Previously Punish?
Before its repeal, Article 351 of the Revised Penal Code punished a widow who married within 301 days from the death of her husband, or who remarried before delivery if she was pregnant at the time of his death.
The same penalty applied to a woman whose marriage had been annulled or dissolved if she remarried before delivery or before the expiration of 301 days after legal separation. The former provision imposed arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding ₱500.
The former text of Article 351 appeared under Title Twelve, Chapter Two of the Revised Penal Code, dealing with crimes against the civil status of persons. It was distinct from bigamy and from the offense involving a marriage contracted despite knowledge that legal requirements had not been complied with or that a legal impediment existed.
Was Article 351 Repealed?
Yes. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 10655 expressly repealed Article 351 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. The repeal was made without prejudice to the provisions of the Family Code concerning paternity and filiation. ([Republic Act No. 10655 (2015)](#L1.0))
The effect is that the former offense of “premature marriage” is no longer punishable. A person cannot be prosecuted under Article 351 for marrying before the former 301-day period, provided that the conduct does not constitute another offense under an existing law.
Does the Former 301-Day Waiting Period Still Apply?
No, not as a criminal prohibition under Article 351. The former waiting period cannot be used as the basis for arrest, prosecution, or conviction under that repealed provision.
The repeal does not mean that questions involving pregnancy, paternity, filiation, legitimacy, or the civil effects of marriage are irrelevant. It means only that those concerns are no longer addressed by imposing criminal punishment on a woman who remarries within the former statutory period.
Does the Rule Apply to Widowers?
Article 351 did not punish widowers. Its text applied to widows and to women whose marriages had been annulled or dissolved. The provision was therefore gender-specific.
Because Article 351 has been repealed, neither widows nor widowers may presently be prosecuted under that article for remarrying before 301 days have elapsed. The repeal eliminated the offense itself rather than extending it to men.
What Laws May Still Apply to a Subsequent Marriage?
Bigamy
The repeal of Article 351 did not repeal Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code on bigamy. A person who contracts a second or subsequent marriage while a prior marriage remains legally subsisting may still face prosecution for bigamy when the statutory elements are present.
In Pulido v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 220149, 2021, the Supreme Court explained that a void ab initio marriage may be raised as a defense in a bigamy prosecution, even without a prior judicial declaration of absolute nullity, when competent evidence establishes the inexistence of a legally relevant marriage. The Court also distinguished the possible application of Article 350 when a person knowingly contracts a marriage despite noncompliance with legal requirements or despite a legal impediment. ([Pulido v. People of the Philippines (2021)](#J1.50))
Marriage Contracted Against Legal Requirements
Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code remains relevant to a person who knowingly contracts a marriage without compliance with legal requirements or in disregard of a legal impediment. The offense is separate from the repealed offense under Article 351. ([Revised Penal Code (1930)](#L2.360))
In Genio v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 261666, 2024, the Supreme Court stated that Articles 349 and 350 protect the legal character of marriage and may apply even when a subsequent marriage is void ab initio, depending on the facts and the particular statutory elements proven by the prosecution. ([Genio v. People of the Philippines (2024)](#J3.43))
What Is the Relationship Between Article 351 and Paternity?
The former waiting period was associated with the possibility of confusion concerning the paternity of a child conceived during or near the end of a prior marriage. The repeal of Article 351 did not abolish the legal rules governing paternity and filiation.
Republic Act No. 10655 expressly preserved the application of the Family Code provisions on paternity and filiation. Thus, disputes concerning a child’s legitimacy, filiation, presumptions of paternity, birth registration, support, custody, and inheritance must be addressed under the applicable provisions of the Family Code and other current laws, not through a prosecution under Article 351.
How Is the Repeal Applied in Criminal Cases?
A person cannot be convicted under a penal provision that has been repealed, subject to the rules governing the effect of repeal on pending criminal cases and the continued punishability of conduct under another valid law. The prosecution must identify an offense that remains legally punishable and must prove every element beyond reasonable doubt.
The repeal of Article 351 is particularly important when the only allegation is that a woman remarried before 301 days had passed from the death, annulment, dissolution, or legal separation involving her previous marriage. That allegation, standing alone, no longer establishes a crime.
How Does Article 350 Differ from the Repealed Article 351?
| Point of comparison | Former Article 351 | Article 350 |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Repealed by Republic Act No. 10655 | Remains a provision of the Revised Penal Code |
| Conduct covered | Remarriage before the former waiting period | Marriage contracted knowingly without legal compliance or despite a legal impediment |
| Persons covered | Widows and certain women whose marriages were annulled or dissolved | Any person who falls within the statutory elements |
| Required proof | No current prosecution may be based on the repealed offense | The prosecution must prove knowledge, noncompliance or legal impediment, and the other elements beyond reasonable doubt |
What About Muslim Personal Law?
A separate rule appears in the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines. Article 182 penalizes a widow or divorced woman married under Muslim law or under the Code who contracts another marriage before the expiration of the prescribed ‘idda, with a fine not exceeding ₱500. ([Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (1977)](#L4.188))
This provision should not be confused with the repealed Article 351. Its application depends on the coverage of the Code, the parties’ status, the governing Muslim personal-law rules, and the factual circumstances of the marriage. The repeal of Article 351 does not, by itself, repeal Article 182 of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws.
Religious Ceremonies and Civil Validity
The legal consequences of a religious ceremony may differ from its religious recognition. In Perfecto v. Esidera, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417, 2015, the Supreme Court discussed Article 350 in the context of a marriage solemnized by a religious minister who allegedly lacked civil authority. The decision also noted constitutional concerns where criminal rules impose burdens on religious exercise. ([Perfecto v. Esidera (2015)](#J2.17))
The decision illustrates why the facts surrounding the solemnization of a marriage matter. Questions may include whether the ceremony was intended to create a civil marriage, whether the solemnizing officer was authorized, whether a marriage license was required, and whether the parties knew of any legal impediment.
Typical Scenarios
A widow remarries six months after her husband’s death. She cannot be prosecuted under Article 351 because the provision has been repealed. Civil issues concerning pregnancy, paternity, or filiation may still arise under the Family Code.
A widower remarries shortly after his wife’s death. The former Article 351 never applied to widowers, and it cannot now be used against anyone because it has been repealed. The subsequent marriage must nevertheless comply with current legal requirements.
A person remarries while a prior marriage remains legally subsisting. The issue is not premature marriage under Article 351. Depending on the evidence, the conduct may constitute bigamy under Article 349 or may implicate Article 350.
A Muslim woman governed by the Code of Muslim Personal Laws remarries before the expiration of ‘idda. Article 182 may be relevant, subject to proof that the provision applies to the parties and the marriage.
Points to Check Before a Subsequent Marriage
- Obtain the death certificate, decree, or judgment affecting the prior marriage.
- Confirm whether the prior marriage was legally dissolved or declared void, and determine whether a judicial declaration is required before remarriage.
- Check the marriage records and obtain the necessary certificates from the Philippine Statistics Authority and the local civil registrar.
- Determine whether a marriage license is required and whether the solemnizing officer is legally authorized.
- Secure advice on pregnancy, paternity, filiation, legitimacy, support, custody, and inheritance issues when a child may have been conceived during the prior marriage.
- For marriages involving Muslims, determine whether the Code of Muslim Personal Laws and the rules on ‘idda apply.
Conclusion
Performing or contracting a “premature marriage” under the former Article 351 is no longer a crime in the Philippines. Republic Act No. 10655 repealed the provision that penalized widows and certain women who remarried before the former 301-day waiting period.
The repeal does not remove the need to verify the legal status of a prior marriage. Bigamy, Article 350 violations, defects in the solemnization of marriage, and civil disputes involving paternity and filiation remain separate matters that must be assessed under the laws currently in force.
Before celebrating a subsequent marriage, the parties should verify the termination or nullity of the prior marriage, comply with applicable civil formalities, and obtain advice on any paternity or Muslim personal-law issues. The precise facts and documents determine whether criminal exposure exists under a different provision.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
