Short answer. Yes. Article 35 of the Family Code declares void those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53. Article 53 requires compliance — including recording the judgment and the partition of property — before either former spouse may remarry. Skipping those steps makes the second marriage void from the start.
What the law says
Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
Family Code, Article 35 — Void Marriages. Read the full provision →
Article 35 and the Article 53 connection
Article 35 of the Family Code enumerates marriages that are void from the beginning. Item 6 covers subsequent marriages made void under Article 53. That cross-reference matters: Article 53 provides that either former spouse may remarry again only after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding article — which involves recording the judgment of annulment or nullity, the partition of properties, and delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes. If a spouse remarries without completing those steps, the subsequent marriage is null and void under Article 53, and Article 35 confirms it is void from the beginning.
What Article 53 requires before remarriage
Article 53 refers to the requirements of the immediately preceding article — meaning the Family Code's Article 52. That article requires that the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property. Only after these requirements are complied with may the parties remarry. The recording requirement is not a formality — it is a substantive condition the law attaches to the right to remarry.
Why the law imposes these conditions
The requirement to complete and record property settlement before remarriage protects future spouses and creditors. A person who remarries while their prior marriage's property remains unsettled may appear to their new spouse to have unencumbered assets they actually share with a former partner. The law prevents this by treating the second marriage as void if the first marriage's property loose ends have not been formally resolved and recorded. The property rights of everyone involved — including children — need to be legally certain before a new family unit begins.
What to do if this describes your situation
If you remarried before the property partition of your first marriage was completed and recorded, your second marriage is legally in question. The remedy requires understanding where the first marriage's compliance requirements stand: was the judgment of nullity or annulment recorded? Was the partition executed and filed? If not, those steps may still be completable — though the timing matters because the second marriage was already celebrated without them. A lawyer can assess what documentation exists, whether compliance can still be achieved, and what a declaration of nullity of the second marriage would mean for your property rights and children.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Abbas v. Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013 (Velasco, Jr., J.) — the leading modern authority on paragraph (3). The marriage licence is a formal requisite; where the licence number on the certificate belongs to no licence actually issued to the parties, the licence is absent and the marriage is void ab initio. Decided under the Family Code (marriage celebrated 1992).
- Republic v. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 and 179474, March 28, 2008 — a false affidavit of five years' cohabitation cannot exempt a marriage from the licence requirement; the marriage is void for want of a licence. Decided under Civil Code Article 76 (marriage celebrated 1986, before the Family Code took effect), but it is the leading authority on the cohabitation exception now carried into Article 34, and so on when a marriage is void under Article 35(3).