LEG AL OPINION BY: ATTY. ZAIDE R. LLORICO 26 July 2012 Mr.

Richard Lai Apalit, Pampanga Philippines Dear Mr. Richard Lai This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether or not you can file a case against Judith Alberto for the reason that she left you on January 2013 and marry a certain Jericho Rosales. The Facts Per our discussion and the documents you have shown me, the following are the pertinent facts: On year 2012, you a Singaporean national and Judith Alberto a Filipina were married in a civil wedding in Apalit, Pampanga. However, you are legally married to Singapore, and you marry Judith Alberto who at time of the celebration was seventeen years old. On January 2013, a year after your marriage, Judith Alberto left you and married a certain Jericho Rosales in a Church wedding in Macabebe, Pampanga. The Applicable Law/s The applicable law is Article 40 of the Family Code. It provides that: Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of marriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Under this provision, Under the Family Code, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage before a party thereto can enter into a second marriage a void marriage must first be declared void for purposes of remarriage. And since, from the beginning of the said facts, you are legally married in your hometown and without prior having a divorce or annulment or whatever applicable laws to made your marriage be null that will allow you to remarry. So to speaks of under Philippine law, Article 21 of the Family Code. It provides that: Thus, under this provision the capacity of foreigners to contract marriage in the Philippines is subject to their personal law (that is, their national law, as a rule); thus, they are required under this Article to obtain a certificate of legal capacity. Art. 21. When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them before a marriage license can be obtained, to submit a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective diplomatic or consular officials. And prior to Article 4 of the Family Code. It provides that: Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2). xxx xxx xxx

Thus, under paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Family Code the marriages shall be void from the beginning. It provides that: Art. 35 (1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians.

The provision speaks of that your marriage to Judith Alberto who was at the time of the celebration of your marriage she is seventeen years of age so under Philippine Law your marriage to Judith Alberto was Void or Invalid. Therefore, you cannot file a case against her even she left you and marry another man. The Legislative Intent behind Article 40, 21, 4, and Article 35 paragraph 1 However, an examination of the records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of Article 40, that The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage. For one, there is necessity for a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a prior subsisting marriage before contracting another. The clause on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such marriage void in Art. 40 of the Code denotes that such final judgment declaring the previous marriage void need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage. Thus, under article 21 such foreigner in order to be qualified for the marriage here in the Philippines should obtain a certificate of legal capacity. And Article 4, that no marriage shall be valid unless it follows the said marriage requisites. Thus under article 4 the absence any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio or void/ invalid. Therefore, under Paragraph 1 of Article 35 says that the marriages shall be void from the beginning when the said contracting parties either of them are below 18 years of age, the marriage render void. The Applicable Jurisprudence In the case of Domingo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 104818, 17 September 1993 ,44 SCAD 955). In this case, it involved a marriage between Soledad and Domingo who at that time, Soledad did not know that Domingo had been previously married to Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969. Thus, Article 40 of the Family code provides that at such final judgment declaring there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage before a party thereto can enter into a second marriage a void marriage must first be declared void for purposes of remarriage. Analysis and Conclusion Thus, on the said consideration in the legislative intent and applying the rule of reasons, Articles 40, 21, 4, and Article 35 paragraph 1 these wont support your allegation to file a case to Judith Alberto due to the fact that in first place, you are legally married from your hometown which under article 40, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage before a party thereto can enter into a second marriage a void marriage must first be declared void for purposes of remarriage. Another thing, the marriage between you and Judith is considered invalid because under Article 35 paragraph 1, the provision speaks of that your marriage to Judith Alberto who was at the time of the celebration of your marriage she is seventeen years of age so under Philippine Law your marriage to Judith Alberto was void or invalid. Therefore, you cannot file a case against her even she left you and marry another man. Therefore, on the said articles given, prior to remarriage you and Judith marriage may declared legal if those Marriage requisites youve earnestly followed but, prior absence to marriage requisites declared yours invalid. In this advice I would say that filing a case against Judith would result absurdity. Where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) LEGAL COUNSEL