You are on page 1of 18




A. When Law Takes Effect

Pesigan vs. Angeles Tañada vs. Tuvera

Laws having general applicability should be published first in order to take effect. Laws such as PD, LOI, RA, etc., having general applicability should be published in an OG in order to take effect.

Farinas vs. the Executive Legislators cannot make rules effective immediately upon approval or on any Secretary other date without its previous publication. MRCA vs. Court of Publication in an Official Gazette is not a prerequisite for the effectivity of Court Appeals decisions National Electrification Proof of publication in OG/newspaper of general circulation is essential. UP Administration vs. Law center publication is not recognized. Gonzaga (2007) Garcilliano vs. House of Every senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. As such, publication in Representatives (2008) the Official Gazette of its (changing) rules is a requirement. Although Tarciano and Rosario got married in 1950, Tarciano sold the conjugal property to the Fuentes spouses in 1989, a few months after the Family Code Fuentes vs. Roca (2010) took in 1988. Thus the Family Code applies. At the same time, no vested rights were prejudiced under the FC. B. Ignorance of the Law

Kasilag is not a lawyer, not conversant with the law. He proceeded on the wellKasilag vs. Rodriguez grounded belief that he was not violating the prohibition. His ignorance was excusable and can be the basis of his good faith. Elegado vs. Court of Ignorance of the law, in the case of foreigners, does not excuse them. Appeals The maxim “ignorance of the law excuses no one” has special application to Manzano vs. Sanchez judges who should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and (2001) independence. C. Retroactivity of laws

Frivaldo vs. Comelec, PD 75, which repatriates those who have lost their citizenship was given (1996) retroactivity effect since it cures the the existing naturalization law. Gregorio vs. CA (1968) Retroactive application of procedural law was granted as it did not impair any vested rights. Aruego vs CA If one has a certain issue filed under NCC and has vested rights under it, FC cannot be given retroactive effect. NCC articles even though repealed by the FC can be retroactively applied as Francisco vs. CA long no vested rights are impaired and that the case in question happened before the FC took place.

controlling the decisions of like cases in the same court & De Castro vs. there is no intent to repeal. F. Judicial Decisions De Roy vs. DM Consunji vs. Mecano vs. Also.D. the CA still has jurisdiction even though the basis for this has already been repealed. COA (1992) Repeal of Laws Thornton vs. Lledo (2010) Implied repeals can only take effect if there is irreconcilable inconsistency between the two statutes that covers the same subject matter or if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute. Pesca (2001) (However. Thornton (2004) Lledo vs. Macalde intention to relinquish. Pesca vs. Since there was no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the CA in RA 8369. A valid waiver must have (a) existence of right. G. they cannot be Services vs. It is the duty of counsel to keep abreast of SC decisions. an irreconcilable inconsistency between the two in order for the repeal to be recognized. Quitclaims are also commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy. If there is no specific repealing clause. JBC (2010) lower courts within the same jurisdiction. Duty to render judgment . if one's parents are still alive. CA Since a waiver is the intentional relinquishment of known rights. E.) Stare decisis means the principle underlying the decision in one case is deemed of imperative authority. (b) knowledge thereof. There needs to be either an express repeal or. Doctrine of Stare Decisis expresses that juridical decisions applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. Ma’am Legarda said this was a bad example of the inflexibility of stare decisis in applying Molina and Santos case. NLRC (1998) valid. there will be no legal remedy for the case. if the case is to be dismissed by the CA. The SC may be guided but is not controlled by precedent (in light of reversing its Valenzuela ruling). UNLESS AND UNTIL the decision in question is reversed by a court of competent authority. CA There is no law requiring the publication of SC decision in the Official Gazette to be binding. H. Further. one has not actual possession of the right to inheritance. and (c) Valderama vs. Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws Waiver of rights PEFTOK Integrated Since there was no voluntariness in the execution of the waivers. lack of (2001) knowledge nullifies the election of a remedy No contract may be entered into a future inheritance except in cases expressly Ferrer vs. in cases of implied repeals. Diaz (2010) authorized by law.

Namarco vs. This actually means 360 days. vs. Van Buskirk The cochero’s actions were held to be the universal practice and the custom in the area. the last day was a Sunday. Dizon K. Padua notice in writing given to them especially that they are already making a claim after 14 years has passed.I. A year is comprised of three hundred sixty-five days (NCC 13) The period of redemption (as stated in Sec. Binding Effect Nationality is the basis in determining applicable personal law.The previous Quiqui vs. Presumption and Applicability of Custom Martinez vs. accident. 1982. the first day is excluded and the last day included. 30 of Rule 39) is 12 months. In this Tomawis vs. damages can be filed against an abandoning Filipino spouse who obtained a divorce abroad. Party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving that law. Customs cannot be held to be unreasonable or imprudent. . CA There must be justifiable circumstance (fraud. ATCI Overseas Corp. L. Go vs. mistake or excusable negligence) to allow an appeal filed after the period. In addition. the creation of Sharia District courts (PD 1083) prevails over the Judiciary (2010 Reorganization Act (RA 296) which gives RTC/MTC exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving titles. Applicability of Penal Laws Philippine courts can have jurisdiction in nullifying a marriage contracted abroad Rayray vs. Escaño courts. 16). CA of giving consideration to a one-day late submission cannot apply because in that case. the actual submission was on Aug. J. 13. Divorce acquired by a Filipino citizen abroad is not recognized by Philippine Tenchavez vs. In qualifying foreign laws. Further. The co-heirs were undeniably informed of the sale even though there was no Alonzo vs. in computing. The 30-day period has already expired (July 17.17. Barreto vs. Balindong case. possessions. Tecson The term “year” does not refer to a solar or calendar year. Chae Kyung between a Filipino and a foreigner. Donaldson executed. The period of redemption should therefore be from Mar. There was a valid delegation of power from the instrument executed in (2010) Germany to the Philippines through the general power of attorneys. Special laws prevail over general laws such as that of the Family Code. Echin (2010) Contract’s formal validity is tested by the laws of the country where it was German vs.Aug. 16. At the same time. Barretodivorce acquired by a Filipino citizen abroad is not recognized by Philippine Gonzales courts. the presumption is Lee (1966) that it is identical to Philippine Law unless proven otherwise (Doctrine of processual presumption). Legal Periods Armigos va. and property. Even though the motion was dated Aug. 1981 to Mar. Boncaros case of De las Alas vs. 18.

PERSONS & PERSONALITY The concept of a ‘person’ and ‘personality’ B. The period in this case was long enough to evince/show the father's resolution to concede the status. CA Conceived child is given provisional personality. (1982) associations. her brothers and sisters have rightful custody. Hardware Sole proprietorship not a juridical person. (NCC 44: Only corporations. NCC 41) De Jesus vs. Syquia The law fixes no period during which a child must be in the continuous possession of the status of a natural child. personality could die. 2. this (1953) means that no transmission of rights from one to the other shall take place. and partnerships have juridical personality). thus giving it right to support & damages. However. Estate of Pio Fragante Dumlao vs. Mother can already receive donations even when the baby is just in the Quimiging vs. died before his mother. Icao womb (NCC 742). A. Juridical Persons Church has juridical personality. he is already considered born. if there is no evidence presented Joaquin vs. In succession. . Office of the Municipalities have juridical personality. However. Natural Persons >>> (a) Birth Abortive creature does not reach category of natural persons. (NCC 40 cf. It is absurd to place rights on a dead person since its civil personality is Marcos vs. Manglapus extinguished by death. Ramirez Camid vs. However. the dissent mentions that dead people still have (1989) rights. Velez Since Vitaliana did not have any surviving spouse (common-law not recognized). Even a child inside the womb already has life. In this case. Barlin vs. Revised Penal Code prohibits the commission of libel against a deceased individual. In cases where a family dies at the same time. One need not Montano (2009) acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. Geluz vs. For instance. a fetus may have civil personality since there is the expectancy of birth. The Civil Code does not explicitly state that only those who have acquired juridical Continental Steel vs. Commencement and termination of personality 1.III. Quality Persons who are ded could not validly serve summons since they do not have civil Plastics personality and juridical capacity Eugenio vs. it was proven that Joaquin Navarro. Jr. For all purposes favorable to the child. Navarro otherwise. Life is not synonymous with civil personality. ascendants. Natural Persons >>> (b) Death Limjoco vs Intestate Rights are not lost through death they can be passed to an estate. President (2005) Juasing vs. 1. however. that civil personality is extinguished if it dies. it is presumed that all of them died at the same time. and descendants.

Restrictions on Civil Capacity .C.

Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (b) Insanity (i). (Minor was intimidated. are considered incompetent. A person claiming to be insane while signing a contract must prove that he was Standard Oil vs. the fraud must be actual and not constructive. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (d) Prodigality 2. In proving such cases. though of sound mind. Restrictions on Capacity to Act >>> (a) Minority (i) On Age of Majority (ii) On Rules on Guardianship (iii) On Suffrage (iv) On Marriage ( v) On Contracts Mercado vs.) Misrepresentation of a minor estops him/her from disavowing a contract. In such cases. On Contracts (iii) On Criminal liability Sufficient proof must be shown to overcome the presumption of sanity. People When an offender is over 15 and under 18 years of age. made by minors who pretend to be of legal age.1. his minority was well known to the purchaser. the sale is invalid. The mere silence of a minor (passive or constructive misrepresentation) when making a contract as to his/her age does not constitute a fraud which can be made the basis of an action of deceit. ( vi) On Criminal Liability Atizado vs. Care must US vs. the plaintiff did not pretend to be of age. (RPC 68 (2) 2.) The doctrine in Mercado vs. Santos avail of a guardian to represent him/herself. the defendant. who was the one who purchased the plaintiff's first cedula used in the acknowledgment of the document. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (g) Alienage . Alcantara Braganza vs. Espiritu doesn’t apply.) In order to hold a minor liable. Arenas such at the time of the signing. 2. On Marriage (ii). Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (e) Civil Interdiction 2. but of weak mind and are incapable of taking care of themselves and their properties. Sec. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (c) Deaf-Mutism 2. Vaguilar be taken to distinguish between mere moral insanity or mental depravity and irresistible impulse resulting from disease of the mind. (Minor was in bad faith. Thus. a person may Hernandez vs. They will not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by them. Basa (2007) Capacity to act is presumed until proven otherwise. even of majority a age. is valid. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (f) Family Relations 2. (Minor was in bad faith. when in fact they are not. expert opinion is not needed. VillaAbrille The courts laid down the rule that the sale of real estate. In this case. The observations of ordinary people that are well-acquainted with her and the trial court judge's observation are sufficient. Presumption of Capacity Catalan vs. 2 of Rule 92 ROC: state that persons. The fact that Rafanan warned the victim not to tell anyone is evidence that he was aware of the moral reprehensibility of his assault. the penalty next lower (2010) than that prescribed by law is imposed. it did not specifically relate to the mental state at the time of the People vs. 2. Maramba Sia Suan & Gaw Chiao vs. Espiritu Bambalan vs. Testimony of Rafanan’s physicians as to his mental incapacity and Schizophrenia was insufficient. Rafanan crime.

no vested rights were prejudiced under the FC. COMELEC already pledged his allegiance to the Philippines. In doing so. 1. Judge Marriages after the effectivity of the Family Code are (obviously) under it. the Estrada vs. Domicile and residence of persons Juridical persons Natural persons Residence and domicile are different. 2. Brilliantes Bernabe vs. When Cordora filed for a COC. Although Tarciano and Rosario got married in 1950. Thus the Family Code applies. 2. 2. Alejo The Family Code cannot be applied retroactively if it would impair vested rights. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (j) Gender D. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (i) Insolvency and Trusteeship Villanueva vs. The basis for one's domicile is not based on how COMELEC long that person has stayed in that place but of where he/she considers where his/her "heart" is. which should not be too restrictive or unconstitutional B. he Cordora vs. IV. CA A bank's insolvency restricts its capacity to act. Repeal / Amendment V. thus making him eligible to run (2009) for office. Goitia vs CamposRueda Nature of marriage in Philippine law A wife can claim support if forced to leave the domicile. Tarciano sold the conjugal property to the Fuentes spouses in 1989. A person can have a multitude of residences Romualdez-Marcos vs but can only have one domicile. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (h) Absence 2. MARRIAGE & PERSONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN SPOUSES A. the (2003) state has to prove that it has a compelling interest to intervene. At the same time. it was Philippine (1995) Veterans Bank.There is no such thing as dual allegiance. In this case. Escritor Court can only tackle public morality and not religious morality. The concept of “marriage” If there is a conflict between religious freedom and administrative liability. Roca (2010) in 1988. Effect and Retroactivity Lupo Atienza vs. INTRODUCTION TO THE FAMILY CODE A. a few months after the Family Code took Fuentes vs. . B.

Mariategui vs. What differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is predicated. Breach of Promise to Marry One cannot sue for breach of promise to marry but can claim for damages for Wassmer vs.Sermonia vs. CA man who had no intention whatsoever to fulfill such promise. Kinds of requisites & effects of non-compliance Res judicata: marriage license issue was not raised in court so it will not be dealt Mallion vs. In the case of Parricide of a spouse. the testimony of the accused that he was married to the victim. is ample proof of such relationship as the testimony can be taken as an admission against penal interest. People vs. CA Requisites for a valid marriage Always presume marriage. The key element in Parricide ― other than the fact of killing ― is the relationship of the offender to the victim.then the award for damages is justified not because of the promise but because of the fraud and deceit and the willful injury to her honor and reputation. It is a confirmation of the semper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husbands and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. 2. CA with him for a year before leaving him. the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate. Alcantara with the second time around to avoid forum shopping. to be in fact married. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed. The testimony of the accused that he was married to the deceased is an admission against his penal interest. (semper praesumitur matrimonio--always presume marriage). entering into ante-marital contract Borromeo allowing wife to be adulterous) Documents that tend to supersede the procedures provided by law. in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case. provided all requisites for its validity are present. such as that of In re Santiago the signing of an “instant separation” between married couples is unlawful and void. In this case. petitioner (2006) has the same cause . in itself. Agreements prior to marriage Stipulations prior to marriage Panganiban vs. Perido Marriage is different from other civil law contracts. Children of this marriage are also presumed to be legitimate. 1. . Velez actual expenses already incurred in preparation for the marriage Tanjanco cannot be held as a seducer because the girl continued to be intimate Tanjanco vs. The mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage. Malabago (1996) Silverio vs Republic (2007) People vs. It is a part of a person’s legal capacity and civil status. Only a man and a woman can marry under Philippine Laws. D. Contract against public morals not allowed (ex. CA Perido vs. de la Cruz (2010) C. In both petitions. 1.the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent. Although breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong but if it was done in deceit and as adevice to lure a woman into sexual congress with a Baksh vs.

Consent freely given by both spouses (a) Mistake as to identity (b) Effect of insanity (c) Effect of fraud Anaya vs Palaroan Non-disclosure of a pre-marital relationship not fraudulent. .2. and ultimately. vitiated consent was not proven to make the marriage Villanueva vs. 3. rather. almost one year after the ceremony took Sy vs. The Court held that the ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license. Choa Marriage is deemed valid unless proven otherwise. or (2007) supported by a certification from the local civil registration. Alcazar comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. Cardenas license number. CA (2000) place in 1973. It must be proven that civil registrar exercised due diligence in searching for Sevilla vs. CA record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Only a man and a woman can marry (2007) under Philippine Laws. CA (2006) voidable/annulable. Formal Requisites (a) Marriage License The Court held that the certification of “due search and inability to find” a record or entry as to the purported marriage license. Te vs. enjoys probative value. If not. Recio provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. and thus. (a) Legal Capacity >>> (ii) Age (a) Legal Capacity >>> (iii) Absence of impediment A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction. issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig. Garcia vs. Essential Requisites (a) Legal Capacity >>> (i) Gender Silverio vs Republic A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. he being the officer charged under the law to keep a Republic vs. It is a part of a person’s legal capacity and civil status. Alcantara vs. the Court held that there is absence of a marriage license that would render the marriage void ab initio. Alcantara Absence of marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract. void. Parental Consent 4. Based on said certification. (e) Effect of physical incapacity / impotence Jimenez vs. intimidation and undue influence In this case. It should refer. The marriage license was issued 1974. A vitiated consent gives rise to a voidable agreement but does not make a contract void and unenforceable. Marriage was NOT void since it was NOT proven that marriage license did not exist. (1970) (d) Effect of force. to no less (2009) than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage (f) Effect of affliction with STD 5. proven with sufficient evidence. The presumption is in favor of potency Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to Alcazar vs. marriage will not be void. Canizares Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed.

Period of Validity (a) Marriage License >>> 5. (a) Marriage License >>> 1. which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage. and administratively liable. The marriage. there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Art. (b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 1. How authorized Minister running for election should inform the public through the Bureau of Public Villar vs. Marriages exempt from license requirement Niñal vs. (b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 2. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside of his court’s jurisdiction. 3. Duties of the Civil Registrar The law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on Alcantara vs Alcantara the marriage contract. (1996) civilly. Application b. a (2008) marriage contracted is void except as stated in Art. Paraiso (1955) Libraries (old) that he is no longer a minister for the public's protection--that is in order for them not to have their marriage solemnized by him. It should also be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity—meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity—that is unbroken.” A marriage conducted outside a solemnizing officer's jurisdiction is valid if done in Navarro vs. have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years exclusively and continuously immediately preceding the day of the marriage. the authority of the RTC judge and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confined to their territorial jurisdiction. supported by a certification from the (2007) local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties. being unmarried. Bayadog (2000) Republic vs. Where to apply (a) Marriage License >>> 2.” However. Marriage counseling e. having been celebrated in 1986. Publication f. “except in a marriage of exceptional character. is covered by the NCC. Requirements for issuance a. does not invalidate the marriage. may subject the officiating official to administrative liability. for the exception to apply. Proof of capacity c. or at the very least. Who are authorized Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP 129). but makes the solemnizing officer. 34.De Castro vs. After which. NCC 53 states that a license is a requisite for a marriage to be solemnized. Investigation of impediments g. Place where valid (a) Marriage License >>> 4. Parental advice d. the court ruled that “judges who are appointed to specific jurisdictions may officiate in weddings only within said Aranes vs Occiano areas and not beyond. it is an essential element that the man and woman. . (a) Marriage License >>> 6. Payment of fees h. Dayot (2008) The five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as "husband and wife" where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. criminally. Family planning certificate (a) Marriage License >>> 3. Domagtoy. Domagtoy good faith. De Castro A marriage license is only good for 120 days from the day of issue. In Navarro vs.

(a) Special rule in marriage Lex loci celebrationis Yao Kee vs. a solemnizing officer from conducting a marriage. unreported). (c) Marriage Ceremony >>> 2. No. and so hold. Borromeo "he/she’s my spouse”. the sum must be deemed to have been the property of the . one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. De Leon Even though a priest is unable to forward copy of marriage certificate. there exists an informal civil partnership which would entitle the parties to an equal interest in property acquired by their joint efforts. and under the circumstances in this particular case were satisfied. Place for ceremony (c) Marriage Ceremony >>> 3. 24449. Dionio (G. Orbecido parties who. Form of ceremony Simple civil rites are alright as long as requisites are present. Even if ecclesiastic laws prohibit cf. the marriage is still valid since all requisites are still present. it must be proven that there was joint effort to earn. In the absence of such proof. 15 SCRA 355 at chaplain were in good faith that the solemnizing officer was legally authorized. we hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving Republic vs. Lesaca In the case of Marata vs. It was proven that both the plaintiff and the defendant were able to read and write the Spanish language. and that they knew the contents of the document which Martinez vs. and thus still valid. Common-law marriages / ‘live-in’ relationships Lesaca vs. Tenchavez vs. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.R. E. at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens. (a) (b) Law governing validity of marriages abroad General rule in contracts As to form As to substantive requirements 2. Effect of absence of authority Civil law does not take notice of ecclesiastic law. III (2005) but later on. Tan they signed. Duties of the solemnizing officer (b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 5. SyThe presumption is that Philippine laws and Chinese laws unless proven otherwise Gonzales Taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason. (b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 4. the Court held that (1952) though there is no technical marital partnership between persons living maritally without being lawfully married. However. Effect of irregularity (c) Marriage Ceremony >>> 1. the presumption is that they are married. 1. if the couples married under the Escaño. At the same time. that what took place before the justice of the peace on this occasion amounted to a legal marriage. Issuance of marriage certificate Madridejo vs.(b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 3. (b) Exceptions F. the page 360 marriage is merely irregular. if a spouse was proven saying People vs. Even in the absence of a marriage contract.

Tenebro vs. even if there was the absence of the formal and So vs. marriage. (NOT BIGAMIST) As the first marriage was validly declared void ab initio. The Mercado vs. (NOT BIGAMIST) SC held that Reyes was not liable for bigamy. The effects of a marriage attended by psychological incapacity of a party or the parties thereto may be said to have the earmarks of a voidable. thus making the marriage in question valid. Bobis (2000) entered into a 2nd marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. then there was no first marriage to speak of. it will serve as a prima facie evidence of the marriage. notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. Torres administratrix of an estate. and mistake in the identity of the parties) which are capable of relatively easy demonstration. Vitug (VERY IMPORTANT) : With exception to a void marriage due to psychological incapacity. the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may constitute a valid defense against bigamy. Alcantara absence was not raised at the earliest possible time to the court and the court has (2006) already decided the case. Any decision in a civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that the he already Bobis vs. if a marriage contract is presented before the Court.. Since both Ty vs. 1. being . CA (2000) marriages were celebrated before the FC. psychological incapacity. Morigo was acquitted of bigamy. In invoking a nullity of a marriage. Void marriages are inexistent from the very beginning. (b) Bigamous and polygamous marriages Apiag vs. Cohabitation for a number of years with a married man does not qualify one to be Yaptinchay vs.e. one must obtain a declaration of nullity before entering a subsequent marriage. CA (2004) (BIGAMIST) The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the (read concurring of ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration Justice Vitug) of the marriage insofar as the Philippines’ penal laws are concerned. and no judicial decree is required to establish their nullity. G. Psychological incapacity. As such. a (1997) Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is not required. The prejudicial question issue was only held as an excuse to escape bigamy. Since the date of the nullity retroacts to Morigo vs People the date of the first marriage and since herein petitioner was. relationship. since the Mallion vs. Tan principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized as “void”. In conflict with Bobis ruling. Otherwise it is bigamous. (a) Void Marriages Kinds of void marriages Absence of requisites Though there is the absence of a marriage license in the marriage. 40. the absence of the marriage license is no longer recognized by the court. in the eyes of the law. (BIGAMIST) Under the Family Code Art. Valera (2009) essential requisites. J. more than a void. there was no need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage. breaches neither the essential nor the formal requisites of a valid marriage. FC 40 can’t apply. During the NCC. however. Cantero (NOT BIGAMIST) In contracting a second marriage during the Civil Code. And unlike the other grounds for nullity of marriage (i. an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy. lack of license. he cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. (BIGAMIST) FC 40 requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage. never married. Thus. remaining to be valid until it is judicially decreed to be a nullity. a newly-added ground for the nullity of a marriage under the Family Code.deceased to whom the land for which it was given in payment was sold by Garcia. The fact that he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity is immaterial since bigamy was already consummated. minority of the parties.

What they will say will be merely hearsay. a subsequent marriage is not considered void when Appeals (1994) absent spouse has not been heard from for 7 consecutive years and when present spouse has no news that absentee is alive. Chi Ming Tsoi vs. It is necessary to establish well-founded belief that absent spouse is dead to Republic vs. (ON EVIDENCE): A Bill of Particulars. Nolasco sustain the issuance of court order declaring absentee’s presumptive death. No appeal can be made of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for Republic vs. in order to (1937) remarry. Procedure All judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in family law are Republic vs. If absentee reappears. Tango the declaration of presumptive death. (c) Subsequent marriage. this Court declared that (2010) a person. It was not necessary to have a spouse judicially declared an absentee in case of presumption of death. CA (ON EVIDENCE): The physician-patient privilege is not violated by permitting physician to give expert opinion testimony to a strictly hypothetical question. and (c. CA (ON QUALIFICATIONS): Refusal to fulfill obligation of procreation is equivalent to (1997) psychological incapacity. so the right to appeal will not granted to any . it must be characterized by (a.) juridical antecedence. Presence of third party during consultation with physician removes info from the mantle of privilege.) gravity.) incurability.a mental state may not so readily be as evident. who contracts a subsequent marriage absent a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous one. but no step is taken to terminate subsequent marriage SSS vs. upon reappearance of absent spouse The law in 1937 only requires that a spouse be absent for seven consecutive Jones vs. One (1993) should ask proper authorities in doing so! The two marriages and the live-in partnership that followed were contracted during Bienvenido vs. Hortiguela years at the time of the second marriage (presumption of death). Magtolis Krohn vs. is sufficient evidence to declare wife as psychologically incapacitated. It would have been logical for the Family Code to consider such a marriage explicitly voidable rather than void if it were not for apparent attempt to make it closely coincide with the Canon Law rules and nomenclature. Bermudez immediately final and executory. (b. In such cases. the Antone vs. (ON QUALIFICATIONS): [JIG] Psychological incapacity should refer to a mental (not physical) incapacity. CA Santos vs. specifying for example. What should be done is to file a petition for (2009) certiorari (to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction) instead of a notice of appeal. (d) (e) Bad faith of both spouses Psychological incapacity Lim vs. Otherwise stated. Beronilla crime had already been consummated. Court of the NCC. by then.Lorino (2005) party. mere reappearance will de Bailon (2006) not terminate subsequent marriage. Jarques vda. CA Salita vs. (ON EVIDENCE): A husband (or a wife) cannot testify against each other as both don’t have the force and effect of a physician’s testimony. (either through affidavit of reappearance or court action). (Remanded decision): Under the Family Code a subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage is immaterial in a bigamy case because. that a wife did not understand the demands of her husband’s job as a doctor and caused him to lose his job by being needy and demanding. is guilty of bigamy. GRANTED .

and abandonment per se do not constitute grounds for finding that one is suffering from psychological incapacity (ON QUALIFICATIONS): Personal medical or psychological exam not required for a declaration of psychological incapacity. proven by experts.) clearly explained in the decision] – [masc] 3. perversion. Feb. forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by it. Quintero -Hamano (2004) Antonio vs. Expert opinion not needed. TanyagSan Jose (2007) Zamora vs. (b.) medically / clinically identified. October 26. not through her personal interview. Burden of proof to show nullity on plaintiff 2. Dagdag (2001) Republic. Villegas’ conclusion not supported by Lim vs. 170925. GR NO.) alleged in the complaint. Lim. 161793. (ON EXPERT’S TESTIMONY): Facts and evidence should be sufficient to convince court of party’s psychological incapacity. Halili. (ON EXPERT’S TESTIMONY): Dr. Feb. 4. (ON QUALIFICATIONS): [BRIPPIGS] 1.Reyes (2005) GRANTED Republic vs. 2009 (Motion for Reconsideration) GRANTED Aspillaga vs. Incurable/Permanent 4. RTC-Las (ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): Concealment of homosexuality [FC 46 (4)] is the Pinas. (c. expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties. psychological tests properly administered by clinical psychologists trained in the 174464. 165424. 179620. (ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): Marriage conducted was assumed to have been a “joke” or “in jest”. Court of Appeals (2007) Almelor vs. (d. sexual infidelity. 2010 tests’ use and interpretation. June 9. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize disorder type and gravity before declaring nullity of marriage. May 26. FC 36 not to be confused with divorce law or legal separation (CITED MOLINA): Root cause must be medically / clinically identified. (ON USING MOLINA): Molina not set in stone. 2009 Molina has become a strait-jacket.Republic vs. 180668. Te. Individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-term concerns. Toring (2009) (ON EXPERT’S TESTIMONY): Complete personality profile of the spouse could . Iyoy (2005) Republic vs. Root cause of psychological incapacity must be [(a. Each case must be judged according to its own facts (ON FOREIGNERS): Norms used for determining psychological incapacity should apply to anyone regardless of nationality.) sufficiently proven by experts. Aug. Interpretation by National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church should be given respect by the courts 7. 2009 GRANTED Halili vs. Aspillaga. Proven to exist at marriage celebration 5. State non-complied marital obligation/s (ON QUALIFICATIONS): Alcoholism. 2008 (ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): Court must consider as decisive evidence the Te vs. Prosecuting attorney / fiscal and Solicitor General as counsel for the state 6. RP. Marcos (2000) Republic vs. and not homosexuality per se. Court resolves any doubt in favor of the validity of the marriage. GR No. (ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): The fact that psychological conditions hamper performance of obligations does not mean that they suffer from psychological incapacity. (ON EXPERT’S TESTIMONY): Doctor’s conclusion is hearsay since the assessment was based merely on the information communicated by respondentspouse. GR No. vs. FC 36 interpretation relies on a case-to-case perception. GR No. GR No. and therapy may be long-term as well. (PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE): Totality of evidence failed to show alleged psychological incapacity. GR No. Toring vs. 13. 26. Olaviano Molina (1997) Hernandez vs. proper ground to annul marriage. GRANTED Azcueta vs. Court of Appeals (1999) Marcos vs. 2009 (ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): Medical / clinical disorder should be linked with manifestations of incapacity to comply with marital obligations. Grave to disable performance of obligation 8.

as a consequence thereof. which only allows the spouse alone to file a petition for declaration of nullity.M. No. Alano (2011) not be determined from information coming from a biased source. Requisite for valid remarriage Safeguards against collusion Malcampo Sin vs. they can question the validity of the marriage in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased. Person afflicted with personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof.” The psychiatrist’s findings on bona’s personality profile did not emanate from a personal interview with the subject herself as admitted by dr. Unlike Ninal v. Recommendation for therapy does not automatically imply curability. The 2nd marriage is under the new civil code. Reyes (2010) GRANTED Ochosa vs. (ON EXPERT’S TESTIMONY): There is inadequate credible evidence that her “defects” were already present at the inception of. No pleading. No.M. When to file action for declaration of nullity Procedure in actions for declaration of nullity a. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest and must be based on a cause of action. The children can no longer file a petition. In the NCC. there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage. Evidence can come from persons intimately related to them. The marriage of Teofilo and Felicidad was celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code and before A. The State did not participate in the proceedings for the fiscal did not actively participate in the proceedings.Camacho-Reyes vs. her alleged psychological incapacity did not satisfy the jurisprudential requisite of “juridical antecedence. (ON EXPERT’S TESTIMONY): Lack of personal examination of respondent does not per se invalidate doctors’ testimonies. No. as well as the court record of the testimonies of other witnesses. 3. No. Heirs of Sps.M. Other informants’ testimonies were used as basis of the doctors’ assessments. motion or position paper was filed by the State at any . the brother of Cresenciano who is a real party in interest can file the petition. 4. Bayadog (2000) Catalan vs. requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. 02-11-10-SC came about. b. Since the marriage is celebrated before the effectivity of A. the marriage of Eulogio and Lolita was celebrated during the effectivity of A. CA (2007) Enrico vs. Who can invoke nullity Before A. or prior to. only a party who can demonstrate “proper interest” can file the same. Medinaceli (2007) Carlos vs. Son not a reliable witness since he could not have been there at the time of or before his parent’s marriage. the marriage. or even in the FC. Sandoval (2008) Ablaza vs. Republic (2010) 2. Dr. 02-11-10-SC so Juan needs to first prove that he is a real party in interest before he can invoke the nullity of his brother’s marriage. (f) (g) (h) Incestuous marriages Marriages against public policy Non-compliance Ninal vs. Rondain merely relied on her interview with Jose and another witness. 02-11-10-SC. 02-11-10-SC. as an inviolable social institution.M. Badayog. Rondain. Sin The task of protecting marriage. However. However. In other words. parties of interest may invoke to declare the nullity of a marriage.

Sempio-Diy Even if the 1st marriage is void. The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be Carlos vs. partition and Domingo vs.stage of the proceedings. The declaration of nullity of the first marriage does not validate the second marriage of the deceased. Villanueva material facts alleged in the complaint are proved. By law. Effects of Res Judicata The matter of the invalidity of marriage due to the absence of an essential Mallion vs. Ancheta purpose of preventing any collusion between the parties and tot take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. and the custody of children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes. a judicial declaration of nullity must still be (1986) acquired before a party can validly contract a 2nd marriage. 5. Article Bobis vs. Effects of final judgment declaring nullity (a) (b) In general On remarriage Wiegel vs. Actions for the annulment of marriage or divorce shall not be decided unless the Tolentino vs. only the prosecuting attorney or fiscal or the solicitor general (2007) who can represent the State in proceedings for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage.M. March 4. 7. In addition. and legal separation. No judgment on the pleadings. The complaint of Ignacio cannot be considered for he is not a real party in interest Salmingo vs. Bobis (2000) 40 of the Family Code. the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to Appear in behalf of the state for the Ancheta vs. the use Salcedo-Ortanez vs.Tan (2000) Under the Family Code. 2003 There is an express prohibition in the NCC on the rendition of a decree of Jocson vs. requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before a party may remarry Mercado vs. Final judgment declaring the previous marriage void can be obtained for purposes other than remarriage. No confession of judgment A. Robles annulment of marriage upon stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. The fact remains that the second marriage was Carino vs Carino solemnized without first obtaining a judicial decree declaring the first marriage void. which was effective at the time of celebration of the second marriage. Pesca alleged the complete facts showing either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligation of marriage. d. CA distribution of the properties of the spouse. or confession of (2008) judgment shall be allowed. summary judgment. 02-11-10-SC. Susan Yee’s marriage to Santiago is also void ab initio/ Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that Isagani entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Alcantara requisite should not be raised in the same proceeding where the marriage is being (2006) impugned on the ground of a party's psychological incapacity. declaration of nullity. In all cases for annulment. a declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is . No. Rubica to the case. CA tape recordings or wiretapping as evidence is prohibited under RA 4200 A petition for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the FC should specifically Pesca vs. Effects of pendency of action for declaration of nullity 6. The Court allowed the petition of Certiorari as a remedy for the remedy of an appeal would not afford an adequate and expeditious relief. such as for the purposes of the liquidation. Sandoval proved. c.

Ty vs CA Morigo vs Morigo Abunado vs. Sales (2009) Buenaventura vs. the property regime applicable is that of (2005) equal co-ownership. The essential elements of legal capacity. According to Ma’am Legarda: For bigamy to occur. property or industry shall be owned in common and in proportion to their respective contribution pursuant to Article 148. exclusive cohabitation and union without the benefit of marriage under Article 147 are present in the case so Article 147 Diño vs. If the parties had no legal impediments to marry each other. Children below seven (7) years old cannot be separated from the mother when parents are separated or Dacasin vs. A marriage. Justice Abad’s (2010) (note ABAD. the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation are governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148. shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. there is no need for judicial declaration of nullity before a party could contract a 2nd marriage. QC-RTC (1996) Sales vs. the 1st marriage must be valid. In a marriage declared void ab initio. This principle applies even of the earlier union is characterized by statutes as “void”. The declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage so Lucio should not be held liable for bigamy. (c) On rights & obligations between the former spouses (d) On the property regime of the marriage Valdes vs. to VOIDABLE marriages and exceptionally. The 2nd marriage is valid. if the common-law spouse suffers from a legal impediment to marry or when they do not live exclusively with each other. (e) On ‘legitimes’ of the common children Buenaventura vs. 42. Diño (2011) applies. And as such. if the 1st marriage is VOID. FC 50 does not apply to marriages that are declared void ab initio under FC 36. one who enters a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such declaration is guilty of bigamy. On the other hand. even one which is void or voidable. People (2004) Jarillo vs. the property regime applicable is that of equal co-ownership. CA In a marriage declared void ab initio. as well terminated marriages under Art. Finally. dissent mentions that the state should not interfere if the parents already have an separate opinion) agreement as to who will have the custody of the child. the first paragraph of Article 50 of FC. . A person who contracts a subsequent marriage absent a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the previous marriage is guilty of bigamy. People (2009) Antone vs. relates only by explicit terms. to void marriages under Article 40 of the Code. Beronilla (2010) explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. the property acquired by both spouses should be governed by Article 147. CA (2005) In a void marriage. applying paragraphs 2-5 of Art. No partition of properties can be made without the proper accounting & determination of the extent of their properties. 43. Subsequent declaration of nullity of the 1st marriage is not a valid defense for the crime of bigamy because the crime has already been consummated. Factual issues raised must be determined first before the determination of the properties. The fact that petitioner obtained a judicial declaration of the nullity of first marriage was immaterial for the crime of bigamy has already been consummated by then. regardless of the cause thereof. Dacasin divorced unless there is cause to believe that the mother is unfit. (f) On the status and custody of children The agreement is void ab initio for being contrary to law. J. Under the NCC. only the property acquired by both of them through their actual joint contribution of money.

the law requires a woman to use her maiden name when her former husband is already married to another woman after obtaining a divorce from her in accordance with Muslim laws A married woman may use only her maiden name and surname. She has an BAR MATTER NO. to use the surname of the husband (h) On hereditary rights (i) Effect of death Lamberto’s death made the judgment binding on both parties under SEC 24 (b) of A. the use of a husband’s surname is permissive and not obligatory except in cases of legal separation.(g) On use of surnames Yasin vs. No 02-11-10-SC which provides that “If the party dies after the entry of judgment of nullity or annulment. When the marriage bond No longer exist. The Honorable Judge Shari’a District Court (1995) Under the Civil Code. .M. but not a duty. the judgment shall be binding upon the parties Castro vs. 1625 option. the widow or divorcee does not need to seek judicial confirmation of the change in her civil status in order to revert to her maiden name In fact. Castro (2007) and their successors in interest in the settlement of the estate in the regular courts”.